to plain packaging and other packaging
reformsTobacco companies have strongly opposed proposals for plain packaging, and have adopted a strategy of focusing their concerns on intellectual property issues.
(The response of the trade journal "Tobacco Journal International" in April 2008 (shown above) is a colourful illustration of the industry's response.
See also Tobacco Control Supersite for more industry response as well as ASH Australia's site.
Industry web-sites against plain packaging.
Industry web-sites against plain packaging
Industry commissioned research:
Japan Tobacco
Analysis of Consumer
Research Evidence on the Impact of Plain Packaging for Tobacco
Products Prepared by:
Professor Timothy M. Devinney
November 2010
Philip Morris International
A critical review of the literature on generic packaging for
cigarettes
De Jorge Padilla and Dr. Nadine Watson
2008
Update - 2010
The impact of plain packaging of cigarettes in UK: a simulation
exercise
Jorge Padilla, November 2010
The Impact of plain packaging of cigarettes in Australia: a
simulation exercise
Jorge Padilla, February 2010
Australian companies: British American Tobacco Australia Ltd, Philip Morris Limited, Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited. AT, Philip Morris International
Illicit trade of tobacco in Australia: February 2011February 2011
British American Tobacco
Tobacco
packaging regulation. An international assessment sof the intended
and unintended impacts
Deloitte. 2011
Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2010
Review of industry arguments against plain packaging
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
Packaging phoney intellectual property claims. How multinational
tobacco companies colluded to use trade and intellectual property
arguments they knew were phoney to oppose plain packaging and larger
health warnings.
Canada/International
Length: 48 pages
Related Website: www.smoke-free.ca
Response to Australian Senator Fielding's proposed law
The Australian Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has posted submissions from all parties. Link to their web-site by clicking here
Response
to Plain Packaging Proposal in the United Kingdom - 2008
United Kingdom Department of Health. Consultation on the future of tobacco control
Submissions to the consultation from health community can be found on web-site of ASH UK
Industry submissions
- Philip Morris Limited’s Response
- British Brands Group
- Anti Counterfeiting group
- Imperial Tobacco Group
- British American Tobacco
- JTI submissions. Main; Expert-Keegan; Europe Economics
Response
to Plain Packaging Proposal in Australia - 2008 - 2011
The proposal:
Australian Preventive Health Taskforce:
Tobacco Control in Australia. Making Smoking History.
Australia
Length: 79 Pages
Related web-site: www.preventativehealth.org.au
The 2008 response:
- A complete set of responses can be found on the web-site of the preventive health task force
Industry Responses:
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Law Society of New South Wales
- Imperial Tobacco
- Philip Morris
- International Trade Mark Association
The 2011 response to the exposure draft and consultation paper on non-cigarette tobacco
- A complete set of responses can be found on Australia's consultation page
Industry and industry-friendly responses
- Philip Morris (List of Annexures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
- British American Tobacco (and related to non-cigarette tobacco)
- Imperial Tobacco Australia (and annexure) (and related to non-cigarette tobacco)
- Japan Tobacco
- International Chamber of Commerce
- International Trademark Association
- Institute of Patent and Trade mark Attorneys of Australia
- International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property
- Inter American Association of Intellectual Property
- Institute for Policy Innovation
- Democracy Institute (John Luik) (attachment)
- Emergency Committee for American Trade
- Economie Suisse
- Filtrona
- Marques
- ABPI (Brazil Intellectual Property Association )
- National Foreign Trade Council
- USA Chamber of Commerce
- Government of Nicaragua
- Government of Cuba
International health support
Response to Plain Packaging Proposal in Canada - 1994
The proposal:
Standing Committee on Health Terms of Reference:
- 1. To receive evidence and otherwise examine: a) the effectiveness of plain packaging of tobacco products In reducing both tobacco consumption and smuggling : b) the legal considerations related to plain packaging .
- 2. To report on the findings of the enquiry and to make recommendations to the federal government.
The response:
-
Background on the Plain Packaging Debate in Canada
Explanation by Purdy Crawford, the CEO of BAT's Canadian subsidiary, IMASCO/Imperial Tobacco, to BAT senior management of the strategy used to forestall plain packaging in Canada.
souce: Legacy Documents.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rer90a99 - Brief from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council, May 1994 to the Standing Committee on Health
- International Chamber of Commerce - Letter to Canadian Minister of Industry September 1994
- International Trademark Association submission to Standing Committee - after prodding by British America Tobacco and its Canadian subsidiary.
- British American Tobacco letter to Committee asserting that plain packaging is an infringement of the TRIPS treaty.
- Carla Hills opinion, on behalf of Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds that plain packaging is an infringement of international treaties
- Philip Morris letter suggesting economic retaliation for plain packaging.
- Canadian Bar Association National Intellectual Property Section submission to Standing Committee.
Response to Plain Packaging Proposal in New Zealand - 1993/94
The proposal:
- New Zealand
Public Health Commission. “Smokefree New Zealand 2000”
Source: Legacy Documents. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xzf00a99
The response