UICC Tobacco Control Fact Sheet No. 16 Generic Packaging Towards Informed Consent: The Case for Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products What is plain packaging? Plain packaging is packaging which is devoid of brand logos, brand colours and information other than the brand name and government-mandated information. Plain packaging has also been referred to as generic or standardized packaging. Packages would be required to be identical in size, shape, colour, font style and size, and spatial arrangement, leaving only the name to identify the brand. The goal of plain packaging is to achieve the removal of the tobacco package as an alluring advertisement for the product. Plain packaging may, in fact be a misnomer. It has been suggested that what is needed is "dissuasive packaging" as opposed to the current persuasive packaging. (1) The look of the package would be standardized, dictated by government regulation rather than by tobacco company marketing experts. Whether simple or complicated, colourful or bland, it would be unappealing to consumers, and would provide accurate information about the product. How important is packaging? Packaging is a crucial component of the "marketing mix" for a product. It is the "least expensive form of advertising", and is of particular importance at point of sale: "The package is the manufacturer's last chance at a customer" (2). Packaging plays a central role in promoting the appeal of tobacco to first time users. The tobacco package serves as a strong image identifier among youth. One study suggests that the cigarette package is a "badge" which youth carry to identify themselves as fitting an image suggested by the package (3). The cigarette package has greater importance in countries which have banned or curtailed tobacco advertising and promotional activities. Where advertising has been banned, the package serves as the sole promotional vehicle. Packages can and do serve as powerful persuaders as centrepieces for pointof-sale displays. Where promotion is still allowed, packaging is the crucial link between the advertisement and the consumer. Not surprisingly, tobacco companies have been extremely outspoken against plain packaging in jurisdictions where it has been considered. They are acutely aware of the important role of packaging in their promotional strategies. The Vice-President of Marketing for Canada's largest tobacco http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/fact_sheets/16fact.htm (1 de 6)13/07/2006 16:45:14
company said in 1989: " in the cigarette business there is very little to distinguish, particularly in Canada, because we all use the same kind of tobacco, we do not flavour our tobaccos. So the discrimination in product terms, pure blind product terms, without any packaging or name around, it is very limited " Put it in a package and put a name on it, then it has a lot of product characteristics." (4). A tobacco industry journal states that: "During the 90s, the traditional cigarette pack will not be good enough for the selling job it will have to do. If it cannot be shown and marketed in advertising as before, it must carry the whole message itself. And when more and more popular brands vie for space on the tobacconist's shelves, the demand for a design that sells will be greater than ever before" (5). The importance of plain packaging in achieving informed consent While plain packaging should reduce the appeal of the package, perhaps its most important role is to denormalize the product and contribute to the goal of informed consent: ensuring that the consumer is adequately apprised of and understands all risks of use before choosing whether or not to take them. Tobacco's proponents ask: "what right do governments have to confiscate trademarks?" In reply, the public must ask: "what right does an industry have to package a product that is known to be addictive, and to cause death and disease in its users, in glossy attractive packages without adequate warning of risk?" Glossy, attractive and, in many countries, completely unregulated tobacco packages interfere with and undermine health messages. They confuse the consumer about the seriousness of the risks of tobacco use and detract from the goal of informed consent. Adequate information about the consequences of using tobacco can be achieved through plain packaging. Elimination of the mixed messages sent by tobacco companies is critical. Accurate messaging would take priority over tobacco company propaganda. An unalluring package would highlight the health message rather than the product. The evidence Plain packaging is not a new concept in tobacco control. A number of countries, for example Canada and Australia, have considered plain packaging as a potentially important component of a tobacco control strategy, based on a number of streams of evidence. Considerable evidence supports plain packaging as an effective tobacco control measure. Research studies on youth and the general population indicate that the absence of attractive packaging would change not only the public's perceptions of the product, but also the perceptions of users of the products. The latter is important, because positive images of young smokers as viewed by their peers contributes to the desire to take up smoking. Six major published studies discuss the potential impact of plain packaging: two from Canada, one joint U.S.-Canada study, and one each from the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand (6,7,8,9,10,11). http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/fact_sheets/16fact.htm (2 de 6)13/07/2006 16:45:14
Among the findings of these studies: youth described buyers of plain packages as "wimpy", "boring", "loser", and "out of it", whereas purchasers of a brand package were described as "smart", "fun", "popular", "outgoing", and "well-respected"; plain packages were described as "boring", "unattractive" and "cheap-looking"; several smokers indicated that they would not buy plain packages; a substantial proportion of adolescents believed that plain packaging would greatly impact on the prevention of trial and initiation of smoking behaviour, and that fewer adolescents overall would smoke if cigarettes were sold only in plain packages; health warnings on plain packages were more noticeable and their presence more easily recalled than warnings on brand packages, and a significant majority of adults refused to buy Marlboro cigarettes at half price when they were packaged in generic brown boxes, even when assured that they were fresh, authentic, and identical to regularly-packaged Marlboros. These studies arrived at the same general conclusions. Plain packaging: would detract noticeably from the image of cigarettes; could be expected to discourage smoking uptake and encourage smoking cessation, especially among youth, and is a necessary, but not sufficient, measure to discourage people from starting to smoke. Additional benefits As well as removing the allure of the tobacco package, plain packaging offers a number of additional benefits from a tobacco-control perspective. It would: decrease the effectiveness of other tobacco marketing strategies, such as point-of-sale displays and sponsorship activities; increase the prominence and impact of health warnings on packages, and allow more package space for larger or more detailed warnings; reinforce health messages from other sources about the acceptability of tobacco by "denormalizing" the product, and be politically popular. In jurisdictions which have been surveyed, including Canada and Australia, a majority of respondents support plain packaging or other measures to make cigarettes less colourful and attractive. The tobacco industry's view Tobacco companies vocally oppose plain packaging and have successfully defeated proposed regulation where it has been considered. The primary arguments used by the industry are that packaging does not influence consumption levels, only brand share; that plain packaging would lead to massive job losses in the printing and packaging industries; that it would contribute to smuggling, and that there are insurmountable international legal barriers to implementing plain packaging. Like http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/fact_sheets/16fact.htm (3 de 6)13/07/2006 16:45:14
most arguments against effective tobacco control put forward by the industry, these concerns are based primarily on self-interest rather than fact. 1. Packaging does not influence consumption levels, but rather brand share. On the contrary, evidence suggests that advertising, of which packaging is a part, tends to increase the volume purchased of a particular brand by loyal consumers. Also, tobacco advertising campaigns have been successful in increasing the uptake of smoking in target populations in steady decline (12). If plain packaging were only an issue of market share, then it would make sense that some companies would favour plain packaging while others would oppose it; certain brands and companies would gain customers and increase profits as a result. More realistically, because the change in market share is unpredictable, industry response as a whole should be neutral. In fact, all companies claim that plain packaging would impact negatively upon them, indicating a fear that the overall size of the market would be affected. 2. Plain packaging would eliminate jobs in the printing and packaging industries. In fact, plain packaging need not be plain, only standardized. Governments could require multiple (albeit unattractive) colours and intricate graphics or photos to illustrate health risks. All of these measures would mean that plain packages could require printing processes as complicated as are required for current packages, effectively dismissing the economic argument of job loss. They would also mean that plain packages could be made difficult to counterfeit, and easily differentiated for purposes of smuggling control. 3. Plain packaging would increase counterfeiting and smuggling. A more complicated package as described above would prevent this, as would requirements for sophisticated anti-counterfeiting techniques. That plain packaging would increase smuggling is nonsensical: standardized packaging in a given country would be readily identifiable. Foreignproduced smuggled packages, or smuggled packages produced for export, would stand out all the more, enabling enforcement efforts. 4. Plain packaging would violate international treaty obligations. Tobacco companies argue that plain packaging amounts to trademark infringement in violation of several international trade and intellectual property agreements. These treaties, the industry contends, require either that plain packaging not be implemented, or that the tobacco company be compensated for its "expropriated" trademarks. However, international law simply does not bear out these tobacco industry claims. International legal experts conclude that plain packaging, properly implemented, need not amount to expropriation (13). Additionally, each of these treaties contains specific exemptions justifying State actions undertaken to protect public health. Conclusion http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/fact_sheets/16fact.htm (4 de 6)13/07/2006 16:45:14
Studies of youth, tobacco company spokespersons, and marketing experts confirm the importance of packaging to the appeal of tobacco. The tobacco control community agrees that plain packaging is a necessary, (although insufficient) measure in addressing the tobacco epidemic, and would be particularly effective in reducing smoking uptake among youth. Plain packaging is crucial in contributing to the informed consent of tobacco users. Countries should consider plain packaging as an essential component of an effective tobacco control strategy. Acknowledgement and References This fact sheet has been prepared for the UICC by Ms. Heather Selin and Mr. David Sweanor of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Canada. 1. "Towards zero consumption: Generic packaging of tobacco products." Report of the Standing committee on Health, June 1994, House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada, p. 6. 2. "When Packages Can't Speak: Possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products." Expert Panel Report prepared at the request of Health Canada, Ottawa, March 1995, p. 2. 3. RBJ Health Management Associates, "Impact of Plain Packaging of Tobacco on Youth Perceptions and Behaviour: Report of Study 1", Toronto, June 1993. 4. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Attorney General Canada, Quebec Superior Court, September 28, 1989, Oral Arguments, 5, pp. 660-661. 5. "Rethinking Cigarette Packs for a New Age", Tobacco International, March 1, 1991, p. 14. 6. "Images of Plain Packaging on the Image of Tobacco Products Among Youth", Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto, November 1993. 7. "When Packages Can't Speak " 8. University of Toronto, University of Illinois at Chicago, York University, Ontario, Tobacco Research Unit, Addiction Research Foundation, A Study on Youth Smoking - Plain Packaging, Health Warnings, Event Marketing and Price Reductions. Irving Rootman and Brian R. Flay, Principal Investigators, Toronto, Canada, 1995. 9. "Here's one tough cowboy", Forbes, February 9, 1987. 10. "Health Warnings and Contents Labelling on Tobacco Products", Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Australia. 11. Beede, P., Lawson, T., and Shepherd, M., "The Promotional Impact of Cigarette Packaging: A Study of Adolescent Responses to Cigarette Plain-Packs", University of Otago, New Zealand, 1992. 12. "When Packages Can't Speak ", pp. 30-31. 13. Castel, J.-G., "Would Plain Packaging for Cigarettes Violate Canada's International Trade Obligations?", opinion submitted to the Standing Committee on Health, Canada, May 1994. 2/1996 http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/fact_sheets/16fact.htm (5 de 6)13/07/2006 16:45:14
Tobacco and Cancer Programme International Union Against Cancer 3, Rue du Conseil-Général, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: (4122) 809 1830, Fax: (4122) 809 1810 E-mail: tobacco-control@globalink.org Tobacco and Cancer Programme http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/fact_sheets/16fact.htm (6 de 6)13/07/2006 16:45:14