Policy regulating the branding of cigarettes
Choose a relevant topic for approval. Health services students will choose a health policy/issue. Ensure that this is a contemporary/current health issue & policy. Be able to discuss what possible theories (at least 3 relevant theories) are you using for this assignment.
The Australian government is part of the tobacco control program that seeks to eradicate tobacco use (Staff and Agencies, 2012). Hence, it has been relentless in ensuring that it meets its obligation as a member. Recently in 2012, the government passed a law that facilitated standardized branding of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The law strongly prevents people from being misled about the effects or hazards of smoking. This came about as a result of lobbying from world health organization to make all the brands of the products plain. This reduces the appeal of the product to consumers. Tobacco use has been a leading cause of death through cancer that can be preventable. The passage of the bill has various implications for the manufacturers as well as the public. The law has twofold effects where the former and latter experience alternate effects. It has been acknowledged that the policy does indeed have significant impacts on the use of tobacco products (Reuters, 2017). This essay then explains on the rational of the policy, its scope, the implications and impacts as well as the challenges for its implementation.
In 2012, a law was passed in Australia that regulated the packaging of cigarettes from various brands. Australia set the pace with the enactment of this law that is restrictive of the marketing privileges that cigarette companies have (The Department of Health, 2012). The law provides that the packaging for all brands is plain and common. For example, the color of the package should be olive oil green. 75% of the package should contain warnings of the use of tobacco. Gruesome pictures of body parts that are diseased are a prerequisite of the law. The gruesome pictures include for example pictures pf babies that have defects due to their parents’ smoking habits. The packaging should be presented in plain fonts as well. The law also caters that there is a strong penalty for smuggling of the tobacco products (The Department of Health, 2012). Also, cigarettes or other tobacco products containing tobacco that are duty free have their concessions reduced. This policy mostly regulates the marketing of the tobacco products.
Rational for the policy
The law also regulates the distribution of the product by retailers. For example, the law considers it an offense to offer for sale the products of tobacco. This means that display of the product in shelves (BBC News, 2017) is equal to offering it for sale. It is a recommendation of the law that the product should not be visible to the consumers in retail shops. As such, the purchase of the product with the intention to distribute (selling) is also an offense according to this policy. This law intends to completely regulate the packaging and distribution of the product to ensure that it is well controlled in line with the government’s objectives. The World Health Organization (WHO) is lobbying other countries to follow suit in regulating the branding of cigarettes.
WHO is encouraging countries around the world to reduce the power of advertising of cigarette manufacturers. The lobbying gas been so far successful in several countries including the United Kingdom. After the communication of these manufacturing companies was made public, a weak point to reduce the propagation of the products was found. Lencucha and Drope (2013) explain that the various company documents indicated that the branding or marketing of their products influenced the flow of the product in the market. Therefore, to reduce this ability, regulating its marketing according to above mentioned proves to be successful.
The law reduces the potential of these companies to mislead the consumers on the dangers of the use of the tobacco product. For example, some companies chose to use light colors for branding to indicate that the product has less potency when in fact it is no different from others (Smith et al., 2015). Various companies that manufacture cigarettes have sought to battle the law in courts in several occasions. Their defense was that freedom of speech were violated as well as the international laws of trade. Many companies have lost the cases considering the piled data showing the effects of tobacco smoking. The passage of this law that controls the distribution of tobacco is due to a number of concerns that relate to public health.
The effects of tobacco use were recognized as early as in the 1970s and probably before as Belluz (2016) explains and efforts to reduce its use were exerted. During the 1970s the tobacco product was marketed through radios and television which thus increased the usage of the same. The various companies that manufactured these products also sponsored various activities and teams in a bid to market their product. Following research on the adverse effects on health that were linked to the use of tobacco, campaigns took place lobby against tobacco use. The fight against the use of tobacco has been long but progressive. For example, the first form of lobby against use of tobacco was through warnings on the packaging. The warnings were in small gold fonts at the top of the cigarette package. Towards the end of the 1970s, the cigarette manufacturing companies were banned from advertising through radios and television. Also, towards the entry into the 1980s, these companies were barred from sponsoring any games or activities (Scollo, Bayly, and Wakefield, 2018). Towards the end of the 1980s, advertising of the tobacco product virtually disappeared from many types of media. The current law advocates for hampering advertisement of the product through branding.
Scope of the Policy
The new policy has the objective of creating awareness on the use of tobacco from various fronts. For example, the law was enacted to ensure that the tobacco products would lose their appeal. Many young people are attracted to use of the product due to the style or design branding. To break this power of advertising as per the companies’ documents indicate, the plain packaging has an effect on the promotion of the product. In addition, the law has the objective to ensure that these companies do not mislead people on the effects of tobacco on health. This takes effect through captions that are gruesome and are magnified on the package to this effect. In this light as well. The magnified captions or images of the hazards of tobacco use help to intensify the health warnings (Haines-Saah, Bell, & Dennis, 2015). This law has seen that the purchase of these products reduce and more people prevented from beginning a smoking habit.
Part of the focus of the policy is on improving the health of the citizens of Australia. Would-be smokers or those likely to be influenced to smoke are discouraged from doing so. Individuals that had stopped smoking are also discouraged from relapsing into the habit. Non-smokers would be protected from the hazards of the tobacco smoke in public areas. The gruesome or uncharacteristic pictures on the covers of the tobacco product are likely to discourage those who smoke. More people would want to stop smoking or not start at all due to the intensified warnings on the packages. The law has taken effect as per the surveys conducted (Mackey, Liang, & Novotny, 2013). The number of people that use tobacco products has reduced significantly compared to the past. Peer reviewed articles reinforce campaigns against tobacco use and enforcement of this policy. This also enables the parliament to meets its objectives according to section 1.
The Australian parliament is part of tobacco control movements to which it is obligated to restrict the movement of the product. the enactment of the law restricting the sale of tobacco ensures that the parliament meets it goals (Chester, 2014). This forms focus for the law where the advertising of the product is nearly completely curtailed. Not only does this law provide for the restriction for afore mentioned but also ensure that the consumers of the products are well informed. The consumers are provided with truthful information on the use of the narcotic product. This law reduces the potential for companies to mislead users of the product regarding the dangers of tobacco use. The graphic images on the package as per the provision of the law cater for the creation of awareness or importance against cigarette smoking. Various parties are likely to be affected by the implementation of the law.
Implications and impacts
One of the stakeholders that are likely to be impacted by the enactment of the law is the tobacco manufacturing industries (Marsoof, 2013). The transition to new designs (plain) is costly to the companies. This adds on to the expenses that are weighed against the benefits, which are reducing significantly. The companies would also experience intense monitoring from the government which poses new challenges. However, despite scrutiny from the government to ensure compliance, these companies will not be charged any extra costs for compliance. The change in branding is more likely to reduce the value of the same as most of them are similar. Many companies will have a diminished competitive advantage as far marketing is concerned.
Manufacturing companies for tobacco are likely to experience low rates of profits in the future. The features of the law have influenced that less people indulge in the use of the product. not only is the law strongly prohibitive nut also the health warnings. The health warnings discourage the use of tobacco products significantly. Therefore, (Kennedy, 2014) the market for the tobacco products has reduced and is more likely to decrease further in the future. As the market for tobacco products reduce, so will the profit margins of these companies. The tobacco manufacturers had actively thrived on the high profits generated from the use of tobacco, which is addictive. The dwindle of the profits is most likely not to be subtle considering the shift in the consumer habits due to change in the image of the products. On the other hand, the benefits outweigh the costs other people are involved as well.
More people will be healthy in as far as use of tobacco products is stopped. Individuals that had previously stopped using the product will less likely indulge, as the image of the product would not be appealing. In addition, the law prevents people, especially the younger generation from taking up the product. in addition, people exposed to smoke will be protected as the number of people smoking in public places is likely to reduce. Previous smokers will have more productive lives as they will have been able to cut back on the costs for the product. use of the product takes a large portion of the users’ money especially for chain smokers. The law has impacts on the environment as well.
The environment would more clean resulting from the lowered littering. The cigarette butts would not pose a problem for environment sanitation, as they would have decreased alongside the number of smokers. Environmental pollution through smoke from the smokers would also reduce resulting in a healthier population (Lee et al., 2015). The cost of production for companies will decrease as the new law provides for usage of simple materials for design. This also impacts the environment positively as less raw materials for the production will be used. The implementation of the law faces several challenges.
Challenges for implementation
The manufacturers who are the main stakeholders other than the public pose the main challenge for the implementation of the law (Parmet & Jacobson, 2014). The manufacturers have filed lawsuits in court against the government on various accounts. For example, the manufactures claim that the government has violated its freedom of speech and has violated other international laws relating to trade. In addition, manufacturers claim that the government used their intellectual property without compensating them. These lawsuits are to no avail as they have lost while some are still pending. However, the odds are not likely to favor the tobacco manufacturers. These lawsuits are in attempt to stop the law requiring unified branding for all tobacco products.
Another challenge is the dispute in the two world organizations: world health organization and world trade organization regarding their commitment. The latter focuses on trade and investment that house the tobacco industry. The commitments of WHO to eradicate the use of tobacco directly interfere with those of WTO. The plain packaging of cigarette products directive challenges aspects of trade recommended by WTO such as the protection of intellectual property and that of the agreements on trade and tariffs. The World Health Organization requires member states that are committed to improve the health of the public to provide more directives regarding the manufacture and distribution of the tobacco products. the minimum requirements or commitments of the directive is to curtail efforts of advertising that are linked with high rates of tobacco consumption. However, member states are to provide more regulations regarding the same as seen with Australia regulating the sale of the product (Crosbie, Gonzalez, & Glantz, 2014). The tobacco industry, which involves many sectors of agriculture, manufacturing and others are directly affected. Thus, the tobacco manufacturers sought to battle the WHO directive as well as that of the Australian Government on the basis of the violation of the provisions of WTO. The tobacco manufacturers have failed so far as the directives and provisions by the WHO are based firmly on the law.
The challenges posed are likely to be solved if the Australian government could have coordination within itself regarding the control of tobacco. PR (2015) explains that the government can have various ministries coordinating in order to enforce the law. Coordination in this sense is necessary as it gives the enforcement a stronger approach. Also, the government can evaluate whether it is lawful to control trade when compared against the trade regulations. The government should also make clear its commitments regarding the control of tobacco. These steps are more likely to protect the government from future litigations regarding the issue. The interaction between governments that enforce the control of tobacco can influence the establishment and enforcement of the WHO directive.
Coordination between governments involved in the control of tobacco products can enhance the enforcement of the policy. Countries such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand that are also committed to the regulation of tobacco products can impact the trade laws jointly. For example, the said countries can apply pressure to the systems of trade law through diplomacy to achieve their goals as International Business, (2012) explains. Also, carrying out consultations with other governments significantly improves the implementation of the WHO regulations. PR (2012) notes that since the WHO requires additional regulations to enforce the policy, different countries may have different policies. In one country, for example, the sale of the products may be regulated more compared to a different country. This can be solved through consultations to attain near uniformity to strengthen the policy.
In conclusion, Australia is the first country to pass a law that regulates the distribution of tobacco. Other countries have followed suit while others have made commitments to control the manufacture and distribution of the product. The policy provides that all brands of the cigarettes or tobacco products will bear plain designs. Also, the health warnings are more pronounced as it is the requirement of the law to have graphic pictures of diseases parts of the body. The law also regulates the purchase, distribution of the product by retail. The enactment and enforcement of the law is due to the government’s objectives to control the use of tobacco to protect the health of the public. The scope of the law is such that is focuses on improving the health of the public and controlling tobacco products’ flow into the market. The tobacco manufacturers are affected as their profits are set to dwindle further in the future. The health of the public will be further improved as less people will be smoking. the challenge for the implementation of the law is the litigation from the tobacco industry on the basis of the violations of the international trade regulations. A solution to the challenge could possibility be the coordination within the government and with other governments as well to increasing the ground or footing for the passing of the law.
References
Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Law Faces Crucial Test by Stickers Marketing Company. International Business, T. (2012, December 12). International Business Times.
Belluz. J (2016). Cigarette Packs Are Being Stripped of Advertising Around the World. But Not in The US. Vox [Online]. Available at https://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11818692/plain-packaging-policy-us-australia[accessed on 30 May 2018]
Chester, M. M. (2014). The Answer Is in The Evidence: Plain Packaging, Graphic Health Warnings, And The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Syracuse Journal of International Law & Commerce, 41(2), 413-445.
Crosbie, E., Gonzalez, M., & Glantz, S. A. (2014). Health Preemption Behind Closed Doors: Trade Agreements and Fast-Track Authority. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), e7-e13.
Haines-Saah, R. J., Bell, K., & Dennis, S. (2015). A Qualitative Content Analysis of Cigarette Health Warning Labels in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), e61-e69.
Haines-Saah, R. J., Bell, K., & Dennis, S. (2015). A Qualitative Content Analysis of Cigarette Health Warning Labels in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), e61-e69.
Health policy in Australia (2015). OECD Health Policy Review [Online]. Available at www.oecd.org/health
High Court rejects plain packaging challenge 2012 ABC News [Online]. Available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/high-court-rules-in-favour-of–plain-packaging-laws/4199768[accedded on 30 May 2018]
Introduction of tobacco plain packaging in Australia (2012) The Department of Health [Online]. Available at https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/tobacco-plain
Kennedy, M. S. (2014). Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act: Convergence of Public Health and Global Trade. North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 39(2), 591-629.
Lee, K., Fooks, G., Wander, N., & Fang, J. (2015). Smoke Rings: Towards a Comprehensive Tobacco Free Policy for the Olympic Games. Plos ONE, 10(8), 1-18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130091
Lencucha. R and Drope.J (2013). Plain packaging: an opportunity for improved international policy coherence? Health Promotion International, Volume 30, Issue 2, 1 June 2015, Pages 281–290
Mackey, T. K., Liang, B. A., & Novotny, T. E. (2013). Evolution of Tobacco Labeling and Packaging: International Legal Considerations and Health Governance. American Journal of Public Health, 103(4), e39-e43.
Marsoof, A. (2013). The TRIPs Compatibility of Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Legislation. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 16(5/6), 197-217. doi:10.1002/jwip.12013
Miller. S (2016) Regulatory Burden Measurement & Analysis of Costs and Benefits. Consultancy services to inform the development of a Post Implementation Review of the tobacco plain packaging measure. 1: 3-40
Myers. P, Vickers. N, and Misson. S. (2015). Australian National Tobacco Plain Packaging Tracking Survey: Technical Report. Cancer Council Victoria and Social Research Centre 1: 4-148
Parmet, W. E., & Jacobson, P. D. (2014). The Courts and Public Health: Caught in a Pincer Movement. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 392-397.
Plain packaging of tobacco products (2012) The Department of Health [Online]. Available at https://www.health.gov.au/tobaccopp [accessed on 30 May 2018]
PR, N. (2012) August 14). Australia’s Highest Court Upholds Landmark Law Requiring Plain Cigarette Packaging. PR Newswire US
PR, N. (2015), March 18). Australia’s Plain Packaging is working First Comprehensive Evaluation of World-First Tobacco Laws Released. PR Newswire US.
Reuters (2017) Tobacco industry suffers defeat as WTO upholds Australia’s plain packaging laws. the guardian [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/may/05/australias-defeats-wto-challenge-to-plain-packaging-of-tobacco[accessed on 30 May 2018]
Scollo. M. Bayly. M, and Wakefield. M (2018) Plain Packaging: A Logical Progression for Tobacco Control in One of the World’s ‘Darkest Markets. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 24(2)
Smith. C. N Kraemer. D. J Johnson. A. C and Mays.D (2015). Plain Packaging Of Cigarettes: Do We Have Sufficient Evidence? Risk Management Health Policy. 2015; 8: 21–30
Staff and Agencies (2012) Cigarette plain packaging laws come into force in Australia. The Guardian [Online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/plain-packaging-australian-cigarette-tobacco [accessed on 30 May 2018]]
Tobacco Company Flags Appeal Over Plain Packaging (2017) BBC News [Online]. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-39814003
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
