Japan Tobacco International UK Submission
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Submission to the Chantler Review into the public health impacts of standardised packaging for tobacco products 10 January 2014 Japan Tobacco International (JTI) is part of the Japan Tobacco group of companies, a leading international tobacco product manufacturer. JTI’s UK headquarters is in Weybridge, Surrey, and its manufacturing facility is in Lisnafillan, Northern Ireland, where it has a long-standing and significant presence. JTI’s cigarette brand portfolio includes Benson & Hedges, Silk Cut, Winston, Camel, Mayfair, Sterling, Sovereign and more, as well as a number of other tobacco products including cigars (such as Hamlet), roll-your-own tobacco (such as Amber Leaf) and pipe tobacco (such as Condor). In the UK alone, JTI employs over 1,800 people. Gallaher Limited is the registered trading company of JTI in the UK. More information about JTI is set out at paragraphs 1.5 to 1.7 of the Consultation Response. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY No evidence of positive health impacts There was no evidence in 2008, no evidence in 2013, and there is no evidence now that plain packaging is likely to have actual positive public health impacts (despite repeated and sustained attempts to create this evidence). No evidence has emerged from Australia, where plain packaging has been in place for over a year, showing that plain packaging has changed the rate of decline in smoking or has had any positive behavioural impact at all. As a result, even the fiercest proponents of the measure now argue that it could be many years before the impact they said plain packaging would have is felt. Some have also conceded that plain packaging will have no positive impact on existing smokers who wish to quit. This is unsurprising as it is wrong to assume packaging influences smoking behaviour, particularly of minors. This view is not consistent with a credible and scientifically rigorous understanding of smoking behaviour and ignores what HM Government and others have previously said about why people smoke. A leading expert in the area of adolescent judgment, decision-making, and risk- taking has concluded that “The introduction of standardized packaging would be unlikely to affect underage smoking, either in terms of initiation or progression from experimentation to regular use.” Even DH-funded research recognises that “Current approaches to combat smoking which highlight its health risks may be ineffective for [young people], as health messages are known to have little salience for children and young people... Approaches that inhibit young people’s ability to obtain tobacco may therefore be more appropriate for preventing smoking in this age group.” The ‘evidence’ supporters of plain packaging rely upon, written largely by a small group of tobacco control advocates whose independence is at best questionable, is unreliable and unconvincing. The individual consumer surveys underlying the ‘systematic’ reviews test what people (principally adults) say they will do rather than what they actually do. Grouping them together does not make them any more reliable. Reflecting this fact, a leading expert in the conduct and evaluation of consumer research studies is of the opinion that the “current evidence base is insufficient to justify the conclusion that plain packaging is likely to have any impact on actual smoking behaviour.” Negative public health impacts The DH seeks to protect minors and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds from smoking, but plain packaging will make the problem of illicit trade worse (impacting negatively on public health) by making tobacco more accessible to those two groups in particular. Page 2 In the case of illicit trade, this has the public health impact that smokers would also be buying from an illegal and unregulated source. If, as expert analysis demonstrates, plain packaging leads to average prices of tobacco products (and cigarettes in particular) falling, this might further negatively impact on public health. The risk, previously recognised by the DH, that: “Children may be encouraged to take up smoking if plain packages were introduced, as it could be seen as rebellious” also needs to be assessed carefully. The standard to be met by the Chantler Review Plain packaging is an issue of critical importance to JTI. It deprives us of our most valuable assets and unjustifiably infringes our fundamental legal rights. This means it is not enough for plain packaging only to be likely to have an effect on public health. That said, the current evidence base fails even this (inappropriately low) threshold test. The independent reviewer has to be satisfied, having carefully and thoroughly considered all relevant evidence (irrespective of whether it has been submitted by proponents or opponents of plain packaging), that a robust and compelling case can be made that plain packaging is likely to have actual positive public health impacts before he could advise there was sufficient evidence to take it forward. The independent reviewer can also only reach this view if he is satisfied that such likely positive impacts are attributable specifically to plain packaging. The impacts in question must go beyond those attributable to other recent/planned initiatives (including both the display ban and revised Tobacco Products Directive) and beyond pre-existing trends. If further expert advice is commissioned, that must occur in a transparent way and in accordance with best practice. Alternative means of achieving public health impacts JTI draws to the attention of the Chantler Review alternative regulatory solutions to achieve actual positive public health impacts (as they address the key methods by which minors access tobacco products). Page 3 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Tobacco products carry risks to health. We believe that appropriate and proportionate regulation is both necessary and right. Minors should not smoke and should not be able to obtain tobacco products. Everyone should be appropriately informed about the health risks of smoking. These core principles are central to our Code of Conduct, Global Marketing Standard, operational policies and the way JTI does business. 1.2 Therefore, JTI supports legislative and regulatory measures on tobacco control which meet internationally and nationally accepted principles of Better Regulation.1 However, JTI will question, and where necessary challenge, regulation that is flawed, unreasonable, disproportionate or without evidential foundation. 1.3 Plain packaging is an issue of critical importance to JTI. It deprives us of our most valuable assets and unjustifiably infringes our fundamental legal rights. This means it is not enough for plain packaging only to be likely to have an effect on public health. That said, the current evidence base fails even this (inappropriately low) threshold test. 1.4 The reasons why JTI is categorically opposed to the plain packaging of tobacco products were set out in detail in its Consultation Response.2 One of the most important reasons (and central to the Chantler Review)3 is that there was no evidence in 2008, there was no evidence in 2013, and there is no evidence now that plain packaging is likely to have actual positive public health impacts (despite repeated and sustained attempts by tobacco control groups to create this evidence). 1.5 Accordingly, we welcome the Chantler Review as an opportunity for an independent assessment that, in our view, could only reasonably conclude that the evidence base does not show plain packaging is likely to achieve public health goals by changing actual smoking behaviour (even if that conclusion is disappointing/unpalatable to tobacco control groups). 2. NO EVIDENCE PLAIN PACKAGING IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS 2.1 There is no reliable evidence that plain packaging has achieved/is likely to achieve positive public health impacts. Expert research and analysis makes clear that: (a) the assumption that packaging changes smoking behaviour, particularly of minors, is wrong and is not supported by the research; and (b) the survey evidence relied upon by the proponents of plain packaging to suggest that “plain packaging works” (including that in the Systematic Reviews)4 is incapable of constituting reliable research evidence of the likely impact of plain packaging on actual smoking behaviour. 2.2 JTI’s view in this regard is, in particular, based upon the following expert research/analysis which has been updated for, and provided to, the Chantler Review: (a) Professor Devinney’s 2014 Report5 (prepared at the request of external legal counsel to JTI) specifically addresses the evidence base which the Chantler Page 4 Review has identified in its Method Statement,6 including the Systematic Review Update. Professor Devinney has concluded that the current evidence base is insufficient to justify the conclusion that plain packaging is likely to have any impact on actual smoking behaviour. He bases this conclusion on the fact that, when considered collectively, the studies examined suffer from serious limitations as a body of scientific research. (b) Professor Steinberg’s 2010 Report (prepared at the request of external legal counsel to JTI and which is reinforced by Professor Steinberg’s 7 January 2014 letter to Sir Cyril Chantler) is based upon his considerable expertise in the area of adolescent judgment, decision-making, and risk-taking.7 In respect of the question whether plain packaging is likely to have any actual positive public health impacts, Professor Steinberg explains that: “Measures to prevent or reduce youth smoking