The 33pp 'To What Extent Can the UK Defend the Efficacy of Plain Packaging Legislation for Tobacco Products?' by Richard Coates
notes that
The UK Government wants to introduce Australian-style plain cigarette packaging, despite opposition from Big Tobacco. To what extent can the UK defend the efficacy of this plain packaging legislation?
Coates concludes
it appears that the Government has a strong foundation on which it can build a defence
of plain packaging legislation. There is strong empirical evidence for the efficacy of
plain
packaging
legislation,
and
there
is
apparently
sufficient rebuttal
to
the
arguments
against
the
proposals to lead
to
success for their defence. However, there are still three areas of analytical
deficiencies.
Firstly,
the
experimental
evidence
in
favour
of
the
legislation
rests
on
the
shoulders
of
few
studies.
There
are
no
British
studies
providing
evidence
for
the
argument
that
this
will
undermine
the
general
attractiveness
of
smoking,
and
only
the
Thrasher
auction
experiment
provides
empirical
evidence
that
this
will
decrease
demand
for
cigarettes.
On
neither
count
is
there
sufficiently
strong
evidence
to
support
a
complete
defence,
contrary
to
suggestions
by
the
Public
Health
Research
Consortium
(2012),
which
simply
accepts
both
findings.
For
a
defence
to
rest
so
strongly
on
such
a
level
of
investigation
would
be
unadvisable.
Consequently,
further
research
into
the
effects
of
the
legislation,
eliminating
the
flaws
in
the
studies
noted
above,
is
required.
Moreover,
a
greater
focus
on
complementary
policies
is
required,
concerning
those
currently
in
operation,
and
potential
future
supplementary
legislation.
Secondly,
cigarette
manufacturers,
or
anti-‐smoking
campaigns
such
as
ASH,
have
conducted
much
of
the
other
theoretical
modelling.
Independent,
impartial
research
is
required
to
a
much
greater
degree
for
a
clearer
picture
of
the
true
effects
of
the
proposal.
While
academics
such
as
Hammond should be commended
for
their
impartial
work
in
the
modelling
of
smokers’
decisions and
behaviour,
independent
empirical
investigations
into
the
UK
economy
are
still
required.
Finally,
necessity is
a
factor not fully
considered so far.
While
a
conclusion
on
the
question
of
the
necessity
of
this
legislation
would
require
an
examination
of
each
of
the
alternatives
in
equivalent
detail,
some
preliminary
comments
can
be
made.
Given
that
brand
power is the
focus of
the
legislation,
further
advertising
restrictions
are
often
cited
as
a
less-intrusive
alternative.
However,
Wei Tan,
in
his
dynamic
analysis of
tobacco
markets (2004),
explains
that
advertising
is
particularly
ineffective
for cigarettes. He
argues that
the
determinants
of
demand
are
determined independently of
advertising
(see
also
Roberts
& Samuelson, 1988).
Consequently, compared
to
the
level
of
restrictions
imposed,
a corresponding
fall
in
demand will
be
small.
Moreover,
as
firms’
advertising
costs
decrease, they
can
lower prices
without
reducing
their
profits,
which
will
increase demand
for
cigarettes
more
than
the
restrictions
on
advertising
will
decrease it, and so further
advertising
restrictions
are
ineffective.
Malcolm
Gladwell,
writing
on
the
subject
of
the
legislation’s
necessity,
has decried
plain
packaging, instead proposing that
nicotine levels be
limited (Marketing Magazine,
March
2012).
He argues that under this
model,
smokers could never
become
addicted, as they would never reach the addiction
‘tipping
point’.
This should
be
rejected
as
an
alternative,
though, as
it
concentrates
solely on the non-‐cognitive
model of smoking,
and
does
not
engage with the
issues
concerning
branding within
the
cognitive
model.
While
it
might
have
similar
effects
at
reducing
relapse,
it will
do
little
to
actually encourage cessation
(Schneider
et
al. 1981). Moreover,
this is
not a mutually
exclusive alternative.
Martin Lindstrom’s suggestions in
the
same
publication
are
by
contrast
an alternative
to
plain
packaging, but his proposal of
‘random’ packets is
designed to break down brand
power,
has
little
empirical evidence
in
its
support.
Moreover,
the cost
of
enforcing
his
policy
merely
confirms
that
plain
packaging
is
a
better
alternative.
Overall, the
preliminary analysis and investigations compiled so far suggests that
plain packaging legislation will
bring
the
evidential health benefits needed to defend the
proposed
legislation.
However,
facing
big
tobacco,
fighting for
its
rights,
is
formidable,
and further
analysis
and
evidence
is
needed
before
the
Government
can
take
this
bold
step,
and
be
confident
in
its
success.
