Plain tobacco packaging
Plain tobacco packaging, also known as generic, neutral, standardised or homogeneous packaging, is packaging of tobacco products, typically cigarettes, without any branding, including only the brand name in a mandated size, font and place on the pack, in addition to the health warnings and any other legally mandated information such as toxic constituents and tax-paid stamps. The appearance of all tobacco packs is standardised, including the colour of the pack.
The removal of branding on cigarette packaging is a regulation of nicotine marketing and aims to deter smoking by removal of positive associations of brands with the consumption of tobacco. It also aims to remove an available avenue of brand advertising for cigarette companies.
Australia was the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging, with all packets sold from 1 December 2012 being sold in logo-free, drab dark brown packaging. There has been opposition from tobacco companies to plain packaging laws, some of which have sued the Australian government in Australian and international courts. Since the Australian government won the court cases, several other countries have enacted plain packaging laws.
Plain packaging was included in guidelines to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. On 31 May 2016, on World No Tobacco Day, the WHO called on governments to get ready for plain packaging of tobacco products.
Similar packaging restrictions have also been proposed for confectioneries, sugary drinks and other consumables widely regarded as unhealthy, but none appear to have been implemented so far.
History
Plain packaging appears to have been first suggested in 1989 by the New Zealand Department of Health's Toxic Substances Board which recommended that cigarettes be sold only in white packs with black text and no colours or logos.Public health officials in Canada developed proposals for plain packaging of tobacco products in 1994. A parliamentary committee reviewed the evidence and concluded that plain packaging could be a "reasonable step in the overall strategy to reduce tobacco consumption". This effort did not succeed due to trademark right concerns, specifically those related to Canada's commitments to the World Trade Organization and under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Australia, with the enactment of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act on 12 December 2011, became the first country in the world to require tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging. Products manufactured after 1 October 2012, and all on sale after 1 December 2012 must be in the plain packaging.
Following Australia's lead, a number of other countries also began requiring standardized packaging including France ; the United Kingdom ; New Zealand ; Norway ; Ireland ; Thailand and Uruguay ; Saudi Arabia, Israel, Slovenia and Turkey ; Canada ; Singapore ; Belgium the Netherlands and Georgia.
Evidence
Only indirect evidence of plain packaging's effectiveness was available until its release in Australia. On 24 May 2011, Cancer Council Australia released a review of the evidence supporting the introduction of plain packaging to reduce youth uptake. The review had been conducted by Quit Victoria and Cancer Council Victoria. The review includes 24 peer-reviewed studies conducted over two decades, suggesting that packaging plays an important role in encouraging young people to try cigarettes. First impressions in Australia indicated that smokers feel that cigarettes taste worse in plain packaging – an unexpected side effect. In addition, evidence from quantitative studies, qualitative research and the internal documents of the tobacco industry consistently identify packaging as an important part of tobacco promotion. Smoking among Australian teenagers decreased between 2013 and 2016 from 3.4% to 1.5% and from 10.8% to 4.6% respectively.There have been three studies that have assessed the change in smoking prevalence or in the sales of cigarettes subsequent to Plain Packaging implementation. A study by Scollo et al. reported consumption did not seem to decline in the year immediately after PP but declined following the December 2013 tax increase, from 14.8% to 14%. It was based upon a national cross-sectional telephone surveys of adult smokers conducted from April 2012 to March 2014. Conclusions were that the introduction of PP was associated with an increase in use of value brands, likely due to increased numbers available, and smaller increases in prices for these brands relative to the premium brands.
A US consultant was commissioned by the Australian Government's Department of Health to undertake a study of the effectiveness of Plain Packaging legislation on smoking prevalence. The consultant's report found that there were fewer smokers after the PP legislation was implemented as there was a statistically significant decline in smoking rates. The Report's Conclusion states: "In terms of order of magnitude, smoking prevalence is 0.55 percentage points lower over the period December 2012 to September 2015 than it would have been without the packaging changes. For reasons I have explained, this effect is likely understated and is expected to grow over time." Data used was from a commercial firm, Roy Morgan, that conducted a nationally representative, repeated cross-sectional survey that asked each of about 4,500 participants aged 14 and above a series of smoking-related questions. The sample is different each month.
A further study by Bonfrer et al. found that overall cigarette consumption in Australia dropped by 7.5 percent over the post PP implementation period investigated. Using the retail cigarette industry's quality classifications, it was found that market share declined among premium and mainstream brands but increased for the cheaper value brands. Accompanying the declines in market shares, price sensitivity increased for mainstream and value brands across both grocery and convenience channels, according to the research. The only exception was short-term price sensitivity for premium and mainstream brands in the convenience channel, which was observed to decline following PP implementation. This study used 4-weekly data on 42 brands on their sales volumes and prices through Supermarkets and, separately, through Convenience stores, in Australia. The period covered was from late 2008 through to mid-2014, that is covering sales both before and after the implementation of PP. A distinguishing methodological feature of this study was that it used a control to assess changes in sales, compared to the methods used in the earlier studies.
Plain packaging can change people's attitudes towards smoking and may help reduce the prevalence of smoking, including among minors, and increase attempts to quit.
Studies comparing existing branded cigarette packs with plain cardboard packs bearing the name and number of cigarettes in small standard font, found plain packs to be significantly less attractive. Additionally, research in which young adults were instructed to use plain cigarette packs and subsequently asked about their feelings towards them confirmed findings that plain packaging increased negative perceptions and feelings about the pack and about smoking. Plain packs also increased behaviours such as hiding or covering the pack, smoking less around others, going without cigarettes and increased thinking about quitting. Almost half of the participants reported that plain packs had either increased the above behaviours or reduced consumption. Auction experiments indicated that a likely outcome of plain packaging would be to drive down demand of tobacco products.
A 2013 review found that plain packaging increased the importance of health warnings to consumers. Plain packaging in a darker colour was associated with more harmful effects. Furthermore, plain packaging reduced confusion about health warnings.
Plain packaging with large, graphic, warnings, was considered to impact on smoking cessation.
There is little evidence yet as to what effect plain packaging will have on smoking in lower-income countries.
Opposition
Advertisement companies and consultants for the tobacco industry expressed concerns that plain cigarette packaging may establish a precedent for application in other industries. In 2012, correspondence between Mars, Incorporated and the UK Department of Health conveyed concerns that plain packaging could be extended to the food and beverage industry. Together, with other policies such as tobacco taxes, plain packaging is considered by some as a form of social engineering.A study commissioned by Philip Morris International indicated that plain packaging would shift consumer preferences away from premium towards cheaper brands. The tobacco industry also expressed concern that plain packaging would increase the sales of counterfeit cigarettes. Roy Ramm, former commander of Specialist Operations at New Scotland Yard and founding member of The Common Sense Alliance, a think tank supported by British American Tobacco, stated that it would be "disastrous if the government, by introducing plain-packaging legislation, the simplest mechanism for the ordinary consumer to tell whether their cigarettes are counterfeit or not."
Arguments against plain packaging include its effect on smuggling, its effect on shops and retailers, and its possible illegality. A study published in July 2014 by the BMJ rebutted those claims.
In reporting Philip Morris's legal action against the Australian project, The Times of India noted in 2011 that plain packaging legislation was being closely watched by other countries, and that tobacco firms were worried the Australian plain packaging legislation might set a global precedent.
In July 2012, it was reported that the American lobbying organisation American Legislative Exchange Council had launched a worldwide campaign against plain packaging of cigarettes. With the backing of tobacco companies and other corporate interests, it targeted governments planning to introduce bans on cigarette branding, including the UK and Australia. Tobacco companies were also reported to have provided legal advice and funding to Ukraine and Honduras governments to launch a complaint in the World Trade Organization on the grounds that the Australian legislation is contrary to a WTO intellectual property agreement. WTO complaints must be made by Governments, not companies. British American Tobacco confirmed that they were helping Ukraine meet legal costs in their case against Australia.
By May 2013, Cuba, Ukraine, Honduras and the Dominican Republic challenged Australia's rules through the WTO by filing requests for consultations, the first step in challenging Australia's tobacco-labelling laws at the WTO A request for consultations opened a 60-day negotiation window after which a formal complaint could be filed which, if successful, might have led to increased tariffs on Australian exports. On 28 May 2015 Ukraine, which exports no tobacco to Australia, decided to suspend its WTO action initiated by the previous Ukrainian government. The packaging of Cuban cigars is considered to contribute significantly to sales.
In June 2018, the WTO panel rejected the claims of the plaignants. Regarding the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the panel concludes that plain packaging restricts trade only insofar as it reduces consumption, which is the legitimate objective of the measure. As for the TRIPS Agreement, it observes that "TRIPS does not provide for a right to use a trademark", but prevents other companies from using them. In June 2020, the Appellate Body rejected an appeal formed by Honduras and the Dominican Republic against the panel decision.
A 2025 systematic review analysed the barriers and facilitators that influenced plain packaging policies. The main barriers were legal, economic and framing strategies of the industry. The main facilitators were governmental preparedness, coordination and strategic framing.