Strong public support for plain packaging of tobacco products.

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 405 © 2012 The Authors. ANZJPH © 2012 Public Health Association of Australia Internationally, smoking remains a serious public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that deaths from smoking will rise to more than eight million by 2030 and reach one billion in the 21 century. Governments around the world have responded to the threat tobacco poses by adopting progressive measures that will reduce smoking initiation, prompt cessation and lower overall smoking rates. One such strategy, tobacco ‘denormalisation’, exposes tobacco as a toxic product peddled by an unscrupulous industry and undermines the social cachet of smoking. Denormalisation reframes smoking as socially unacceptable and challenges the connotations of glamour, sophistication and ruggedness that tobacco brands have used to attract young people. Over time, denormalisation reduces smoking’s aspirational attributes, undermines the value tobacco brands deliver to smokers and reduces tobacco consumption. Plain packaging extends this approach by moving beyond smokefree social marketing campaigns to focus directly on tobacco packages, which represent a tangible symbol of the emotional benefits smokers derive from ‘their’ brand. These measures reflect increased knowledge of the role packaging plays in promoting smoking, the meticulous research undertaken into branding and packaging by tobacco companies, and the tobacco industry’s growing reliance on packaging as promotion in traditional mass media becomes more restricted. The tobacco industry has strongly opposed plain packaging; it argues this measure lacks proportionality and supporting evidence, and claims it will impose unfair costs on manufacturers. When Australia proposed plain packaging, tobacco companies launched marketing campaigns entitled ‘No Nanny State’ and ‘I Deserve to be Heard’ to muster opposition to the legislation. Philip Morris adopted the same tactic when launching the ‘My Opinion Counts’ site in New Zealand to coincide with the release of the government’s consultation document on plain packaging. These campaigns draw on deep-seated concerns over measures that curtail individual freedoms and suggest plain packaging will stigmatise smokers, who are depicted as marginalised and disenfranchised. However, when these initiatives failed to elicit the Australian public’s sympathy the tobacco companies moved to the legal arena and introduced suits challenging the constitutionality of plain packaging and its compliance with international trade agreements. Because not all countries may have Australia’s resolve in the face of well-funded and vocal opposition, these moves could deter the introduction of plain packaging elsewhere. In these situations, strong public support may provide politicians with an additional mandate to act. To understand tobacco companies’ arguments and public sympathy for these, we analysed two claims they have repeatedly made: as packaging only promotes brand switching, plain packaging will neither persuade smokers to quit, nor dissuade young people from starting to smoke; and plain packaging misappropriates brand assets and denies fair use of these. We reviewed the public health counter-arguments: that a toxic product such as tobacco requires prominent warnings without distracting brand imagery; and that attractive branding promotes experimentation and continued smoking. To test how the public regard these claims, we conducted a survey that compared New Zealand smokers’ and non-smokers’ perceptions of plain packaging, and examined their views on policy measures.