Tag Archives: plain packaging

World Trade Organization rules in favour of Australia’s plain packaging laws for tobacco

Big Tobacco simply won’t quit. After years and years and years of getting their asses absolutely handed to them in court after court about Australia’s plain packaging laws … they lose yet again.

Big Tobacco, primarily in the form of Philip Morris International, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco, has been battling Australia for more than seven years over that country’s plain packaging rules. First, they sued in Australian courts and their case went all the way to the Australian Supreme Court, where they lost.

After they lost in the Australian courts, Big Tobacco, hiding behind Hong Kong and Ukraine and other countries, tried to claim that somehow Australia was violating trade treaties (lots here on John Oliver’s show) because international tobacco companies weren’t being allowed to market their products in Australia. That tact has taken several forms, the latest being litigation through the World Trade Organization, which…

… just this week leaked a draft ruling on the side of Australia. Meaning that Australia’s groundbreaking plain packaging laws, which allow no trademarked logos on cigarette packs and require gruesome images of tobacco-caused diseases, can move forward.

Australia was the first to require such plain packages, but several other countries such as France and the U.K. have followed suit, with the almost automatic litigation from tobacco companies.

This is the latest salvo in the industry’s battle against Australia, which is one of the most progressive nations in the world in battling tobacco. I doubt it will be the last.

From a Guardian article:

The news is a blow to the tobacco industry as such a ruling from the WTO has been widely anticipated as giving a green light for other countries to roll out similar laws.

Australia’s laws go much further than advertising bans and graphic health warnings enforced in many other countries.

The rules, introduced in 2010, ban logos and distinctive-coloured cigarette packaging in favour of drab olive packets that look more like military or prison issue, with brand names printed in small, standardised fonts.

Tobacco firms said their trademarks were being infringed, and Cuba, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Indonesia complained at the WTO that the rules constituted an illegal barrier to trade.

Although the WTO’s final ruling is not expected until July, a confidential draft said Australia’s laws were a legitimate public health measure, Bloomberg reported.

Of the biggest international cigarette companies, Imperial Brands’ profits are most exposed to markets that may implement plain packaging, said analysts at Jefferies.

A spokeswoman for British American declined to comment on the ruling until it was made public, but suggested the complainants would keep fighting.

“As there is a high likelihood of an appeal by some or all of the parties, it’s important to note that this panel report is not the final word on whether plain packaging is consistent with international law,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Japan Tobacco also declined to comment on the ruling, but said the fact that the draft had been leaked was disconcerting and a breach of WTO rules.

“Such breaches completely undermine the integrity of the process, which has not yet run its full course,” she said.

The plodding pace of WTO decision-making prompted Australia, which had the backing of the World Health Organisation, to complain that its challengers were deliberately stalling the proceedings, producing a “regulatory chilling” effect on other countries wishing to follow its example.

But since the challenge was made, many other countries began exploring similar legislation, a sign that they expected the WTO to rule in Australia’s favour.

Britain, France and Hungary have gone ahead with their own legislation, while Ireland, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Belgium are among those considering it.

Australian study shows plain packaging laws work

This is about the only Australian plain package I could find that WASN’T completely disgusting.

More great news … the smoking rate in Australia is also dropping, probably because of that country very tough plain packaging laws.

The smoking rate in Australia declined from 19.4 percent about three years before the plain packaging law to 17.2 percent three years after the plain packaging law. The new law, which was battled in the courts for years by Big Tobacco, was given credit for causing at least 25 percent of that decline.

Australia was the first country to impose a plain packaging law. That law got appealed in the courts by Big Tobacco and it went all the way to the Australian Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the government. Then Big Tobacco went to the World Court, trying to have the law overturned by arguing it was somehow violating free trade agreements with other countries. That effort likewise fizzled.

A study done in Australia suggested that one of the things that kept smokers smoking was brand loyalty. With no more brand loyalty possible with the mandatory plain packages, one encouragement for smoking was reduced.

 

From Quartz Media (a pretty interesting mobile device news site):

In 2012, Australia became the first country in the world to make tobacco companies strip their branding off products, leaving nothing but drab packaging covered with graphic health warnings. A recent study shows that this too has encouraged smokers to quit by reducing their affinity with specific brands.

The researchers, psychologists at Australian National University and the University of Queensland, suggest that as smoking has become stigmatized, tobacco companies have increasingly relied on brand identity to reach customers. “Smokers are now viewed by many as unhealthy, unattractive, and even dirty,” the researchers write, but identifying with a particular brand “deflects the negative connotations” of being seen as a smoker and “may help to define the self with more positive content (e.g. ‘Winboro Woman’ can be sassy, independent and minty fresh).”

Since Australia has imposed plain packaging rules, other countries such as the UK, France and New Zealand have followed suit. A proposal to do the same in the U.S. was stopped by the courts on First Amendment grounds.

British High Court upholds graphic images on UK cigarette packs; law goes into effect in days

cigarette-packs-543173
Believe it or not, this is one of the tamer warnings going onto British cigarette packs.

A coalition of tobacco companies lost a major decision this week in Great Britain. The companies — Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International — were challenging a law requiring the removal of all branding logos and fonts and plain packaging on all tobacco product as well as graphic warnings showing diseased gums and lungs, etc.

In a 386-page ruling, the High Court rules against the tobacco industry.

“It is wrong to view this issue purely in monetised terms alone,” the court ruled.

“There is a significant moral angle which is embedded in the regulations which is about saving children from a lifetime of addiction, and children and adults from premature death and related suffering and disease.”

1463703883041
Australia’s plain packaging law has been upheld by the Australian Supreme Court and by international courts.

Japan Tobacco International plans to file an appeal, but Philip Morris International announced that it will not.

From the Express:

Daniel Sciamma, UK managing director of JTI, said: “We will continue to challenge the legality of plain packaging. The fact remains that our branding has been eradicated and we maintain that this is unlawful.”

Tobacco companies fought a similar law in Australia, which was upheld by the Australian Supreme Court. However, companies have continued to fight the law in international courts, arguing that it violated trade treaties with other countries. So far, that fight has failed.

Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) chief executive Deborah Arnott said: “This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the Government’s determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging.

“Millions of pounds have been spent on some of the country’s most expensive lawyers in the hope of blocking the policy.

“This disgraceful effort to privilege tobacco business interests over public health has rightly failed utterly.”

The tobacco industry has been able to fend off plain packaging laws in the U.S., however, as courts have ruled such laws violate the companies’ First Amendment rights.

Crikey! Australia kicks international Big Tobacco’s butt … again

australia_flag_map1-300x267

Yet another major legal victory for Australia in its long-running battle against Big Tobacco.

Specifically, Australia defeated Philip Morris International, which has been one of the corporations fighting Australia for the past five to 10 years over that nation’s plain-packaging laws.

Initially, the government of Australia won in the Australian Supreme Court for the right to impose a plain-packaging law. In Australia, packages of cigarettes not only cannot have logos of tobacco brands, but they are required to have graphic images of the damage that tobacco does to people’s mouths, teeth, etc.

Plain_Packaging_Australia
Australian plain packaging. Pleasant, huh?

Anyway, after losing before the Australian Supreme Court, Philip Morris Int’l persuaded several countries to get involved in litigation against Australia to claim that that country’s plain packaging laws were violating trade agreements and international trade law. Ukraine was one of the countries involved, but dropped out many months ago.

However, Hong Kong was still involved in this legal action, invoking something called the “1993 Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement”.  An entity known as an “arbitral tribunal” (seriously, that’s what it is called), declined to hear Hong Kong and Philip Morris Int’l’s case, ending the litigation … for now.

From the Guardian article:

The minister responsible for Australia’s tobacco policy, Fiona Nash, said: “We welcome the unanimous decision by the tribunal agreeing with Australia’s position that it has no jurisdiction to hear Philip Morris’s claim.”

The Public Health Association of Australia welcomed the decision as “the best Christmas present for public health nationally and internationally”.

“Smoking in Australia is falling in adults, in children and by tobacco volume sales,” said the association’s chief executive, Michael Moore.

“Now the tobacco companies have lost another crucial legal bid to stop this life-saving measure. The message is loud and clear – plain packaging works, and it is here to stay.”

Not surprisingly, Philip Morris was not happy with the decision. From the article:

“There is nothing in today’s outcome that addresses, let alone validates, plain packaging in Australia or anywhere else,” said Marc Firestone, Philip Morris International senior vice president and general counsel.

“It is regrettable that the outcome hinged entirely on a procedural issue that Australia chose to advocate instead of confronting head on the merits of whether plain packaging is legal or even works.”

Oh, wah! Cry me a river, Philip Morris. Shouldn’t you be busy picking on Uruguay?

FranceFlag_svg
Yay, go France. Cracking down on cigarette marketing.

This decision could help other countries that are proposing plain packaging laws. Ireland already does it, and France is moving ahead with plain packaging for tobacco in 2016, following Australia’s lead. Efforts to force plain packaging for cigarettes in the U.S. are stymied by a very strong First Amendment.

Philip Morris International and other tobacco companies have fought these plain packaging laws around the world; they’ve even enlisted the help of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to aid them in their fights against Uruguay, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Togo and other countries. Notice most of these countries are fairly small with limited finances and resources to fight Big Tobacco. Not a coincidence.

 

 

 

 

And speaking of John Oliver — Ireland fights back against tobacco industry over plain packaging

743484-ireland-follows-australian-lead-on-smoking

A big focus of John Oliver’s piece on the tobacco industry was how huge tobacco companies are fighting small nations trying to impose plain packaging laws for cigarettes.

Oliver’s piece specifically talked about Australia, which won its court case against Big Tobacco, Uruguay and Togo. Here’s another country in a similar battle — Ireland.

Ireland has been threatened with litigation by Japan Tobacco International for a law requiring plain packaging on tobacco products.

From this article:

James Reilly, (minister for children and youth affairs) who introduced the bill as health minister last July but has since become minister for children and youth affairs (although he still has command over passing the bill through parliament), added: “The Irish government will put the health of its citizens first. It won’t be intimidated by external forces.”

Good for Ireland for standing tall. Togo was forced to cave in light of a billion-dollar lawsuit. Uruguay is another tiny country that doesn’t have much resources to fight Big Tobacco.

Weirdly enough, JTI is threatening to file its lawsuit before the law is even passed. It’s still winding its way through the Ireland Parliament, but JTI wants to sue to have the bill stopped by the Court of Justice of the European Union until a case is heard from England regarding tobacco trademarking.

Similar pushes for plain packaging are a no-go in the U.S. due to conflicts with the First Amendment.

 

Ireland to try and follow Australia’s lead in requiring plain cigarette packages

_75429104_cigarettes

Ireland, a longtime leader in the tobacco control movement (Ireland was actually the first countries to impose a nationwide smoking ban way back in 2004, which may or may not have had anything to do with the decline of the pub industry in that country, depending on who you ask), is making a push to force cigarette companies to remove all their branding from their packages and sell cigarettes in plain packaging only.

Australia has already taken this step, and New Zealand is the other country considering it. Australia was sued by several tobacco companies but ultimately, the Australian Supreme Court upheld the law. Tobacco companies are fighting New Zealand’s law, too, so Ireland can be assured that if they try a similar law, they will be taken to court.

(I’m guessing that because of the First Amendment, a similar law would likely not be upheld in the U.S.)

At this point, the legislation has passed the Irish Cabinet. Leading the cause in Ireland is Dr. James Reilly, the Irish Minister of Health and an ardent tobacco opponent. He wants to get the Irish smoking rate under 5 percent by 2025 (currently, it is at 22 percent).

The thought behind the plain packaging is that each cigarette package is a miniature advertisement for their product. If you remove the packaging logos, then you will no longer have ubiquitous advertising for that product every time someone remove a pack of cigarettes out of their pocket.

Not an outrageous concept, because really, what cigarette company do you think of when you see this to the left? logo_marlboro-box_usa-1 See you already know what the brand is, even without the brand name in the logo. The logo has become that recognizable.

Dr. Reilly says:

The introduction of standardised packaging will remove the final way for tobacco companies to promote their deadly product in Ireland. Cigarette packets will no longer be a mobile advertisement for the tobacco industry.”

British American Tobacco, obviously opposed, responds that there’s no evidence plain packaging would lower smoking rates and that it would just play into the hands of black marketeers, who could sell any tobacco product in any box, without anyone knowing the wiser:

“There is no credible evidence that plain packaging will work in terms of stopping children taking up smoking or encouraging current smokers to quit,” the firm said.

“Instead, Minister Reilly’s plain packaging bill will simply play into the hands of the criminals who are ready and waiting to supply people, regardless of their age, with cheap tobacco products.”

I have no idea if removing branding will decrease smoking and is an effective tactic toward combating smoking. Somewhat on the fence on this, but I find it an interesting debate.