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

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:

• Three quarters of opposition organisations (n=82, listed in Table 1, colour-coded) had financial relationships with one or more of British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) and Philip Morris International (PMI). Ten had core or campaign funding, 30 had tobacco company members or had received tobacco company donations, and 42 had tobacco company clients.

– 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.

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Plain Packaging in the UK
• Tobacco Company Opposition
• Tobacco Industry Built Alliances
• Tobacco Industry Funded Research, Expert Opinion and Public Relations
• Tobacco Industry Funded Third Party Campaigns

TCRG Research

• For a summary of other relevant peer-reviewed research, see : Evidence on Plain Packaging
• Standardised tobacco packaging: a health policy case study of corporate conflict expansion and adaptation, J. L. Hatchard, G. J. Fooks, A. B. Gilmore, BMJ Open 2016;6:e012634 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012634
• ‘It will harm business 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, K. A. Evans-Reeves, J. L. Hatchard, A. B. Gilmore, 2015, Tobacco Control;24(e2):e168-e177
• International trade law, plain packaging and tobacco industry political activity: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, G. J. Fooks, A. B. Gilmore, 2014, Tobacco Control;23(1):e1, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050869
• A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products, J. L. Hatchard, G. J. Fooks, K. A. Evans-Reeves, S. Ulucanlar, A. B. Gilmore, 2014, BMJ Open;4(2):e003757
• Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging, S. Ulucanlar, G. J. Fooks, J. L. Hatchard, A. B. Gilmore, 2014, PLOS Medicine;11(3):e1001629
• How do corporations use evidence in public health policy making? The case of standardised tobacco packaging, J. L. Hatchard, K. A. Evans-Reeves, S. Ulucanlar, G. J. Fooks, A. B. Gilmore, 2013, Lancet;382(s3):S42