Plain, Standardised Packaging of Cigarettes: Triumph or Tyranny? The Debate Motion: This house believes plain, standardised packaging will benefit the health of the nation On the 29 th April 2013, 2020health organised a debate on plain packaging of cigarettes with UCL, sponsored by Cancer Research UK and open to all. This debate explored some of the arguments for and against standardised packs with the dynamic participation of a live audience. Hosted by Professor of Medical Anthropology, David Napier, in a bustling University College London lecture theatre and chaired by 2020health chairman, Dame Helena Shovelton DBE, the panel debated the motion: This house believes that plain packaging of cigarettes will benefit the health of the nation,. The Right Honourable Kevin Baron, MP for the Rother Valley and Professor Robert West, Health Psychology, University College London spoke for the motion; Ian Paisley Jr, MP for North Antrim and Claire Fox, Director and Founder of the Institute of Ideas think tank spoke against. Following all four speeches, the panel took questions from the audience. An audience vote was taken both before and after the motion was debated. Introduction The government of the United Kingdom is seeking ways to reduce the uptake and prevalence of smoking. During the course of the 20 th century a growing body of evidence has indicated the correlation between lung cancer and other pulmonary diseases with the use of tobacco. The body of research has included epidemiological and biomedical studies developing the evidence base that indicates the mechanism behind tobacco s carcinogenic properties. Studies have also investigated the uptake of tobacco use and the levels of addiction among users. Other research has identified links between tobacco use and socioeconomic status. Tobacco use in the UK dates back to the 16 th century, and it is has become an activity entwined with social and medical history. Tobacco induced pulmonary diseases, and other chronic implications of long term tobacco use have a cost to the health service. The tobacco industry pays duty on its sales. Consequently there are financial implications to further tobacco interventions. With the range of negatively associated consequences to health and wellbeing in mind, the UK governments have made reducing tobacco use a long term objective. In 2012 the UK government held a
consultation on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. As of April 2013, no formal recommendation has been made from the UK government. Addressing tobacco use is a social, economic, financial and legal challenge. Tobacco legislation is intended to protect people from the dangers of tobacco and dissuade people from taking up smoking. In recent years a series of new legislation has been enforced. Tobacco advertising has been banned since 2003. The smoking ban in public places and business came into force in Scotland on March 26 th 2006; Wales on April 2 nd ; and Northern Ireland on April 30 th. England enforced the ban a year later on July 1 st 2007. Since the introduction of the ban, there has been a significant reduction in the number of smoking related hospital admissions for heart attacks, stroke and respiratory disease. These findings have been reiterated in many international studies. The Point of Sale Display Ban (POSD) was introduced in England on 6 April 2012 making it illegal to display tobacco products at the point of sale in large stores, and in small stores from 6 April 2015. Health campaigners are now pressing for packaging of cigarettes to be standardised and remove all branding. They strongly believe this will reduce the number of children from starting to smoke by reducing the industry s advantage of susceptibility to attractive packaging and brand names. The Australian Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 requires all tobacco products sold in Australia to have plain packaging. New Zealand has announced similar plans, and the Scottish Government has announced that this will also form part of their reduction in smoking strategy. The impact of these measures is yet to be assessed. Some campaigners argue that the removal of branding is an infringement of civil liberty and sets a precedent against an individual s freedoms and rights to choice. Others arguing against standardised packaging, suggest that it will result in an increase in illicit tobacco trade. Is this an appropriate path for the United Kingdom to go down and what does it mean for society? Vote on the motion before debate: Aye: 76%, Nay: 24%
Debate Summary of Arguments For the motion Professor Robert West, Health Psychology, UCL Cigarettes contain high concentrations of toxins, much of which are carcinogenic. Cigarettes are highly addictive. They kill half those that don t manage to stop. Those who are killed lose approximately twenty years of life. And the years of life they lose are not the unpleasant years at the end of life. No civilized government would allow cigarettes to be marketed. This is a very modest proposal in the light of these circumstances. The very least we can do is to remove the opportunity to use these marketing devices to allow them to entice people to use the products Tobacco industry use sophisticated marketing devices to sell their products. Legislators must restrict to improve health as an obligation to make a better society. The best available evidence indicates that standardised packaging will have some effect. Conservative estimates suggest that even minimal effects will still be beneficial to reducing smoking uptake. If tobacco prices are driven down by standardised packs, put the duty up to compensate. It cannot be ethical to allow an industry that by historical misadventure is allowed to sell an addictive product that causes suffering and death on a scale that, let s face it, terrorists can only dream of. The Rt Hon Kevin Baron MP for Rother Valley Arguments against standardised packaging are inconsistent and propagated by the tobacco industry.
Tobacco industry manipulates legal loopholes to appeal to young consumers in their target market to try to discourage users from quitting. Illicit trade that tobacco industry says will increase can be countered by standard numerical code issued on every legitimate packet which will tell anyone with access to the system where and when it was produced, what it s intended market was. Numerous studies with increasing accuracy indicate illicit trade has fallen under further tobacco control measures. The level of illicit tobacco trade in the UK is falling, not rising. This is indicated by the best data from HMRC, and this shows a fall in illicit cigarettes from 15% of the market in 2006-7 to 9% in 2010-11.( mid-point estimates). Increases in duty will prevent price-based competition for cigarette sales which some argue will result from standardised packaging. Arguments against standardised packaging is based on lies and vested interests. Anti-standardised packaging campaign misconstrues pro-campaign. Big tobacco companies, multinationals, have in the past all been heavily implicated in the smuggling of their own products. If cigarette packets couldn t be seen due to a point of sale ban, what s all the fuss about? This is about protecting young people. Packaging is there to catch the eye. We have to take decisions to pass laws to protect us individuals. A hundred thousand people a year in the UK are dying a premature death because of tobacco use, and we need to pass as many laws as we can that is going to limit that. It is unacceptable that we allow this product, legal or not to promoted in these ways when it s the end cause for 50% of its users of premature death. It is unacceptable that we allow this product, legal or not to promoted in these ways when it s the end cause for 50% of its users of premature death.
Against the motion Ian Pasiley Jr MP for North Antrim The markings on a packet do not allure people to smoking. No evidence standardised packaging will be effective at reducing uptake. Point of sale display bans achieves the same objective. Modeling to approximate the effect standardised packaging is flawed. Illicit trade will increase under standardised packages. Benefiting the smuggler and the counterfeiter. By standardising the packet, the person you re going to help most isn t the health lobby, isn t the tobacco industry, is the smuggler and the counterfeiter who relies on that trade. This issue will be decided on cigarettes alone, taxation of the tobacco industry will be hit hard by increases in illicit trade. Standardised packaging will move tobacco manufacturing from the UK on to mainland Europe and result in increased smuggling back to the UK. Standardised packaging will result in increased cost to the UK exchequer. The government cannot afford to reimburse tobacco industry for removal of intellectual property in the UK. Where do these measures stop? Alcohol? Unhealthy food? Where does this stop? We have to at some point inject a reality into it between policies that are based on evidence not emotion.
Claire Fox, Director, Institute of Ideas Standardised packaging infringes on one's right to chose over design. Chipping away at freedoms. Evidence for public health are misconstrued, and selective. Brands are important, that you can distinguish between products. Defending commercial freedom is something worth doing. In a democracy we should be free to read what we want, to make up our own minds. Campaigners cite that they are doing it to protect the children as emotional blackmail using the young as a human shield for illiberalism. The idea that the larger the warning, the scarier the warning, the better the outcome misses the point. Turning cigarettes into an out of sight, under the counter illicit purchase adds to their glamour. It is very dangerous to allow the state to prohibit use of legal products from using their legally protected, valuable branding to sell their products. Action must be taken to stop the young from smoking. However, increase in the number of young people smoking coincides with the most intensive anti-smoking drive ever known. This a free speech issue. When the state decides what images, slogans or logos we are allowed to see and bans those it arbitrarily decides are bad for our health, I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. Vote after debate: Aye: 67%, Nay: 33%
Thank you to our audience, speakers, hosts and sponsors.