Plain packs proposal under fire
The public consultations on standardized tobacco packaging announced by Canada’s Health Minister Jane Philpott should focus on the factual evidence regarding the effectiveness of such a regulation on smoking rates, according to the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI).
And so far, the MEI said in a press note issued through CNW, the numerous studies of its effectiveness were inconclusive.
‘Plain packaging consists of covering a pack of cigarettes with a health warning (which now occupies 75 percent of the surface of packages in Canada), excluding any distinctive brand colours, as well as any logo or other design elements associated with the brand,’ the note said. ‘The measure is controversial to say the least, since … [it] goes far beyond any regulations authorized to date for a legal product.’
The MEI said that supporters of such packaging often cited the example of Australia, which, in late 2012, became the first country to adopt such a measure. Yet three years later, the data on tobacco consumption were hardly conclusive.
“The only thing that can be said is that the debate over the effectiveness of plain packaging has not been settled,” said Youri Chassin, research director at the MEI and author of a forthcoming research paper on the topic. “It would be hazardous to rely on the Australian experience in order to implement such a policy here.”
The MEI said the Australian government argued that standardized packaging, combined with other measures, had been responsible for a drop of half a percentage point in smoking prevalence three years after the adoption of the measure. ‘On the other hand, the data show that no statistically significant drop in the proportion of smokers had occurred in any of the five Australian states one year after the implementation of plain packaging,’ the note said. ‘This proportion even increased in four of the five states. Other data indicate an increase in contraband tobacco.
‘Also, economically and legally, plain packaging attacks the basic rights of companies and their shareholders, such as intellectual property, by removing all control over the appearance of their products. It can therefore be seen as abusive expropriation potentially entailing requests for financial compensation.’
“It sets a dangerous precedent authorizing the expropriation of a key asset without financial compensation for corporate citizens whose activities are legal, simply because they are not in the good graces of the government or of public opinion,” said Chassin.
Meanwhile, MEI’s vice president, Jasmin Guénette, said the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of standardized packaging supporters, and that a regulation of such magnitude should be implemented in Canada only if its effectiveness had been clearly demonstrated. “In the meantime, the government should refrain from intervening and let Canadians decide for themselves,” said Guénette.
