Preventing plain packaging: a look back at the UK industry's failure

Plain packaging was introduced in the United Kingdom in 2017, and applies to manufactured cigarettes and rolling tobacco. It imposes a standardisation of the packet in terms of its shape, colour, the text affixed to it, the font, and a minimum quantity of tobacco.

While the possibility of plain packaging was first mooted in the UK in 2008, it would take nine years for the idea to come to fruition. The University of Bath looks back at the implementation of this public health policy[1].

First step: denounce the perverse effects of the measure

In the time between the idea of plain packaging and its implementation in the UK, the tobacco industry sought to disseminate a number of arguments aimed at dissuading the public authorities from adopting this measure. According to the tobacco companies, plain packaging, while having no effect on public health, would lead to a multitude of perverse effects: an increase in illicit trade, an increase in organised crime, or even a worsening of the situation of tobacco retailers. However, no independent evidence has been able to corroborate the relevance of this dystopian picture. Moreover, as the researchers from the University of Bath point out, while many studies were financially linked to at least one tobacco company, a large majority of these conflicts of interest were not declared.

Step two: challenge the legality of plain packaging

In March 2015, MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of plain packaging, by 367 votes to 113. However, two months later, Philip Morris International (PMI) and British American Tobacco (BAT) filed appeals against this political decision. The two companies cited the risk of loss of revenue, infringement of intellectual property rights of the brands, as well as the violation of British and European legislation. A few days later, Japan Tobacco International (JTI) also appealed to the High Court, stressing that plain packaging would constitute a violation of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. However, since these challenges were all rejected by the British courts, plain packaging came into force on 20 May 2016.

Step three, save time

Tobacco manufacturers were given a one-year transition period to prepare for the introduction of plain packaging. The University of Bath shows that tobacco companies were very active in promoting their products. In particular, the tobacco industry continued to advertise cigarettes and rolling tobacco in retailer magazines. It also focused on its product ranges not covered by the new regulations, such as cigarillos and rolling papers. Finally, non-standardised packets remained on retailers' shelves for as long as the legislation allowed: the tobacco industry offered financial incentives to retailers to stock up on the old packets.

Step four, bypass the measure

With UK regulations banning the use of misleading terms, such as "light" cigarettes, the tobacco industry has changed the names of its products. These new brand descriptors However, still tend to mislead the consumer. Indeed, indirectly, the terms "White", "Red", "Premium" or "Robust" carry images that can alter the consumer's perception, particularly regarding the health risks of their consumption. Some tobacco manufacturers, such as PMI, have finally circumvented the neutral packaging measure by creating ranges of cigarette packets with beveled edges and a special closing device, aimed at giving a more luxurious image to their products.

How to adopt plain packaging: researchers' recommendations

Combined with an increase in tobacco taxes, the adoption of plain packaging in the United Kingdom has resulted in an acceleration of decrease in sales However, more than reducing sales, the adoption of plain packaging has other objectives, such as neutralizing the advertising showcase that the tobacco packet constitutes, reducing its attractiveness, particularly among young people, increasing the effectiveness of health warnings, and, more generally, denormalizing smoking.

The study of the British example, followed by other countries, allows the Bath researchers to formulate a certain number of recommendations, intended for countries wishing to introduce a similar measure:

• Combine the introduction of plain packaging with a strong tax policy on tobacco;
• Extend the adoption of plain packaging to all tobacco products and accessories, such as cigarillos, heated tobacco, rolling papers, filters;
• Limit brands to a single variant, and ban new brands;
• Reduce as much as possible the transition period between the adoption of the legislation and the effective generalisation of plain packaging, in particular to prevent manufacturers from creating and communicating about new products;
• Reject the tobacco industry's flawed arguments;
• Consider banning the filter, which is harmful to both health and the environment.

[1] University of Bath, How plain packaging has changed the UK tobacco industry, (accessed 02/24/2021)