Tobacco Research

The latest updates from the University of Bath's Tobacco Control Research Group

Tagged: Plain Packaging opposition

Imperial Tobacco criticised for pre-empting packaging laws

  , , ,

📥  Industry tactics

On the 1st December 2012, plain packaging will be introduced in Australia. Cigarettes will be required to be sold in olive green packaging with large pictorial health warnings and brand names appearing in standardised font. Ahead of the legislation, Imperial Tobacco has changed the packaging of their Peter Stuyvesant brand to show a ripped branded pack exposing plain packaging underneath with the accompanying slogan “it’s what on the inside that counts”.

Australia’s Federal Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek has spoken out, “For a company to have produced packs that contain the line, ‘It’s what’s on the inside that counts’ must surely be the ultimate sick joke from big tobacco…Diseased lungs, hearts and arteries are the reality of what is happening on the inside to a smoker.”

Speaking on ABC News today in Australia on 12th September 2012, Plibersek claimed that the Imperial campaign is a “last desperate attempt for them [Imperial Tobacco] to use their branding to retain and attract new smokers..."

For more information on tobacco industry advertising to consumers click here and for other information on how the industry attempts to influence decision makers see corporate political advertising.

 

500,000 against plain packaging? The figures just don’t add up.

  , , , , , ,

📥  Industry tactics, Public policy

Plain packaging for cigarettes would require cigarettes to be sold in packets of a standard colour and shape with brand names written in a standardised font and pictorial health warnings covering a substantial proportion of the packet. The public consultation on plain packaging in the UK came to a close on the 10th August 2012. A few days later the Tobacco Manufacturer’s Association (TMA) publicly claimed that ‘half a million oppose plain packaging.' There are three significant issues with this figure:

1. Conjecture

In the misleadingly titled press release ‘half a million oppose plain packaging’, the TMA included a disclaimer that in fact the final figure was unknown as the Department of Health (to whom the consultation submissions were made) had not yet informed them of the number. “We await final confirmation of the number of responses from the DoH.” Nevertheless in his blog, the director of Forest, (an industry-funded pro-smokers’ rights organisation), Simon Clark, said that there were ‘at least 500,000 in opposition.’ Forest ran the Hands Off Our Packs (HOOPs) campaign.

2. Double Counting

The TMA release stated that 236,033 of the ‘half a million in opposition’ were signatures to the HOOPs petition, with the remainder based on “estimated responses into [sic] the consultation including signatures, postcards, letters, emails, online responses, consultation response forms etc…” The TMA did not disclose whether duplicate responses were accounted for in reaching their figure of 500,000. For example, it is highly probable that at least some of the 236, 033 signatories of the HOOPs petition would also have submitted other forms of response: either a formal response to the consultation or a signature on a parallel campaign such as the TMA-funded postcard campaign run by the Tobacco Retailers Alliance specifically for retailers.

3. Falsifying signatures

The DoH made a number of its documents public following a recent Freedom of Information request . Amongst the documents are several letters written to Simon Clark. On the 14th June 2012 the DoH’s Tobacco Programme Manager wrote to inform Clark of an instance whereby the manager saw a member of the HOOPS campaign staff falsifying at least a page of signatures to the petition in the street. A follow up letter was sent on the 20th June 2012 asking Clark to comment on the methods HOOPS employed to gather signatures and how Forest was “verifying that the petition only includes the names and addresses of actual people, who have signed the petition of their own accord?”

This second letter was written following a complaint from the Chair of the Royal College of Physicians’ Tobacco Advisory Group. The Chair described how he had been told by his students at the University of Nottingham that friends of theirs at the University were being paid by HOOPs to gather signatures for the petition. On the 16th July an email was sent to Clark by the DoH’s Tobacco Programme Manager in response to a question Clark had directed at then Health Minister Andrew Lansley. The Tobacco Programme Manager took the opportunity to ask Clark whether he had received the two letters and mentioned new complaints that had been sent to the DoH about the HOOPs campaign. The three further complaints were again concerned with the methods used to gather signatures, with members of the public voicing concerns that HOOPs campaigners were:

  • targeting parents in play grounds telling them that plain packets would be completely plain with no health warnings;
  • gathering signatures in loud nightclubs;
  • targeting adolescents in the street telling them that the government was trying to ban cigarettes

Clark has published a number of blog posts in response to the release of these documents, defending the credibility of the HOOPs campaign and diverting attention away from the HOOPs scandal by directing criticism at the Plain Packs Protect campaign.

 

Big Tobacco create retail group as a disguise

  , , , ,

📥  Industry tactics

Australian retailers group created to conceal origin of Big Tobacco’s opposition to plain packaging.

The recent UK government consultation on plain packaging has seen a strong response from seemingly grassroots movements opposed to plain packaging legislation, including smokers’ rights groups and retailers. For instance, the Hands Off Our Packs campaign, run by industry-funded smokers’ rights group FOREST, submitted 235,000 signatures against the introduction of the proposed legislation. However, documents leaked in Australia show that, in Australia at least, the industry did more than provide a contribution to a third-party group. In fact, the industry was directly involved in the creation of and the day-to-day activity of an apparent third party group.

Leaked tobacco industry documents from 2010 detail how Philip Morris Limited (PML) and an Australian public relations company, The Civic Group, created the Alliance of Australian Retailers (AAR) in 2010. The purpose of the AAR, as documented by email correspondence between The Civic Group and PML, was to act on behalf of the tobacco industry to ‘seek a change in policy such that there is [sic] no introduction of ‘generic packaging’ into the Australian market.” The President of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, Professor Mike Daube, commented that these documents “are possibly the most devastating tobacco industry leak ever in Australia.”

The documents reveal that in 2010 the director of Corporate Affairs at PML, Chris Argent, and the director of The Civic Group Jason Aldworth set up the AAR to influence public opinion and policy makers, which included strategies to discredit those that advocated the introduction of plain packaging.

In response the Civic Group’s initial campaign proposal, Argent requested more detail on how the campaign could influence government, “Please note that contrary to the proposal the Coalition’s resolve is not strong. It is at best neutral. Please provide representative examples of the messages that might be delivered to Labor and the Coalition through the Government relations component of the campaign. Who will deliver these messages?” Furthermore, they outlined a detailed plan on how messages should be delivered and who should deliver them. In correspondence with the Civic Group, Argent asked “What messages will PML communicate in its own voice versus using third-party’s?”

Once the AAR was created, Argent was involved in the day-to-day running and management of the AAR. Emails were exchanged between the Civic Group and Argent on how the AAR should respond to media requests and what should be said to the media. It was agreed that in response to any queries regarding the funding of the Civic Group and the AAR campaign, finite amounts should not be disclosed.

In fact, to set up and manage the AAR, the Civic Group was given over $5 million by the three leading tobacco companies in Australia. British American Tobacco Australia paid $2.2 million, PML paid $2.16 million, and Imperial Tobacco paid just short of $1.1 million.

The leaked documents are now housed in a central repository of tobacco industry documents, available on the online Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.

Collated information on the Alliance of Australian Retailers can be located at TobaccoTactics.org

 

Plain packaging opposition in the UK

  , , , ,

📥  Industry tactics

Australian_packs

A public consultation aimed to help the government gather evidence on the potential impacts of plain packaging ran between the 16th April 2012 and the 10th August 2012.

In response to this consultation, the tobacco industry and its allies launched what appears to be coordinated anti-plain packaging campaigns.

A Short History of Plain Packaging illustrates that the tobacco industry has been working on a defence strategy against the threat of plain packaging since the 1990s. In 2010, industry analyst Citigroup noted that plain packaging is the “biggest regulatory threat to the industry, as packaging is the most important way tobacco companies have to communicate with the consumer and differentiate their products.”  Therefore, it's unsurprising that there has been such a strong response from the tobacco industry.

Tobacco companies’ political advertising

Tobacco companies such as British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Philip Morris International (PMI) have publicised their views on plain packaging on their corporate websites, including their arguments against plain packaging (e.g. encourages illicit trade, trade mark infringement etc). BAT have included such arguments in two emotive adverts.

Imperial and JTI, who in 2011 collectively held just over eighty per cent of the UK cigarette market share, have also engaged in Corporate Political Advertising to influence both the views of ‘government and of decision makers’. For example, a You Tube ad called 'Britain - 2020 Vision', which misleadingly suggests that in the future all perceived unhealthy products could be sold in plain packaging, has a small disclaimer saying that it was funded by Imperial Tobacco.

The 2020 Vision ad has been promoted on leaflets distributed on petrol forecourts, with the message ‘Say NO to plain packs’. These leaflets are not openly attributable to any organisation. (see images 1 and 2).

300px-Imperial_say_no_1

Image 1

Image 2

Image 2

Imperial Tobacco has also used Corporate Political Advertising in an attempt to influence UK Members of Parliament (MPs) views on plain packaging. The company funded an advertisement in ‘The House’ magazine (a weekly political magazine delivered directly to MPs, Peers, and civil servants). The advert mimicked the possible plain packackaging for cigarettes  by covering the normal cover pages in dark brown/gold paper and a warning message which read, “WARNING Plain Packaging: Bad for business Good for Criminals”.  The double spread cover page did not disclose it was an Imperial Tobacco anti-plain packaging advertising campaign. However on page 19 of the magazine, a second gold coloured full-page advert claimed that plain packaging would not benefit wholesalers, consumers, business, retailers or the government, but would only benefit criminals. This advert featured the logo of Asian Trader, a trade magazine and, in a smaller font than the rest of the text, at the bottom of the page explained: “This advert has been produced and placed by Imperial Tobacco in association with Asian Trader magazine.”

Furthermore, approximately 24-hours after the British government announced a four-week extension to the consultation on standardised packaging, JTI launched a campaign costing £2 million to “share its views” on the potential outcomes of plain packaging legislation. The campaign is centred on print adverts in national newspapers. According to JTI, this amount of spending is to ensure a wide reach of its messages to JTI’s target audience, “both government and decision makers”.  In July 2012, these ads were included in a number of daily newspapers including The Financial Times (see Image 3).

Front group anti-plain packaging campaigns

Pro-smoking group Forest, which receives funding from tobacco companies, runs the Hands Off Our Packs campaign which argues that plain packaging is the nanny state gone too far. The campaign is run by Angela Harbutt of Liberal Vision.

The Hands Off Our Packs campaign, which has a dedicated website, a Twitter and a Facebook account, has produced anti-plain packaging literature, You Tube ads (featuring retailers),and provides guidance on how to respond to the consultation in support of the continued branding of tobacco products. The website includes a petition to register one’s opposition to plain packaging. Visitors to the website are also encouraged to distribute leaflets and promote the campaign online via social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and blogs.

Speaking to the Grocer Magazine in February 2012, Simon Clark, Director of Forest, said that the Hands Off Our Packs campaign "was a response to the Plain Packs Protect campaign launched last month by an alliance of anti-tobacco groups". However, Clark registered the handsoffourpacks.com website back in September 2011, indicating that Forest may have planned this campaign long before the Plain Packs Protect campaign was launched in January 2012.

Retailers have been a particular campaign target of industry front groups. Mobilising retailer support to oppose tobacco control measures is a well-documented industry tactic and a prime example of how the industry uses front groups to promote their agenda. For example, the Tobacco Retailers Alliance (TRA), a coalition of retailers that sell tobacco products, was set up by the tobacco industry to promote its own viewpoint but with the explicit intention that it would appear separate from the tobacco industry. When the Tobacco Alliance (which later became the TRA) was established the industry stated that it “would encourage its supporters to act either as individuals or as representatives of their own organisations” in order to appear as a separate entity to the industry. It was also “stressed that the Alliance was needed because in order to be heard the entire tobacco family must speak with a unified voice and with confident command of the facts…”

In 1983, Tony St Aubyn, the then assistant director of the Public Relations subcommittee of the Tobacco Advisory Council stated in a workshop detailing how to set up a tobacco alliance that “Early on we decided that it would be preferable to keep the Alliance at arm’s length from TAC Tobacco Advisory Council, the predecessor to the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association and the industry and with its own identity and address, to emphasize to supporters, as far as is practical, that it had a degree of independence. Thus while the industry determines policy and provides the funds, the day to day management is the responsibility of our PR agents Daniel J Edelman."

Since the launch of the public consultation on plain packaging in April 2012, retail magazines such as the Grocer and Retail Newsagent have consistently featured opposition messages to plain packaging. They have also highlighted campaigns such as the ‘plain packaging postcard campaign’ run by the TRA (funded by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association) which claims that plain packaging would have a negative impact on business and encourages retailers to ‘have your say’ in response to the government’s consultation. In July 2012, the TRA reported that 30,000 retailers had so far signed postcards, demonstrating how public consultations on tobacco control measures can be flooded with industry influenced opinion.

For full references on this article, please visit  TobaccoTactics.org