- Email: [email protected]
Cigarettes and plain packaging: the battle lines are drawn
Editorial
On July 6, 2011, Australia became the first country to send a bill to their parliament on plain packaging for cigarettes. The legislation aims to reduce the number of current and new smokers by increasing the effectiveness of the health warnings and also by reducing the appeal of the product. If voted through, and it has cross-party support, the legislation will be enacted next year. As expected, even before the announcement, a counteroffensive had been launched by the tobacco industry. The legislation has been referred to the TRIPS council and the Technical Barriers to Trade committee in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in an intellectual property rights battle, but rather than being headed-up by the tobacco companies, this move is spearheaded by low-income and middle-income countries. Momentum from antismoking advocates to tackle the tobacco epidemic is gathering pace, and it needs to. 1 billion tobacco-associated deaths are predicted in the 21st century, with 80% occurring in developing countries. However, at a TRIPS council meeting on June 7, 2011, the Dominican Republic, with support or sympathy from Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine, the Phillipines, Zambia, Mexico, Cuba, and Ecuador, said it had “serious and grave concerns” about the Australian draft law in that it violated trademark law and would drive down the costs of cigarettes thereby increasing consumption and paving the way for counterfeiting. By contrast, New Zealand, Uruguay, and Norway all supported the proposed law, and India said that studies have shown that plain packaging is an effective antismoking strategy. Whether the law is a violation of trademark law remains a contentious issue, because the brand name will remain, albeit in a standard typeface and size, with the packets covered in large health warnings. Legal supporters told The Lancet Oncology that they were confident the proposed law was “fully compliant with WTO obligations” and hoped the case would provide an endorsement under international law of the importance of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. That the Dominican Republic, and others, should align themselves with the tobacco industry’s stance in what is clearly a corporate effort to save industry profits might seem strange, but the tobacco industry is thought to be important economically for many of these countries in terms of tax revenue and jobs. Economic arguments of www.thelancet.com/oncology Vol 12 August 2011
falling revenues can be a powerful persuader, but the health consequences of the tobacco epidemic should also be considered. Intriguingly, in an echo of thoughts put to WTO by the Dominican Republic, the industry has also suggested that plain packaging will lead to an increase in the Australian counterfeit market. But this is a separate issue to helping smokers quit or preventing new smokers taking up the habit, and should not deter the Australian government from making every effort to break the addictive cycle that smokers endure. Furthermore, Australia has countered that it will introduce specific labelling to reduce the possibility of counterfeiting, and already has robust procedures to tackle counterfeit goods. Other defensive strategies by the tobacco industry include advertising campaigns to win over the Australian public with spoof sketches of popular television programmes and the labelling of Australia as a “nanny state”. Phillip Morris Asia has also made a peremptory strike by filing notice of a legal claim from the Australian government citing a violation of a previous investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia, an odd strategy given any losses are currently unknown. Furthermore, contrary to this claim, the tobacco industry has suggested there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of plain packaging as a strategy to reduce smoking; experts believe plain packets can break the affiliation smokers have with a particular brand helping them to quit and can also prevent teenagers from becoming smokers. The Australian tobacco market is comparatively small, representing only A$9·98 billion in 2009, but much effort is being expended to stop this law because it will set a precedent with Canada, the UK, and New Zealand all predicted to follow Australia’s lead. The US FDA has already set out proposals to have more prominent health warnings on packets from September, 2012. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the tobacco industry should use its influence over other players to delay, frustrate, and block this important initiative. The sovereignty of countries should be absolute and not influenced by multinational companies with complex accountability. This laudable move towards plain packaging must not be derailed by veiled tactics from companies with vested interests. Only then can progress be made to tackle tobacco-associated diseases, which are largely preventable, but mostly lethal. ■ The Lancet Oncology
Commonwealth of Australia 2011
Cigarettes and plain packaging: the battle lines are drawn
TRIPS, an international agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights For more on Australia’s stance on tobacco and plain packaging see News Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 427 For more on the marketing of anticancer campaigns in developing countries see Editorial Lancet 2011; 378: 200 For more on the Australian bill see http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/ parlInfo/download/legislation/ bills/r4613_first/toc_ pdf/11136b01. pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
709
On July 6, 2011, Australia became the first country to send a bill to their parliament on plain packaging for cigarettes. The legislation aims to reduce the number of current and new smokers by increasing the effectiveness of the health warnings and also by reducing the appeal of the product. If voted through, and it has cross-party support, the legislation will be enacted next year. As expected, even before the announcement, a counteroffensive had been launched by the tobacco industry. The legislation has been referred to the TRIPS council and the Technical Barriers to Trade committee in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in an intellectual property rights battle, but rather than being headed-up by the tobacco companies, this move is spearheaded by low-income and middle-income countries. Momentum from antismoking advocates to tackle the tobacco epidemic is gathering pace, and it needs to. 1 billion tobacco-associated deaths are predicted in the 21st century, with 80% occurring in developing countries. However, at a TRIPS council meeting on June 7, 2011, the Dominican Republic, with support or sympathy from Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine, the Phillipines, Zambia, Mexico, Cuba, and Ecuador, said it had “serious and grave concerns” about the Australian draft law in that it violated trademark law and would drive down the costs of cigarettes thereby increasing consumption and paving the way for counterfeiting. By contrast, New Zealand, Uruguay, and Norway all supported the proposed law, and India said that studies have shown that plain packaging is an effective antismoking strategy. Whether the law is a violation of trademark law remains a contentious issue, because the brand name will remain, albeit in a standard typeface and size, with the packets covered in large health warnings. Legal supporters told The Lancet Oncology that they were confident the proposed law was “fully compliant with WTO obligations” and hoped the case would provide an endorsement under international law of the importance of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. That the Dominican Republic, and others, should align themselves with the tobacco industry’s stance in what is clearly a corporate effort to save industry profits might seem strange, but the tobacco industry is thought to be important economically for many of these countries in terms of tax revenue and jobs. Economic arguments of www.thelancet.com/oncology Vol 12 August 2011
falling revenues can be a powerful persuader, but the health consequences of the tobacco epidemic should also be considered. Intriguingly, in an echo of thoughts put to WTO by the Dominican Republic, the industry has also suggested that plain packaging will lead to an increase in the Australian counterfeit market. But this is a separate issue to helping smokers quit or preventing new smokers taking up the habit, and should not deter the Australian government from making every effort to break the addictive cycle that smokers endure. Furthermore, Australia has countered that it will introduce specific labelling to reduce the possibility of counterfeiting, and already has robust procedures to tackle counterfeit goods. Other defensive strategies by the tobacco industry include advertising campaigns to win over the Australian public with spoof sketches of popular television programmes and the labelling of Australia as a “nanny state”. Phillip Morris Asia has also made a peremptory strike by filing notice of a legal claim from the Australian government citing a violation of a previous investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia, an odd strategy given any losses are currently unknown. Furthermore, contrary to this claim, the tobacco industry has suggested there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of plain packaging as a strategy to reduce smoking; experts believe plain packets can break the affiliation smokers have with a particular brand helping them to quit and can also prevent teenagers from becoming smokers. The Australian tobacco market is comparatively small, representing only A$9·98 billion in 2009, but much effort is being expended to stop this law because it will set a precedent with Canada, the UK, and New Zealand all predicted to follow Australia’s lead. The US FDA has already set out proposals to have more prominent health warnings on packets from September, 2012. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the tobacco industry should use its influence over other players to delay, frustrate, and block this important initiative. The sovereignty of countries should be absolute and not influenced by multinational companies with complex accountability. This laudable move towards plain packaging must not be derailed by veiled tactics from companies with vested interests. Only then can progress be made to tackle tobacco-associated diseases, which are largely preventable, but mostly lethal. ■ The Lancet Oncology
Commonwealth of Australia 2011
Cigarettes and plain packaging: the battle lines are drawn
TRIPS, an international agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights For more on Australia’s stance on tobacco and plain packaging see News Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 427 For more on the marketing of anticancer campaigns in developing countries see Editorial Lancet 2011; 378: 200 For more on the Australian bill see http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/ parlInfo/download/legislation/ bills/r4613_first/toc_ pdf/11136b01. pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
709