Cigarettes sold in the Netherlands must now have plain packaging consisting only of the brand name, the type of cigarette (in a specific font) and health warnings.
Current stock can continue being sold for a year, but any new products must have plain packaging.
The Dutch government has indicated that this is to help curb underage smoking, noting that the measure has worked in other countries, such as Belgium, France, Great Britain and Norway.
Cigarette sales have fallen by about 20 million a month in the U.K. since plain packaging rules have been in effect, reports The Guardian, citing a new study.
“The underlying rate of decline in tobacco sales almost doubled after these policies were implemented,” said Anna Gilmore, director of the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG).
Before plain packaging rules were implemented in 2017, cigarette sales were falling by about 12 million a month, according to the TCRG.
“Governments around the world considering plain packaging can be reassured that this policy works and that the real reason the industry opposes this legislation so vehemently is because it threatens its profitability,” said Gilmore. “With coronavirus already posing a threat to tobacco company sales and plain packaging of tobacco taking off in other jurisdictions, our findings are more bad news for tobacco companies.”
The tobacco industry’s net revenue fell 13 percent, from £231 million ($291.9 million) to £198 million a month, after the implementation of the plain packaging rules.
The study was funded by Cancer Research U.K. and the British Heart Foundation.
Cigarette manufacturers operating in Singapore will be required to sell their products in standardized packaging starting July 1, reports The Straits Times.
The new rule, which also mandates enlarged graphic health warnings, will apply to all tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigarillos, cigars, bidis and roll-your-own tobacco products, according to the Ministry of Health (MOH).
Announced on Oct 31, 2018, the measures are intended to encourage smokers to quit and discourage nonsmokers from picking up the habit.
As part of the new regulations, tobacco companies will have to remove from their product packaging all logos, colors, images and promotional information.
The graphic health warnings must cover at least 75 percent of surfaces, up from the current 50 percent.
Non-compliance is punishable with a fine of up to SGD10,000 ($7,171), jail of up to six months, or both, for first-time offenders.
Those with a prior qualifying conviction will face heavier penalties.
The government of Singapore had given tobacco manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers a year to prepare for the new measures.
The Health Sciences Authority also sent letters and e-mails to remind tobacco licensees of the new packaging regulations.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled on Tuesday that Australia’s plain packaging laws are justified, rejecting complaints by Honduras and the Dominican Republic that they are unfair restrictions on trade.
In December 2012, Australia became the first country to require tobacco companies to strip their products of all branding. Cigarettes have since been sold in drab, brown packs with large graphic health warnings but no logos or other distinguishing features. Brand names are printed in generic fonts.
Following the introduction of the measure, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Indonesia—all major tobacco-producing countries—challenged Australia’s measure at the WTO.
The complainants argued that Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act constituted an unjustified barrier to trade, but the WTO panel found Australia’s measures were not more restrictive than was necessary to achieve the public health goal of reducing smoking.
Honduras and the Dominican Republic appealed against the panel’s findings.
The World Health Organization’s (WTO) appellate body said on Tuesday that it had found no errors in the earlier panel’s conclusions and that it rejected the complainants’ request for Australia to change its packaging rules.
Anti-tobacco activists welcomed the WTO verdict. “This ruling is yet another victory for Australia and global health and a resounding defeat for the tobacco industry, which has fiercely fought plain packaging laws,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “This ruling puts to rest any remaining questions about plain packaging under international trade law.”
Myers also suggested that the plaintiffs received technical and financial support from British American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris International to bring their complaints.
The tobacco industry has long argued that plain packaging is an ineffective and disproportionate measure.
“Naturally, we are disappointed with the ultimate findings of the report,” said a spokesperson for BAT, which was not part of the case. “However, it is important to note that decisions from the WTO panel or appellate body do not set a global precedent when it comes to this measure and will only be binding to the parties involved in this dispute.”
BAT also noted that the report is not an endorsement on the effectiveness of plain packaging. “The appellate body actually dismissed the panel’s finding that plain packaging reduced the consumption of tobacco products,” the company wrote in a statement.
Plain packaging is now required in at least 15 countries, and many other governments are in the process of formally considering the policy.
Tuesday’s ruling was the last by the WTO’s appellate body, which serves as a supreme court in international trade disputes but has ceased to function after the United States blocked new appointments. The result is that the Geneva-based WTO can no longer effectively intervene to settle disputes.
The Australian government has not yet published its Post-Implementation Review (PIR) regarding plain-packaging six months after the conclusion of the consultation period.
This delay in publishing has raised concerns about the integrity of the report and caused concerns that its authors could be misrepresenting data or omitting evidence in order to ensure the country’s plain-packaging policy is viewed as a success.
Plain packaging was introduced in Australia in 2012 with an end goal of reducing the nation’s smoking rates. According to the Australian government, the objectives of the plain packaging measure are to reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products to consumers; increase the noticeability and effectiveness of mandated health warnings; reduce the ability of the retail packaging of tobacco products to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking; and to ultimately reduce smoking rates.
In the three years since plain packaging was introduced in Australia, no change to the decline in smoking rates has been shown, according to the latest official data from the Australian government. Without evidence of a decline in smoking rates, supporters of plain packaging are finding it difficult to claim the measures have achieved their goals.
“The Department of Health [DoH] knows that this policy has failed,” said Michiel Reerink, Japan Tobacco International’s (JTI) regulatory strategy vice president. “The objective of the ban on brands was to improve public health by discouraging people from using tobacco products, and reducing their exposure to tobacco smoke. The government’s own data shows that these objectives have not been met.”
The DoH began its review of Australia’s plain packaging earlier this year, at which time it requested information detailing the impact the policy has had since its implementation. The consultation period ended in March. Although government guidelines suggest that PIRs should be published within three to six months after information is gathered, the Australian government has yet to publish this information.
“Tobacco control lobbyists are traveling around the world on taxpayers’ money to convince regulators that plain packaging has been a success in Australia,” said Reerink. “But anyone who looks at the official data can see for themselves: There is no proof that this ban on brands has worked.”
JTI has called for transparency from the Australian government regarding publication of the PIR.
“We urge the Department of Health to publish a complete and transparent review of this policy, without further delay,” says Reerink. “The PIR should be based on all of the evidence, in line with the requirements of the Australian Government’s Office of Best Practice Regulation. Crucially, the results of the plain packaging policy should be measured against its original objectives. Without this report being published soon, people risk being misled by biased reports and analysis on a measure that has done nothing to improve public health.”
Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) have sued the British government over plain-packaging legislation passed in March. The law, which would take effect from May 2016, requires cigarettes to be sold in packages of uniform shape and size that feature only the brand name and contain prominent graphic health warnings. England is the third and most populous country to introduce plain-packaging laws, following Australia and Ireland.
PMI argues that England’s plain-packaging regulations “unlawfully deprive PMI of its trademarks” and should therefore be overturned, according to an article in The New York Times. London-based BAT stated that the British government had left the company “with no other choice” and released a statement saying that “any business that has property taken away from it by the state would inevitably want to challenge and seek compensation.” Japan Tobacco International has also indicated it would challenge England’s legislation. The tobacco companies are seeking unspecified damages, which could total billions of dollars if granted.
A statement released by the English Department of Health said it would “not allow public health policy to be held to ransom by the tobacco industry” and that it “would not have gone ahead with standardized packaging unless we had considered it to be defensible in the courts.”
Ukraine has suspended the legal proceedings it brought against Australia through the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2012, which claimed the country’s plain-packaging laws were trade-restrictive. Instead, the Eastern European nation—which received financial support from British American Tobacco to pursue litigation—has stated it will attempt to seek a mutually agreed-upon solution with Australia to resolve the issue.
Ukraine was the first of five countries to challenge Australia’s plain-packaging laws at the WTO, despite the fact that Ukraine does not currently export tobacco to Australia. The other countries who have launched lawsuits against Australia—Indonesia, Cuba, Honduras and the Dominican Republic—have not announced any plans to drop their lawsuits challenging the strict packaging laws banning company logos and requiring cigarettes to be sold in olive-colored packages with brand names printed in standardized fonts.
According to WTO rules, Ukraine’s suspension could last one year, after which time its right to return to the panel proceedings will lapse. The WTO adjudication panel is expected to rule on the remaining plain-packaging lawsuits in the first half of 2016.
The U.K. House of Lords on March 16 approved a bill requiring cigarettes to be sold in standardized packaging.
The House of Commons on March 11 voted 367 to 113 in favor of the law, which passed through the House of Lords without a vote. Starting in May 2016, cigarettes must be sold in packages of the same shape, size and design, with the only difference between packages being the name of the brand and the graphic health warning displayed on the cartons. The U.K. is the third country to introduce plain-packaging legislation; Ireland introduced a similar bill earlier this month, and Australia implemented plain packaging in 2012.
While various health organizations have championed the legislation in the belief that standardized packaging will render cigarettes less appealing to smokers, particularly minors, tobacco companies—who fear a significant loss of profits once the law is implemented—have threatened legal action against the U.K. government. Opponents of plain packaging also point to the potential uptick in cigarette smuggling and illicit trade that could occur as a result.
Ireland may become the second country to require standardized packaging for cigarettes, reports the Kildare Nationalist.
Health Minister James Reilly announced government approval for his controversial plans, which he hopes to have enacted early next year. Plain packaging made its global debut late last year in Australia.
An Irish retail group cautioned the move would help criminals and fuel cigarette smuggling. Retailers Against Smuggling accused the minister of “not giving a damn” about independent retailers. Tobacco companies claimed plain packaging would do more harm to the economy by making smuggling easier rather than stopping children from taking up the habit.
Reilly said while many arguments will be made against the move, he is confident the legislation will be justified and supported purely by the fact that it will save lives.
Ireland has been at the forefront of tobacco control. It was the world’s first country to enforce a workplace smoking ban, which included pubs and restaurants, in March 2004, and the first EU country to remove all tobacco advertising from retail outlets.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari filed by the tobacco companies challenging the advertising regulations promulgated pursuant to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act.
While the Court’s cert denial allows a previous 6th Circuit decision to stand, the contested rules may never be enforced. The Solicitor General declined to file a writ of certiorari in the D.C. Circuit case and in a letter from U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. noted that the FDA plans to engage in “new rulemaking consistent with the Tobacco Control Act.”
Because the FDA has indicated that it plans to engage in new rulemaking, the tobacco companies have effectively avoided compliance with the stringent new rules.
The tobacco companies made two separate challenges to the rules. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, and Liggett Group, among others, sought an injunction against the enforcement of the new requirements. The U.S. District Court agreed that the “mandatory graphic images unconstitutionally compel speech” and that the tobacco companies would “suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief pending a judicial review of the constitutionality of the FDA’s rules.” The FDA appealed, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
At the same time, another group of tobacco companies filed a facial First Amendment challenge to the rules in their entirety – and got an entirely different result. A federal court judge in Kentucky upheld the rules, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that “the Act’s warnings are reasonably related to the government’s interest in preventing consumer deception and are therefore constitutional.”
The defendants then filed cert with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the justices denied in late April.