Plain Packaging in the UK: Opposition Following January 2015 Announcement

This page was last edited on at

On 21 January 2015, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Jane Ellison announced that the British government would introduce plain packaging regulations before the General Election in May 2015.1
Since the announcement, tobacco companies, their associates and supporters have publicly increased their campaign against plain packaging using arguments that there is no evidence it will work, that it will have detrimental impacts on the illicit tobacco trade and business and that Australian evaluations of the legislation confirm this.

Has Plain Packaging Worked in Australia?

The industry and its supporters routinely claimed that the evidence from Australia is that plain packaging has been a failure since its introduction in December 2011. However evidence suggests otherwise.
Since the introduction of plain packaging legislation in Australia, official statistics in the National Drugs Strategy Household Survey found that smoking prevalence amongst those aged 14 and over continued to decline from 15.1% in 2010 to 12.8% in 2013.2
Furthermore scientific studies have found that with a long-term goal of reducing smoking uptake among young people, the legislation aimed to – and has been successful – in reducing the appeal of tobacco products,34 increasing the noticeability of health warnings and reducing the ability of tobacco packages to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking.5

What Impact has the Legislation had on Illicit Trade?

Australia: Contrary to claims by the tobacco industry, studies evaluating the impact of plain packaging on the illicit tobacco trade have found:67

* No evidence of an increase in use of very cheap brands of cigarettes manufactured by companies based in Asia;

* No evidence of an increase in use of illicit unbranded tobacco.

UK: Furthermore, in the UK, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has concluded in a report detailing its assessment of the potential impact of plain packaging on illicit trade:

“We have seen no evidence to suggest the introduction of standardised packaging will have a significant impact on the overall size of the illicit market or prompt a step-change in the activity of organised crime groups.”8

What Impact has the Legislation Had on Retailers?

Tobacco companies argue that plain packaging will have an adverse effect on retailers, particularly small retailers, not only through legitimate sales lost to the illicit market but also due to increased transaction times and customers defecting to larger stores. However to date, in Australia, there has been:

* No evidence of increased transaction times, other than during the immediate adjustment period following the introduction of the legislation.91011

* No evidence of smokers shifting from purchasing in small independent outlets to purchasing in larger supermarkets.

Please see the Cancer Council Australia’s fact sheet on retailer effects of plain packaging and fact sheet on illicit trade for more detailed information. For critiques of tobacco industry funded reports please visit the Australian Cancer Council Plain Facts website. You can find the full text of the Australian legislation here.

Tobacco Industry Launches Legal Campaign Against UK Government

On Wednesday 11 March 2015, MP’s in The House of Commons voted in favour of standardised packaging (367 for and 113 against). The measure was broadly supported by Labour and Liberal Democrats with opposition coming from Conservative representatives.12 The legislation was subsequently accepted into the House of Lords on 16 March and came into effect on 20 May 2016 alongside the EU Tobacco Products Directive.
On 22 May 2015, Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) filed separate lawsuits challenging the UK law.13 The cases were taken against the UK Government for projected loss of income, breach of intellectual property and violation of UK and European Law.
On 26 May 2015, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) joined the legal battle and filed High Court action on the basis that standardised packaging measures infringed the UK’s obligations under World Trade Organisation rules. 14 Daniel Torreas, Managing Director JTI UK, claimed that “plain packaging will infringe fundamental legal rights without reducing smoking. Despite the lack of evidence that plain packaging works, the Government has decided to proceed and JTI must now protect its rights in the courts.”15 The tobacco companies argued that the legislation breached of intellectual property and violated UK and European Law. Lawyers for the companies drew on legal opinion PMI commissioned from Lord Hoffman, a former senior Appeal Court judge,16 which concluded that banning the use of branding on cigarette packaging altogether could be a breach of trademark law, and that rejecting a company’s right to use an internationally recognised trademark in the UK could be in breach of the principle of free movement of goods within the EU.17
A legal opinion commissioned by ASH concluded that there were no grounds for a legal case under European Law and that tobacco companies therefore would not be entitled to compensation.18 Deborah Arnott, Executive of ASH, said in when discussing the tobacco companies’ legal campaign against plain packaging:

“The tobacco industry knows it has little or no chance of winning but by threatening legal action it is trying to stop the infection spreading to other countries. Standardised plain packaging threatens the profitability of the industry and they are desperate to prevent other countries from following the example set by Australia, the UK and Ireland.”19

A day before the UK and EU legislation was due to come into force the UK High Court and the European Court of Justice both ruled that both were lawful.20
Furthermore, there is extensive research to suggest that plain packaging reduces smoking and has been successful in Australia, where it was introduced in 2012.21 22 23 24 25

Retailers Respond

Image 1: In a piece by the editor of Retail Newsagent Chris Gamm, retailers were encouraged to contact their MPs26

Retail groups such as the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, which lists tobacco companies among its fee-paying members, and tobacco industry front group the Tobacco Retailers Alliance have been very active opponents of tobacco control regulations such as the Point of Sale Display Ban and Plain Packaging.
In 2011, the NFRN was paid by BAT to campaign against the POS display ban – something that both the NFRN and BAT initially denied.
For more information please see National Federation of Retail Newsagents, PMI’s Mobilising Support from Retailers and Philip Morris’ PR Campaign Against the Display Ban.
This opposition continued after the Government’s announcement. In a piece, published on by the editor of Retail Newsagent Chris Gamm, retailers were encouraged to contact their MPs to tell them that plain packaging for tobacco products will harm their businesses. (Image 1)

“Pro and anti-tobacco lobbyists will never agree on the true impact of plain packaging on illicit sales in Australia. But for the government to be playing politics with your livelihood with even the slightest doubt about the harmful consequences is wrong.”

“That is why it is crucial that you use the timing of the announcement to your advantage. Your MP will be working hard to get votes over the coming months. Invite them to your store, tell them about the impact plain packaging would have on your business and show them everything you are already doing to be a responsible retailer.”

Image 2: NFRN members at Westminster rally against plain packaging 11 February 2015

Approximately 70 members of the NFRN attended a rally at the House of Commons on Wednesday 11th February 2015. (Image 2) The NFRN met with MPs Nick de Bois and Gerry Sutcliffe to discuss the issue.
During the rally, NFRN president Martyn Brown once again urged retailers to lobby their MPs.27

“Make your MP aware that plain packs will not stop young people from smoking,” he told fellow retailers. “Remind them that counterfeit cigarettes are already a huge and growing problem and that putting tobacco products into plain packs will make this even worse.

“Put pen to paper and write to your MP. Even better, invite your MP to your shop. Talk to your customers and get them to tell your MPs that they don’t want plain packs either.

“Doing so will mean that together we can send clear messages to the government: that consumers are opposed to plain packs, that plain packs will not prevent people from smoking, that the sale of illicit tobacco will just get easier.

In retail outlets across the country the NFRN placed postcards with misleading images of white plain packs and suggesting that plain packaging legislation will lead to increases in illicit trade, organised crime and terrorism, loss of tax revenue and more children smoking. On the back of the postcards the NFRN encourages people to send them to Chancellor George Osborne (click on thumbnails to enlarge images 3-7). Each postcard back had slightly different text relating to the different images on the front.

File:Red.jpgImage 3: NFRN postcard: Illicit traders sell to children
File:Blue.jpgImage 4: NFRN postcard: Plain packaging makes counterfeiting easier
File:Green.jpgImage 5: NFRN postcard: Illicit trade funds organised crime
File:grey.jpgImage 6: NFRN postcard: Loss of tax revenue to illicit trade
File:Back.jpgImage 7: NFRN postcard back: Each postcard was addressed to Chancellor George Osborne

The Tobacco Retailers Alliance national spokesman Suleman Khonat also issued a statement following the January announcement:

“This announcement is a hammer blow to the tens of thousands of small retailers across the country. We are already dealing with the negatives impact of measures such as the display ban but the evidence from Australia shows that plain packaging has led to an increase in smuggled and illicit tobacco. This will damage the incomes of legitimate businesses and make it easier for children to buy tobacco off street corners. Organised criminals don’t care who they sell to or how old they are. The government needs to rethink this decision if it cares about the future of local retailers and the communities they serve.”28

In contrast, a Cancer Research UK report published in March 2015, in which 62 retailers were interviewed, revealed that although 81% of retailers believed that tobacco sales were essential to footfall in their stores, 94% acknowledged that the profit margins on tobacco products were low.29

Police Officers respond

Will O’Reilly

O’Reilly is a former Detective Chief Inspector with the Metropolitan Police and a paid consultant for PMI conducting “research” and acting as an industry spokesman on the illicit tobacco trade.
Since 2011, O’Reilly has had stories scaremongering on illicit trade all over the UK, claiming that his research shows that the illicit trade in tobacco products is already on the increase and that plain packaging will make this worse.
He is known to have lobbied against plain packaging on behalf of PMI in England, Scotland, Ireland and New Zealand. In many of the media stories, O’Reilly describes test purchasing of illicit cigarettes in regional locations across the UK and has also been quoted in articles describing Trading Standards seizures.
Since the January 2015 announcement, these such stories continued to appear in the UK regional press. This list of regional media coverage is illustrative of the coverage.30313233 Many more articles have been published.

Ex-Police’s Letter to the Telegraph

On 9 February 2015 The Telegraph published a letter co-signed by 16 former police officers.3435 At least one of these officers has been associated with a tobacco company. Roy Ramm was a founding member of The Common Sense Alliance which received financial support from BAT.36
For a full list of signatories – please see the full text of the letter.

Tobacco Front Groups, Think-Tanks and Other Third-Parties Respond

Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association

The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA) is the trade association for BAT, Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher (owned by JTI).37
As the mouthpiece of the industry, the TMA is vehemently opposed to plain packaging.

“We are very disappointed with the government’s decision. The evidence from Australia clearly shows that plain packaging doesn’t work, so why are they looking to move ahead with it? We hope that when it comes to the vote, MPs will realise that this is simply a flawed policy and vote no to plain packaging. Dogma has got in the way of sensible, evidence-based policy making.”38

Most recently the TMA has come under fire for lobbying Local Authorities during the plain packaging debate period in an attempt to engage with them over the illicit tobacco trade.


In the 24 hours following the announcement, tobacco industry front group Forest’s director and non-smoker Simon Clark conducted no fewer than 22 radio, 3 TV interviews, 2 Skype interviews and featured in a number of news bulletins.39 Forest is funded by BAT, Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher Limited, which is part of JTI.
During these broadcasts Clark restated over and over again that “there is no evidence” that plain packaging will work to reduce smoking and that the policy will play into the hands of counterfeiters. He also argued that the policy patronises the consumer and stressed that consumers’ food and drink products will be next.

Forest’s Industry Links Not Disclosed on BBC Television Broadcasts

Despite facing some tough questioning on his views about plain packaging, it was not disclosed in the BBC television interviews that Forest is funded by tobacco companies. Instead, in each interview Clark is introduced simply as “from pro-smoking campaign group, Forest.” For example:

BBC Breakfast, January 22, 2015

Newsreader Charlie Stayt: “Tobacco companies say they are very disappointed by this announcement. To discuss it now Simon Clark is here from pro-smoking campaign group Forest. A very good morning to you. Could you just establish one or two things from the outset? Will the industry challenge this in any legal sense?”

Clark: “Ah well, I can’t speak for the industry but I certainly hope they would challenge it…”

In this instance, Clark was able to distance himself from tobacco companies without challenge. To the naïve viewer, it creates a false sense of distance between Clark and tobacco companies. The BBC has been challenged previously for failing to adequately disclose conflicts of interest of the individuals that they broadcast.4041

BBC News Channel January 22, 2015

Newsreader Simon McCoy: “Tobacco companies say they are very disappointed. To discuss this we are joined by Simon Clark from the pro-smoking campaign group Forest.”

In this particular interview the newsreader probes Clark about industry links, however, Clark denies that he is working for the tobacco industry.

Newsreader Simon McCoy: “…Why object unless, you’re working for the tobacco companies who are in it for profit and this is about making money, nothing else…”

Clark: “Well I’m not working for the tobacco industry and as I’ve already said, the reason we object to it is because it’s not based on evidence and we’re against the denormalisation of smoking.”

Daily Politics (BBC2), January 22, 2015

Daily Politics host: “Simon Clark from the pro-smoking campaign group called Forest thinks the idea will play into the hands of criminals and won’t discourage children to take up smoking sic.”

In the same broadcast the UK Independence Party (UKIP) were ousted by the host for accepting a £25,000 donation from e-cigarette company ‘Totally Wicked’, yet Forest’s relationship with the tobacco industry was not disclosed.

Forest Claims 99% are Opposed to Plain Packs

Image 8: Forest’s ‘no to plain packs’ website in the weeks prior to the 11 March 2015 House of Commons vote on plain packaging

In comparison to the 665,989 campaign responses received by the Department of Health in its first consultation on plain packaging in 2012, 136, 404 campaign responses were received in the 2014 consultation.
Simon Clark stated that 99% of these responses were opposed to plain packaging.42 The summary report of the 2014 consultation reveals that Forest’s own campaign achieved 123,269 responses in the form of petition signatures, standardised emails and letters. During the second consultation no public health campaigns were conducted and therefore the opinion polls are heavily skewed.
In both its 2012 and 2014 consultation summary report the Department of Health stated that each consultation:

“… was not intended, or designed to elicit representative samples of public opinion. Instead it sought information, comments and views on the consultations questions, draft regulations, impact assessment and equality analysis.”43

Furthermore, a January 2015 survey of over 1,800 adults across Great Britain suggested that 72% of the UK public are actually in favour of plain packaging with only 15% against.44

“Last Chance Saloon”

Ahead of the Commons vote on plain packaging on 11 March 2015, Forest promoted its “No to Plain Packs” campaign, rebranding it as “the last chance saloon”. (Image 8) As in previous iterations of this campaign, Forest once again encouraged readers to write to their MPs in a last ditch attempt to thwart plain packaging legislation.

Institute of Economic Affairs

Christopher Snowdon

Institute of Economic Affair’s Christopher Snowdon reacts to the plain packaging announcement on 21 January 2015
Snowdon is a Research Fellow at the right-wing think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs

and author of libertarian blog Velvet Glove, Iron Fist who also appeared in the media the day after the Government’s January announcement. He appeared on Five Live Breakfast, the Today programme on Radio 4,45 published a self-penned an article in The Telegraph and Spiked, and his opinion statement (see image) published on the IEA’s website on the evening of the vote was cited in numerous press articles.464748 In his statement, Snowdon advertised that he was available for media comment (see image 9).
In The Telegraph, Snowdon repeated the industry arguments that plain packaging in Australia has failed to work and that illicit trade has increased dramatically: “there has been a sharp increase in contraband tobacco in Australia since plain packaging was introduced.”49 Nowhere in the article does is disclose that Christopher Snowdon worked for the IEA or that the IEA accepts tobacco industry funds.

Mark Littlewood

Littlewood is Director General of the IEA. Speaking at an event hosted by Parliament Street, Liberal Vision and Forest on 4 March 2015, Littlewood ridiculed the government’s plans to introduce plain packaging.

Other Third-Parties

Erik Bloomquist

Bloomquist is an equity analyst at Berenberg bank. He produced a report called Global tobacco: The plain risk to global tobacco in 2011. The report credited tobacco industry consultant John Luik for his assistance. Plagiarism software revealed that Bloomquist’s report replicated 73% of a report called Erasing Intellectual Property by Luik and Patrick Basham. Bloomquist’s report is therefore regarded as inextricably linked to the tobacco industry.50
Following the announcement Bloomquist was quoted in the media promoting the slippery slope argument that other industries will be next.

“I think it’s highly likely that plain packaging extends into other categories, especially alcohol and junk food. By the time tobacco plain packaging is established, it will be too late for the others to push back as the precedent will be set.”51

Scottish Grocers’ Federation

The SGF receives 9.7% of its total income from BAT, Imperial Tobacco and PMI and has been very active in opposition to plain packaging proposals. Following the announcement, Public Affairs manager John Lee said “Retailers are angry about the severe penalties outlined in the draft legislation of up to two years imprisonment. More and more this is appearing to be a sham consultation process with a business impact assessment that was not fit for purpose and an outcome that was pre-determined. The UK government seems to have caved into political pressure and the impact on retailers and the illicit trade could be severe.” 52

Broader Context


On 3 March 2015, Ireland became the first country in the EU to legislate for the plain packaging of tobacco products, making it only the second country in the world thus far to introduce such legislation.53
Speaking at the vote Senator Paschal Mooney praised the legislation and commented on the opposition of the tobacco industry:

“I want to compliment the Minister on holding fast and being resolute against very stiff opposition from the tobacco industry…. I want to put on record a couple of the tactics that are being used by the tobacco industry, which most recently, shamefacedly, attempted to intimidate the Minister and this Government by threatening legal action. This is nothing new.”54

Senator David Norris echoed this sentiment:

“I welcome the Bill but I also utterly condemn attempts by sections of the tobacco industry to challenge the right of this national Parliament to pass legislation. It is a monstrous and impertinent intrusion into the proper working of democracy and those people should be thoroughly ashamed. The legal representation aspect is tricky as some of the people involved have had interactions with the State of one kind or another and the advice has not always been terribly good or in the State’s interest. The Minister will have to take the Attorney General’s advice on this, as lawyers are simply guns for hire. That is the way the law works in our system, and they have to be allowed ply for their trade.”

Commenting on the concerns that illicit trade may increase as a result of the legislation, Senator John Crown stated:

“I am not even a little concerned about an increase in illegal sales. People who study this know that most of the product which is sold illegally is product that is manufactured legally. It is the companies’ product, not some type of counterfeit, knock-off product. All of this craw-thumping, hypocritical breast beating we are hearing from the companies on the issue of smuggling does not resonate true. The reality is that they love smuggling…because the smuggled product is cheap and it is a cheaper way to hook children on cigarettes. They will do anything to make cheaper product available. When we see the internecine webs of convoluted and highly implausible sales routes that have been plotted by the major companies through tiny countries, where cigarettes are being imported in such numbers that it would suggest every citizen down to the lowliest newborn baby is smoking several packs a day, to justify the fact that they are being shunted on to other larger markets via illegal, illicit and smuggling routes, we realise that this is a spurious argument.”

TobaccoTactics Resources

TCRG Research

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Hansard, Standardised Packaging (Tobacco Products), House of Commons Debates, 21 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Drugs Strategy Household Survey 2013, July 2014, accessed March 2015
  3. M. A. Wakefield, L. Hayes, S. Durkin et al, Introduction effects of the Australian plain packaging policy on adult smokers: a cross-sectional study, BMJ Open, 2013; 3(7):e003175
  4. S. M. Dunlop, T. Dobbins, J. M. Young et al, Impact of Australia’s introduction of tobacco plain packs on adult smokers’ pack-related perceptions and responses: Results from a continuous tracking survey, BMJ Open, 2014; 4(12):e005836
  5. H. H. Yong, R. Borland, D. Hammond et al, Smokers’ reactions to the new larger health warning labels on plain cigarette packs in Australia: Findings from the ITC Australia project, Tobacco Control, 2015; DOI:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051979
  6. M. Scollo, M. Zacher, S. Durkin et al. Early evidence about the predicted unintended consequences of standardised packaging of tobacco products in Australia: a cross-sectional study of the place of purchase, regular brands and use of illicit tobacco. BMJ Open, 2014; 4(8): e005873
  7. M. Scollo, M. Bayly, M. Wakefield. Availability of illicit tobacco in small retail outlets before and after the implementation of Australian plain packaging legislation. Tobacco Control, 2014: doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051353
  8. HM Revenue & Customs, The introduction of standardised packaging for tobacco: HMRC’s assessment of the potential impact on the illicit market, Risk and Intelligence Service Analysis & Information, accessed February 2015
  9. O. Carter, M. Welch, B. Mills et al. Plain packaging for cigarettes improves retail transaction times. BMJ, 2013;346:f1063
  10. M. Wakefield, M. Bayly, M. Scollo. Product retrieval time in small tobacco retail outlets before and after the Australian plain packaging policy: real-world study. Tobacco Control, 2014; 23(1):70-6
  11. M. Bayly, M. Scollo, M. Wakefield. No lasting effects of plain packaging on cigarette pack retrieval time in small Australian retail outlets. Tobacco Control, 2014; 24(e1):e108-9
  12. F. Perraudin, MPs pass legislation to introduce standardised cigarette packaging, The Guardian, 11 March 2015, accessed June 2015
  13. P. Evans, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco Challenges U.K. Cigarette-Packaging Order, The Wall Street Journal, 22 May 2015, accessed 29 May 2015
  14. T. Corbin, Anti-plain pack legal action grows as JTI files suit, Packaging News, 27 May 2015, accessed 29 May 2015
  15. A. Don, JTI to challenge tobacco plain packaging in the High Court The Grocer , 27 May 2015, accessed 29 May 2015
  16. J. Bingham, Tobacco companies prepare multi-billion compensation claims over UK plain packaging, The Telegraph, 21 May 2015, accessed 29 May 2015
  17. G. West, Tobacco giants file High Court action claiming plain packaging goes “too far”, The Drum, 24 May 2015, accessed 29 May 2015
  18. A. Alemanno, A. Garde, Legal opinion on the Compatibility of the UK proposals to introduce standardised packaging on tobacco products with the EU Tobacco Products Directive, Legal opinion Commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health, 9 March 2015, accessed March 2015
  19. D. Arnott, ASH response to PMI’s legal challenge on standardised tobacco packaging, 22 May 2015,accessed June 2015
  20. ASH, Standardised Tobacco Packaging, May 2016, accessed July 2016
  21. Canadian Cancer Society, Cigarette package health warnings: International status report, September 2014
  22. Cancer Council Victoria, What makes an effective health warning, accessed June 2015
  23. V. Parr, P. Ell, K. Gagg, GfK Bluemoon, Market testing of potential health warnings and information messages for tobacco product packaging: Phase 2 front and back of pack graphic health warnings, March 2011, accessed June 2015
  24. J. Cantrell et al, Impact of Tobacco-Related Health Warning Labels across Socioeconomic, Race and Ethnic Groups: Results from a Randomized Web-Based Experiment, PLOS One, 14 January 2013, accessed June 2015
  25. V. White, T. Williams, M. Wakefield, Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands?, Tobacco Control 2015;24:ii42–ii49, 13 January 2015, accessed June 2015
  26. C. Gamm, Plain packaging: it’s time to get your MP involved,, 29 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  27. J. Lenane, NFRN members rally against plain packaging in Westminster, NFRN Online, 20 February 2015, accessed February 2015
  28. S. Khonat, Government takes decision to move ahead with plain packaging for tobacco products, Tobacco Retailers Alliance homepage, 22 January 2015, accessed March 2015
  29. R. Calder, S. Hitchman, C. Rooke, A. McNeill. Closing the doors on tobacco promotion: An assessment of small retailer preparations for tobacco point of sale display removal and longer-term tobacco disinvestment. March 2015. A report commissioned by Cancer Research UK
  30. J. Cree, Sniffer dogs discover large amounts of illegal tobacco in Lancashire raids, Lancashire Telegraph, 2 March 2015, accessed March 2015
  31. C. Holland, Use of bootleg cigarettes doubles in Bradford, campaigners claim, Telegraph & Argus, 20 February accessed March 2015
  32. N. Horner, Illegal cigarettes ‘rife’ in Sutton Coldfield funding terrorism and organised crime, Sutton Coldfield Observer, 21 February 2015, accessed March 2015
  33. One in five cigs smoked in Hartlepool either illegal or bought outside the UK, Hartlepool Mail, 13 February 2015, accessed March 2015
  34. I. Johnston, C. Bird, D. Wilson, et al, Counterfeit cigarettes, Letters, The Telegraph, 9 February 2015, accessed February 2015
  35. C. Hope, Police could struggle to cope with counterfeit cigarettes, warn ex-cops, The Telegraph, 9 February 2015, accessed February 2015
  36. Internet Archive Way Back Machine, Cached 15 August 2014, accessed January 2015
  37. TMA, About us, no date, accessed March 2015
  38. P. Stockhall, TMA responds to plain packaging decision, Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, 22 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  39. S. Clark, The longest day: Speaking to the media on plain packaging, Taking Liberties blog, 23 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  40. A. B. Gilmore, J. Britton, M. Mckee. BBC must ensure commentators’ tobacco industry links are made public. The Lancet, 2014:383(9921):952-3
  41. G. Monbiot. Three commentaries in The Guardian published 29 November 2013,12 December 2013 and 17 March 2014
  42. Forest, Stop the nonsense say critics of plain packaging, News and comment, 4 March 2015, accessed March 2015
  43. Tobacco Programme, Public & International Health Directorate, Consultation on the introduction of regulations for standardised packaging of tobacco products: Summary report, Department of Health, February 2015, accessed March 2015
  44. CRUK, Cancer Research UK welcomes Government action on standardised cig packs with voter support at a high of nearly three quarters, Press Release, 21 January 2015, accessed March 2015
  45. Today Programme, Christopher Snowdon interview: start at 01:22:05, BBC Radio 4, 22 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  46. M. Price, Enforcing of standardised tobacco packaging takes encouraging step, Manchester Evening News, 22 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  47. Cigarettes likely to be sold in plain packs from May 2016, Standard Reporter, 22 January 2015, accessed March 2015
  48. J. Chapman, Plain cigarette packet law to be passed BEFORE the election to stop new generation of smokers, Daily Mail, 21 January 2015, accessed March 2015
  49. C. Snowdon, All the plain packaging lobby really wants is to hear tobacco companies squeal, The Telegraph, 22 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  50. K. A. Evans-Reeves, J. L. Hatchard, A. B. Gilmore, ‘It will harm businesses and increase illicit trade’: an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012, Tobacco Control, 2014: DOI:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051930
  51. M. Boyle, Junk food and booze could follow tobacco in plain pack push,, 23 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  52. Talking Retail, Plain cigarette packaging proposals: Industry response, 22 January 2015, accessed February 2015
  53. H. McDonald, Ireland passes plain packaging bill for cigarettes, The Guardian, 3 March 2015, accessed March 2015
  54. Senator Paschal Mooney, Speaking in the Seanad. Public Health (Standardised Packaging of Tobacco) Bill 2014:(Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil) Report and final stages, Oireachtas debates, 3 March 2015, accessed March 2015