The tobacco industry’s challenges to standardised packaging: A comparative analysis of issue framing in public relations campaigns in four countries

Abstract

Tobacco industry public relations campaigns have played a key role in challenges to standardised cigarette packaging. This paper presents a comparative analysis of industry campaigns in Australia and the United Kingdom, which have implemented standardised packaging legislation; Canada, where policy has been adopted but not yet implemented; and the Netherlands, which has considered, but not enacted regulation. Campaigns were identified via Google searches, tobacco industry websites, media coverage, government submissions and previous research; analysis focused on issue framing and supporting evidence. Public relations campaigns in all case study countries drew on similar frames - the illicit trade in tobacco products, the encroaching 'nanny state', lack of evidence for the effectiveness of standardised packaging, a slippery slope of regulation, and inherent threats to intellectual property rights. These claims were supported by industry research, front groups and commissioned reports by accountancy firms, but were not with verifiable research. Independent evidence that contradicted industry positions was overlooked. Similarities in structure and content of public relations campaigns in countries that have enacted or considered regulation points to a strategic co-ordinated approach by cigarette manufacturers. Countries considering standardised packaging policy can expect powerful opposition from the tobacco industry. Tobacco control communities and policy makers can learn from previous experience, and share best practise in countering industry arguments.

Corporate interests within transnational advocacy networks: The International Coalition Against Plain Packaging

“…These are outlined in a letter centred on the following arguments: (a) intellectual property rights, as human and legal rights, are essential to economic growth and stability; (b) existing data suggest that plain packaging does not work; (c) trademarks, brands and logos provide essential information to consumers; and (d) plain packaging may lead to an increase in the illicit tobacco trade (ICAPP 2016). These ideas are similar to those made by TTCs and their allies at the national level, which have, for example, relied on claims that plain packing contributes to illicit trade, has negative economic effects, and threatens individual freedom (MacKenzie et al 2018). The letter also states that 'governments all across the world have championed the success of plain packaging (PP) and its ability to curb smoking.…”

Implementation of Cigarette Plain Packaging: Triadic Reactions of Consumers, State Officials, and Tobacco Companies—The Case of Saudi Arabia

“…The first consumer reaction in social media started after two months of cigarette plain packaging implementation, which also suggests that the taste of the new cigarettes was changed by the tobacco companies after the policy implementation. Recognizing the impact on their brand's appeal, the tobacco industry has fiercely resisted the implementation of plain packaging in many countries, utilizing several approaches, including legal challenges, lobbying, and public relations campaigns [68,69]. Other countries have employed the tactic of refocusing policy discussion on the claimed negative effects such as increased smuggling [68].…”

Dilemas na implementação da Convenção-Quadro para o Controle do Tabaco da Organização Mundial da Saúde

“…Among the actions adopted by the tobacco industry, public campaigns have played an important role in counteracting Plain Packaging, as shown by the study by MacKenzie et al 33 . These campaigns usually feature common elements such as the risks of trade in illegal products that produce more dramatic health problems and evasion of budget resources, the criticism for what they call the "nanny State" (which proposes to make decisions on individuals' life and liberty), and the lack of scientific evidence on the effect of plain packaging, which would actually take a biased view of the relationship between tobacco production and consumption 33 . One of the tobacco industry's central strategies in these campaigns is the use of deliberately misleading economic data and distorted social policy arguments to recruit public support 34 .…”