Plain packaging ineffective? A study invalidated by research

While an Australian study published in September questions the effectiveness of plain packaging[1], public health researchers[2] are stepping up to highlight serious methodological flaws in its design. The weakness of the data on which the study is based invalidates its conclusions[3].

Alleged perverse effects

The study, published by James Cook University, seeks to demonstrate that the introduction of plain packaging in Australia has had a counterproductive effect: not only have smokers switched to cheaper brands, but they have also increased their consumption. In reality, the study, by failing to take into account the price variable, contains a fundamental bias.

A "flawed" study according to researchers

The paper compares smoking rates in Australia and New Zealand between 2002 and 2017, using 2012 as the baseline, when plain packaging came into effect in Australia. According to the study, comparing changes in tobacco consumption from 2012 onwards suggests that plain packaging may be ineffective.

However, the situation in the two countries is fundamentally different. Starting in 2011, New Zealand began implementing a tax increase of 10% on packs. Australia, on the other hand, waited until 2017 before implementing these increases (12.5% per year). However, tax increases are the most important variable in reducing tobacco consumption among a population.

Omission of central variables

Thus, plain packaging cannot be blamed for the mixed smoking results in Australia, but rather the lack of a voluntary tax policy. Furthermore, the researchers explain these results by a significant drop in spending on tobacco control. Indeed, government spending in Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria fell from $36 million in 2010-2011 to $7.1 million in 2017-2018, according to a report by Public Health Research & Practice.

The interest of the neutral package

Finally, it is necessary to mention that the primary objectives of plain packaging are not to reduce tobacco consumption, but are indirect. The aim is to break the aesthetics of the packaging, which is considered by cigarette manufacturers as an advertising showcase. It then allows for better highlighting of health warnings, and to prevent manufacturers from suggesting that certain products are less harmful than others, by adding misleading adjectives, such as light cigarettes, for example. Plain packaging therefore helps reduce the attractiveness of smoking to young people. Based on these elements, the evaluation was actually positive. These elements remind us that the fight against smoking is part of the perspective of coordinated, mutually reinforcing measures, requiring coherence and consistency in public policies.