Plain Packaging in the UK: TCRG Research on Policy Opposition 2011-2013

From TobaccoTactics
Share/Save/Bookmark
Jump to: navigation, search

Background

The UK’s 2011 decision to consider introducing plain tobacco packaging precipitated a lengthy and hotly contested public and political debate which lasted until the policy’s implementation in May 2016.

Research from the Tobacco Control Research Group published in BMJ Open in 2016 investigated which organisations opposed plain packaging in the three years around the 2012 consultation: 2011-2013.

The research asked who are these organisations, what sector are they from, are they linked to ‘big tobacco’ and what kinds of actions did they take to oppose the policy’s introduction? The research also asked what can be learned from this case study about tobacco companies’ attempts to overcome Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC). This article requires governments to “protect” tobacco control policies “from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.”

Research Findings: Opposition links to global tobacco companies

Setting aside tobacco and tobacco packaging manufacturers, the study identified 109 organisations which opposed, or helped oppose, plain packaging in the UK between 2011 and 2013. The study found that:

- Of these, 43 actively opposed the policy themselves and rarely declared a conflict of interest or any association with tobacco companies when undertaking opposition activities;
- 39 facilitated tobacco companies’ opposition activities – for example, explicitly lobbying on their behalf or producing research for them.
  • Between them, the 82 organisations:
- Undertook 60% of the 404 opposition activities identified in the study, including 88% of research activities and 78% of public communications; and
- Backed up tobacco companies’ extensive lobbying activities via correspondence and meetings with government officials and ministers.
  • Tobacco industry-funded campaigns also generated 98% of opposition postcard and petition submissions to the UK’s 2012 consultation
  • In these activities, opposition organisations replicated and promoted tobacco companies’ main arguments against plain packaging – intellectual property, evidence, smuggling, the nanny state and costs to businesses.
  • Organisations which actively opposed plain packaging rarely reported any relationship with tobacco companies transparently. Of 150 public communications activities undertaken by those organisations, less than one in five acknowledged the link. In contrast, research consultancies and university academics commissioned by tobacco companies to facilitate opposition were almost always transparent in reporting that relationship; and yet, active organisations who promoted tobacco industry commissioned research in lobbying correspondence and press releases frequently failed to report its funding source.

Lessons for Policy

Opposition organisations’ high prevalence of financial links with tobacco companies and accompanying low levels of transparency created a misleading impression of diverse and widespread opposition to plain packaging. This opposition posed a risk to plain packaging in the UK and, ultimately, is highly likely to have played a part in delaying implementation of the policy between 2011 and 2016.

Countries which are party to the FCTC should strengthen their implementation of Article 5.3 by systematically requiring conflict of interest declarations from all organisations participating in political debates on tobacco control. This key measure will reduce the opportunity of tobacco companies to use their resource advantage to fund third party opposition to tobacco control policies.

Funding sources for the research

This research was funded by Cancer Research UK and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies.

Table 1 – 82 organisations with financial links to global tobacco companies who contributed to opposing plain packaging in the UK 2011-13

Colour code: Tobacco company members or have received tobacco company donations; Tobacco company clients; Core or campaign funding.

Information on organisations’ lobbying, research, public communications and mass recruitment activities undertaken to oppose plain packaging can be accessed by clicking on the headers of the table.

Alliances Commissioned Experts Third Party Campaigns Tobacco Industry Associations
Intellectual Property Business Associations Research Consultancies Retail and Wholesale Business Associations Tobacco Manufacturing Business Associations
General Business Associations Universities
  • Alan Zimmerman, City University of New York[55]
  • Professor James Heckman, University of Chicago[56]
  • Laurence Steinberg, Temple University Philadelphia[57]
  • Professor Martin Cave, London School of Economics[58]
  • Professor Stephen Nowlis, Washington University[59]
  • Professor Ernesto Savona and Dr Francesco Calderoni at Transcrime[60]
  • Professor Alfred Kuss, University of Berlin[61]
  • Professor Jonathan Klick, University of Pennsylvania and Erasmus University[62]
  • Professor Timothy Devinney, University of Technology, Sydney[63][64]
  • Professor Richard Mizerski, University of Western Australia[65]
  • Professor Daniel Gervais, Vanderbilt University[66]
  • Professor Peggy Chaudhry, Villanova School of Business[55]
  • Professor Ravi Dhar, Yale University[59]
Smokers’ Rights Organisations
Retail and Wholesale Business Associations Public Relations Firms General Rights Organisations
Think Tanks Law firms
  • Bird & Bird LLP[107]
  • Lord Hoffman, Centre for Commercial Law Studies[108]
  • Herbert Smith LLP[109]
  • Lalive[110]
  • Powell Gilbert LLP[111]
Media Companies
  • Asian Media and Marketing Group[112]

TobaccoTactics Resources

TCRG Research

Notes

  1. European Union, The Anti-Counterfeiting Group, EU Transparency Register, 12 February 2015, accessed December 2015
  2. European Union, Philip Morris International Inc, EU Transparency Register, 01/2014-12/2014, accessed June 2015
  3. British Brands Group, Packaging of tobacco products. Response to European Commission consultation – the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC, 3 December 2010, accessed March 2015
  4. Action for Smoking and Health, The smoke filled room: How big tobacco influences health policy in the UK, 2010, accessed January 2014
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 European Union, British American Tobacco, EU Transparency Register, 4 May 2016, accessed July 2016. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6jJZUsejX)
  6. European Union, Philip Morris International Inc., EU Transparency Register, 4 April 2016, accessed July 2016
  7. EU Transparency Register, Philip Morris International Inc, Financial Year 01/2012 - 12/2012, accessed 25 March 2014
  8. Markenverband, Unsere Mitglieder, Markenverband Website, undated, accessed July 2013
  9. MARQUES, Members, undated, accessed August 2013
  10. Centre for Economics and Business Research, Quantification of the economic impact of plain packaging for tobacco products in the UK, March 2013, accessed June 2016
  11. Centre for Economics and Business Research, Quantification of the economic impact of plain packaging for tobacco products in the UK – Addendum to the report for Philip Morris Ltd, August 2013, accessed June 2016
  12. Compass Lexecon, Summary assessment of Plain Tobacco Packaging: a systematic review Annex 2, May 2012, accessed June 2016
  13. Deloitte, Alliance of Australian Retailers: Potential impact on retailers from the introduction of plain tobacco packaging, February 2011
  14. Deloitte, Tobacco packaging regulation: An international assessment of the intended and unintended impacts, May 2011, accessed June 2016
  15. Deloitte, Alliance of Australian Retailers Plain packaging and channel shift, June 2011
  16. Europe Economics, Economic analysis of a display ban and/or a plain packs requirement in the UK, A report for Japan Tobacco International, 2 September 2008, accessed June 2016
  17. Europe Economics, Economic analysis of a plain packs requirement in the UK, A report for Japan Tobacco International, 29 June 2012, accessed June 2016
  18. Keegan & Company LLC, Analysis of Consumer Survey Evidence Relevant to the UK Department of Health Consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control, September 2008, accessed June 2016
  19. Keegan & Company LLC, Analysis of consumer survey evidence relevant to the UK Department consultation on the future of tobacco control – Supplemental Report, June 2009, accessed June 2016
  20. Keegan & Company LLC, Analysis of Consumer Survey Evidence Relevant to DG SANCO’s Proposal to Increase the Size of Health Warnings on Tobacco Packaging, November 2010, accessed June 2016
  21. KPMG, Project Star 2012 Results, April 2013, accessed June 2016
  22. KPMG, Illicit tobacco in Australia – 2013 half year report, October 2013, accessed June 2016
  23. LECG, A critical review of the literature on generic packaging for cigarettes, November 2008, accessed June 2016
  24. LECG, The impact of plain packaging of cigarettes in Australia: A simulation exercise, February 2010, accessed June 2016
  25. LECG, The impact of plain packaging of cigarettes in UK: a simulation exercise, Annex 2, Philip Morris International’s input to the public consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC, November 2010, accessed June 2014
  26. London Economics, The role of packaging imagery on consumer preferences for experience goods: A consumer behavioural experiment, January 2012, accessed June 2016
  27. London Economics, An analysis of smoking prevalence in Australia, Final, November 2013, accessed June 2016
  28. Populus, Cigarette packaging survey, July 2012, accessed June 2016
  29. Populus, UK Plain Packaging Poll - Petrol Retail Association Members, November 2012, accessed June 2016
  30. Populus, Law enforcement survey, May 2014, accessed June 2016
  31. Deputy Chief Executive, National Association of Retired Police Officers, Response to email enquiry regarding funding of Povaddo survey of members, 17 June 2014
  32. Povaddo, National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO) Survey, November 2012, accessed June 2016
  33. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Illegal tobacco – counting the cost of Australia’s black market, February 2012
  34. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, The Tobacco Products Directive: Potential economic impact – potential effects of plain packaging, April 2013
  35. Roy Morgan Research, Impact of Plain Packaging on Small Retailers: Final Report, January 2013
  36. Roy Morgan Research, Impact of Plain Packaging on Small Retailers –Wave 2 Final Report, September 2013, accessed June 2016
  37. R. Darwall, Selecting the evidence to fit the policy: An evaluation of the Department of Health’s consultation on standardised tobacco packaging, January 2013, unavailable online
  38. SKIM Consumer Research, The impact of standardised packaging on the illicit trade in the UK, summarised in SKIM conducted UK study about tobacco buying behavior for Philip Morris International, no date
  39. Visuality and Rural Shops Alliance, The effects of standardised tobacco packaging on retail service in the UK, September 2012
  40. Abbreviated Accounts for WOR Consultancy Limited, Year Ended 31 March 2013
  41. Will O’Reilly, Letter to The Cambs Times, 2 August 2013
  42. D. Campbell, BAT admits bankrolling newsagents' tobacco campaign, The Guardian, 28 April 2011, accessed April 2012
  43. Petrol Retailers Association, Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry: Tobacco Smuggling; Written Evidence submitted by the Petrol Retailers Association, August 2013, accessed May 2014
  44. Tobacco Retailers Alliance website, About the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, 26 October 2015, accessed November 2015
  45. Scottish Wholesale Association, Supplier Members, 4 July 2012, Accessed December 2014
  46. ITPAC response to Scottish Government’s consultation on electronic cigarettes and strengthening tobacco control in Scotland, undated, accessed November 2015
  47. Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, Over 5,500 people are employed in the UK by TMA member companies, TMA website, 24 July 2012, accessed November 2015
  48. 48.0 48.1 Philip Morris, Carbon Disclosure Project, CDP 2012 Investor CDP 2012 Information Request, 2012, accessed July 2016
  49. ICC UK, Council Members, accessed December 2015
  50. National Asian Business Association, Email response to funding inquiry, received 26 August 2014
  51. 51.0 51.1 Altria, Engaging with others, accessed July 2014
  52. National Foreign Trade Council, Board of Directors, 26 February 2013, accessed May 2014
  53. TransAtlantic Business Council, TABD Members, 24 September 2014, accessed July 2015
  54. US Council of International Business, List of USCIB Members, USCIB website, last updated 18 June 2013, accessed 26 June 2013
  55. 55.0 55.1 P. Chaudhry, A. Zimmerman, The Impact of Plain Packaging on the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, June 2012, accessed June 2016
  56. J. Heckman, Report of James J Heckman UK Plain Packaging Consultation Annex 4, August 2012, accessed June 2016
  57. L. Steinberg, Adolescent decision making and the prevention of underage smoking, November 2010, accessed June 2016
  58. M. Cave, ‘Better regulation’ and certain tobacco control measures, November 2010, accessed June 2016
  59. 59.0 59.1 R. Dhar and S. Nowlis, Report on the consumer behaviour and decision-making of cigarette smokers, December 2010, accessed June 2016
  60. E. Savona & F. Calderoni, Transcrime, Plain packaging and illicit trade in the UK, May 2012, accessed June 2013
  61. A. Kuss, Comments concerning Annex 2 “Elicitation of subjective judgements of the impact of smoking of plain packaging policies for tobacco products” of the IA No. 3080 “Standardised packaging for tobacco products”, August 2012, accessed June 2016
  62. J. Klick, Report of Dr Jonathan Klick, Appendix A, June 2012, accessed June 2016
  63. T. Devinney, Analysis of Consumer Research Evidence on the Impact of Plain Packaging for Tobacco Products, November 2010, accessed June 2016
  64. T. Devinney, Analysis of Consumer Research Evidence on the Impact of Plain Packaging for Tobacco Products (Updated to 2012), June 2012, accessed June 2016
  65. R. Mizerski, Plain Cigarette Packaging as a Remedy to Reduce Smoking, June 2011, accessed June 2016
  66. D. Gervais, Analysis of the compatibility of certain tobacco product packaging rules with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention, November 2010, accessed June 2016
  67. Evans, G. 1982. Letter from Geoffrey to Michael Scott regarding new arrangements between Forest and tobacco companies. Bates numbers: 303695982-303695984
  68. Ely, R. 1989. Forest, Bates numbers: 301151283-301151284
  69. Anon, undated, Draft Forest Budget, Bates numbers: 301151360-301151362
  70. S. Millson, Group Head of Corporate Affairs for BAT, Letter to Deborah Arnott, ASH, 20 May 2013
  71. The Tobacco Files -A definitive conclusion to the debate over plain-packaging,
  72. A. Davies, 'Big Tobacco hired public relations firm to lobby government', Sydney Morning Herald, 11 September 2010, accessed November 2013
  73. Association of Convenience Stores, Premier Club, 15 October 2014, accessed July 2016
  74. Retail Motor Industry Associate members, 4 February 2013, accessed November 2015
  75. Petrol Retailers Association, Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry: Tobacco Smuggling; Written Evidence submitted by the Petrol Retailers Association, August 2013, accessed May 2014
  76. Rural Shops Alliance, Partners, 9 September 2014, accessed July 2016
  77. SGF, Standardised packaging of tobacco products. Consultation response from the Scottish Grocers’ Federation, undated, accessed February 2014
  78. Scottish Grocers Federation, Corporate Members, Scottish Grocers Federation website, 22 March 2016, accessed July 2016
  79. Federation of Wholesale Distributors, Associate Members, 26 September 2013, accessed July 2016
  80. Federation of Wholesale Distributors, Supplier Partners, 30 March 2016, accessed July 2016
  81. Action on Smoking and Health Australia, The Tobacco Industry: Who are they?
  82. 82.0 82.1 S. Benson, Tobacco firms fund anti-Labor ad campaign, The Daily Telegraph, 4 August 2010, accessed July 2013
  83. G. Eaton, Questions for Cameron over Lynton Crosby’s links to alcohol and tobacco firms, The Newstatesman, 8 May 2013, accessed June 2013
  84. DDC Advocacy, Overview for know-more.co.uk, Who.is, 3 December 2015
  85. B. Quinn, M. Sweney, Tobacco firm begins ‘stealth-marketing’ campaign against plain packaging, The Guardian, 7 June 2013, accessed July 2016
  86. BAT, correspondence from BAT press relations manager regarding Global Goddard, BAT, and Common Sense Alliance, 26 April 2013, accessed July 2014
  87. UK Department of Health, Re: Letter from Tobacco Programme Manager, UK Department for Health to Mr. M. Evans, Director UK Public Affairs, Goddard Global, 3 April 2013, accessed July 2014
  88. UK Department of Health, Re: Letter from Roy Ramm and Peter Sheridan, 25 March 2013, accessed July 2014
  89. All Media Scotland.com, That Was the Year That Was: John Crawford Director Halogen Communications, 31 December 2013, accessed February 2014
  90. APPC, APPC Register Entry for 1 June 2012 to 31 August 2012
  91. Public Relations Consultants Association, PRCA Public Affairs Register – Agencies – December 2011 to February 2012, March 2012, accessed July 2016
  92. Public Relations Consultants Association, PRCA Public Affairs Register: Agencies – March to May 2012, June 2012, accessed July 2016
  93. S. Clark, Letter to Tobacco Programme Manager in the Department of Health on behalf of Forest, 30th August 2012, FOI release
  94. UK Department of Health, Letter from Peter Sheridan to Tobacco Programme Manager, UK Department for Health, 15 April 2013, accessed July 2014
  95. Taking Liberties, The battle against Big Government – join the debate!, 19 May 2010, accessed July 2016
  96. 96.0 96.1 J. Doward, Health groups dismayed by news 'big tobacco' funded rightwing thinktanks, The Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs received money from cigarette firms, it has been revealed, the Observer, 1 June 2013, accessed June 2013
  97. BAT, Note for the Chairman's Policy Committee, 11 September 1975,
  98. P.J. Ricketts, Note to the Chairman's Policy Committee, 20 June 1979
  99. I. M. Port, Note to Suzanne Fisher, Regarding the Centre for Policy Studies, 22 January 1992
  100. M. Broughton, Note for the Chairman's Policy Committee, 30 May 1990
  101. BAT, BAT Board Meeting, 5 June 1990
  102. Sir Ronald Halstead, Letter to Patrick Sheehy, 16 May 1990
  103. IEDM, Textes d’opinion, 24 January 2004, accessed July 2016
  104. Non-smokers’ Rights Association & Smoking and Health Action Foundation, Exposing recent tobacco industry front groups and alliances, October 2008, accessed July 2016
  105. The Center for Media and Democracy, Reason Foundation, SourceWatch, 1 May 2014, accessed July 2016
  106. The Center for Media and Democracy, Washington Legal Foundation, SourceWatch, 7 January 2016, accessed July 2016
  107. Bird and Bird LLP, Why plain packaging would violate the United Kingdom’s international obligations under trademark law, September 2011
  108. Lord Hoffman, Lord Hoffman Opinion, May 2012, accessed June 2016
  109. Herbert Smith LLP, Information request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Letter to UK Intellectual Property Office, 23 April 2012
  110. Lalive, Why Plain Packaging is in Violation of WTO Members’ International Obligations under TRIPS and the Paris Convention, July 2009, accessed June 2016
  111. Powell Gilbert LLP, Tobacco plain packaging, Email to UK Intellectual Property Office, 13 October 2011
  112. The House, Parliament’s Magazine, Dods, No.1419, Vol 36, 14 June 2012