Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Funded Third Party Campaigns
This page was last edited on at
-
Plain Packaging in the UK: Tobacco Industry Funded Third Party Campaigns, Tobacco Tactics, updated 04 February 2020, accessed 19 April 2024.
In response to plain packaging proposals in the UK, the tobacco industry utilised the third party technique. It funded third party organisations which conducted anti-plain packaging campaigns on its behalf, commissioned research, expert opinion and public relations activities which supported its position, and built alliances with organisations that lobbied the UK Government and mobilised public opposition to plain packaging proposals.
Campaigns
The following organisations, which are either fully or part-funded by tobacco companies, have conducted coordinated campaigns to mobilise opposition to plain packaging in the UK. Click on the hyperlinked organisations for more detailed information on both the organisation and its activities in opposition of plain packaging.
| Organisation & Campaign | Funder | Activities |
|---|---|---|
| Forest, Hands Off Our Packs (HOOPs) | British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Tobacco (IMT) and Gallaher (A member of the Japan Tobacco Group) provides almost all of Forest’s funding.1 | Submitted a petition of 214,653 signatures to the 2012 UK Consultation on plain packaging and 55,201 standardised postcards. HOOPs campaign staff were accused of falsifying, and using questionable methods to acquire signatures.2 Forest’s anti-plain packaging campaigns were supported by The Free Society,3 an organisation established by Forest to campaign against ‘government interference’.4 Anti-plain packaging opinion pieces were published on their website5 and in Spiked magazine.6 |
| Forest, Say No to Plain Packs | BAT, IMT and Gallaher provides almost all of Forest’s funding.7 | |
| Forest, No, Prime Minister | BAT, IMT and Gallaher provides almost all of Forest’s funding.8 In June 2014, in anticipation of the UK’s second consultation on the policy, Forest launched a 72-hour online advertising drive of the ‘NO, Prime Minister’ campaign across the political advertising network MessageSpace.9 | |
| Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association (TMA), Tobacco Retailers’ Alliance (TRA) ‘No to Plain Packs’ Postcard Campaign | BAT, IMT and Gallaher wholly funds the TMA.10 which wholly owns the TRA.11 BAT provided extra funding for the postcard campaign.12 | ‘No to plain packs’ postcards were distributed to retailers who were then encouraged to submit them to the UK’s 2012 consultation – 26,530 were received by the Department of Health13 and a further 10,001 were received in the second consultation in 2014.14 |
| Petrol Retailers Association (PRA) | Discloses that it has “some tobacco manufacturers/suppliers amongst our wide range of associates and retail members.”15 PMI paid for two Populus surveys of PRA’s members.1617 | Throughout the debate, the PRA mobilised its members in opposition of plain packaging, including asking its members to lobby their MPs and by conducting two PMI-funded polls of its members. These found that, in 2012, 65% of PRA members believed “plain packaging for tobacco products would negatively impact their businesses” increasing to 73% in 2014. PMI’s leaked anti-plain packaging strategy identified the PRA as a third-party media messenger that it planned to utilise.18 |
| Scottish Wholesale Association (SWA), ‘Plain Nonsense’ campaign | BAT, IMT, JTI are members.19 | Submitted 2,865 standardised postcards to the 2012 Consultation in addition to a detailed response. Also submitted a detailed response to the second consultation in the summer of 2014 20 and sent a letter to the Chantler Review of the evidence for plain packaging in January 2014, arguing that plain packaging would increase the illicit tobacco trade.21 |
| National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN) | BAT funded an NFRN campaign against the Point of Sale Display ban in 2011.22 and in its 2012 consultation submission the NFRN said that tobacco companies were members.23 However, in its response to the second consultation in 2014, it claimed complete financial independence from the industry despite working with tobacco companies, the TMA and the TRA,24 and the NFRN’s wholly owned arms-length subsidiary NFRN Commercial Ltd maintaining commercial relationships with tobacco companies amounting to approximately £30,000.25 Following the Government’s January 2015 announcement that it would soon vote on draft regulations the NFRN encouraged retailers to contact their MPs to tell them that the policy would harm their businesses. Furthermore, approximately 70 members of the NFRN attended an anti-plain packaging rally at the House of Commons on 11 February 2015.2627 | |
| The Common Sense Alliance | BAT financially supported the Alliance.28 | The Alliance urged supporters to contact their local MPs to speak out about policies such as plain packaging and provided a link to the ‘Write to them’ webpage. Their tagline was “Common Sense, not Nonsense”. Two of the founding members of the Alliance, ex-senior police officers Peter Sheridan and Roy Ramm sent a letter in opposition of the policy that was discussed in some length at the inquiry on the European Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) held by the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, Health and Education.29 The letter did not disclose the BAT link. |
TobaccoTactics Resources
- Tobacco Company Opposition
- Tobacco Industry Funded Research, Expert Opinion and Public Relations
- Tobacco Industry Built Alliances
- Plain Packaging in the UK
- Lynton Crosby
- Members of UK Parliament Opposed to Plain Packaging
- Countering Industry Arguments against Plain Packaging
TCRG Research
- For summaries of relevant peer-reviewed research, see Tobacco Control Research Group: Evidence on Plain Packaging and Plain Packaging in the UK: TCRG Research on Policy Opposition 2011-2013
- 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. Evans-Reeves, J. Hatchard, A. Gilmore, 2015, Tobacco Control, 24(e2), e168-e177.
- International trade law, plain packaging and tobacco industry political activity: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, G. Fooks, A. 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. Hatchard, G. Fooks, K. Evans-Reeves, S. Ulucanlar, A. 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. Fooks, J. Hatchard, A. Gilmore, 2014, PLOS Medicine, 11(3), e1001629.
- How do corporations use evidence in public health policy making? The case of standardised tobacco packaging, J Hatchard, K. Evans-Reeves, S. Ulucanlar, G. Fooks, A. Gilmore, 2013, Lancet, 382(s3), S42.
