Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Smokers' lungs can help at high altitude says climbing expert | Main | Sue Carroll's "rants" must not be in vain »
Thursday
Dec292011

British Heart Foundation wants plain packaging bill

"Children and young people hoodwinked by cigarette packaging", says the British Heart Foundation in a press release issued today.

Children and young people are being hoodwinked by glitzy cigarette packaging with more than a quarter of young smokers making health assumptions based on branding.

Just over 25 per cent of 16-25 year-old regular smokers surveyed for the British Heart Foundation (BHF) believed one branded cigarette pack was less harmful than another based on the packet design alone. Yet the reality is that all cigarettes contain harmful toxins, tar, and carbon monoxide.

This is one of the findings of a BHF report published today ahead of a Government consultation on whether the UK should adopt 'plain packaging' for tobacco products.

The report, which includes survey responses from more than 2,700 16-25 year-old smokers and non-smokers, reveals three quarters think selling cigarettes in 'plain packs' - with no colourful branding or logos, and larger health warnings - would make it easier for people to smoke less or quit.

One in six (16%) said they'd consider the pack design when deciding which cigarettes to buy while one in eight (12%) said they'd choose a brand because it was considered 'cool'.

The overwhelming majority (87%) thought plain packs were less attractive than branded packs, and shows how plain packaging could make a significant difference in deterring young smokers.

Betty McBride, director of policy and communications at the British Heart Foundation, said: "As informed adults we know that smoking is a deadly addiction that kills half of all smokers. But young people are not always fully aware of the risks, and the power of branding holds more sway.

"Tobacco advertising is rightly banned in the UK. Yet current glitzy packaging clearly still advertises tobacco on the cigarette box. It's an absurd loophole the tobacco industry takes full advantage of to lure in new young smokers. We must close if we really want to protect younger generations from taking up this fatal habit."

Forest responded with this quote:

"There is no evidence that plain packs will make any difference to youth smoking rates. The vast majority of young people are influenced not by packaging but by peer pressure and the fact that members of their family are smokers.

"Tens of millions of people have been exposed to branded cigarette packaging for decades and have never been encouraged to start smoking. To suggest that people are so easily influenced by the sight of a coloured pack is not only patronising, it's downright offensive."

See Branded cigarettes safer, say 25% (Press Association), Young smokers attracted by cigarette branding, says survey (Daily Mirror)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (12)

I stopped funding BHF many years ago on the grounds that it was an increasingly political organization that seemed to attract more than its fair share of medical morons.

I can think of no good reason for changing my position today. Only the evangelical and the very stupid believe that plain packaging legislation is anything other than gesture politics.

I agree wholeheartedly that this campaign is offensive and patronizing but I am not surprised by that. This is after all a “public health” campaign. Are these people aware that many of us have degrees?

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 11:11 | Unregistered CommenterIvan D

Bearing in the mind the gruesome images plastered prominently on each pack, then the BHF is talking rubbish - unless they suggest that young smokers are attracted to start smoking because of the tobacco control logo images showing death and destruction.

This is no more than the BHF posturing in the interest of the BHF. No point in funding that "charity" anymore. It obviously has money to waste.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 11:55 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

All that will happen if plain packaging is brought in is glitzy cigarette cases and pack size cases will appear and the plain packages will be hidden in those instead.

Therefore, if the rubbish the BHF and others of a similar ilk, are spouting has any grounds whatsoever, it is likely that more youngsters will start smoking so they too can use the new trendy cigarette cases!

I already use a plain leather one that holds my pack of cigs and a lighter because when I am at work it stops the cigs from getting damaged; it wouldn't take much to jazz these up - you never know, the latest Disney film characters could even be on some! Or, what about Peppa Pig?

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 21:33 | Unregistered CommenterLyn

The BHF is calling for picture health warnings, to be displayed on the front of cigarette packs.

To my mind this bill is not about plain packaging. It is about further targeting existing smokers and turning the cigarette pack into the most unattractive thing on earth.

It's a shame that smokers appear to have little in terms of rights as consumers of a perfectly legal product and that as a group we are totally ignored by our government.

I stopped supporting the likes of BHF and CRUK long ago as they donate to ASH that has brought about the total smoking ban; which is undeniably the persecution of a minority group.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 22:22 | Unregistered Commentermark

Ivan D, I stopped funding the BHF and CRUK many years ago also, as well as many other 'so-called health charities'. Many people I know have.

They used to be the charities that I always gave to, but now I'm very careful with the charities that I give to. Any sign of lobbying and they won't get a penny of my money, nor my unwanted items.

Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 23:11 | Unregistered CommenterHelen

Simon, have you asked to see the raw data/methodology of this survey? I've looked for it but only find what can be called a summary on BHF's pages. We cannot take at face value that the way they describe what was asked of the respondents is how they actually worded the questions. Nevertheless (for the moment), a review of that summary alone leaves one to believe that it can be concluded that they did no more (for at least one question about "harmful") than display X number of cigarette packs and asked the respondents to rate them from best to worst. If I was asked to rate ANYTHING from best to worst I would follow the direction of simply rating what's in front of me because THAT'S what's in front of me and I've been asked to assign each a rating. It says nothing about what I think of each thing on an individual basis. I was forced to put them in an ORDER: "IF you were to rate these packages from most harmful to least harmful..." You know what I'm saying? And so I'd really like to know -- in order to follow this line of reasoning -- how EXACTLY they worded the direction. Though I think I've already exposed one of their little tricks. (Another way of looking at this is asking if they asked the respondents what it MEANT to THEM (the person doing the rating). Just because they say they rated one as most harmful looking, do THEY think it's most harmful?)

For another of their survey questions (based on the summary alone) what have they proven when a respondent is shown an ugly picture and a neutral picture and arrive at a consensus that the ugly one is, well uglier ("less attractive")?? Uh, duh. It's still only the antis extrapolating that "less attractive" means "less smoking."

Then there's their footnote 13 (the only one that appears to supply the exact question) in their report that says, "When asked to comment on the statement ‘The package design is one of the ways that cigarettes are advertised,' 69 per cent agreed, 9.6 per cent disagreed, and 21.4 per cent were neutral." Can you say "leading"?! The oldest trick in the book. If you also watch the video on BHF's site you find you want to smack the young man spokesperson when he lists all (as in no place left) the places cigarette advertising has been banned and then, in an astonished voice, says, "Except ONE!" Gasp, the manufacturer's OWN product package itself. How dare they put what they want on material owned by no one but themselves, having asked no one else to carry it on their pages, or material, or property. (It's quite a different experience seeing/listening to a person say it then just reading statements about it).

Finally, I dunno, maybe I'm being too simpleminded in that I'm the only one I hear saying this, but looking at their own stated results I see this:

Quote: "Just over 25 per cent of 16-25 year-old regular smokers surveyed for us believed one branded cigarette pack was less harmful than another based on the packet design alone."

So SEVENTY-FIVE percent don't.

Quote: "One in six (16%) said they’d consider the pack design when deciding which cigarettes to buy"

So FIVE IN SIX wouldn't.

Quote: "one in eight (12%) said they’d choose a brand because it was considered ‘cool’."

So SEVEN IN EIGHT wouldn't.

I feel like they're practicing a form of mesmerizing the reader. We read it the one way they've put it and don't think to read it the other. Or, as I asked, is it just me?

Friday, December 30, 2011 at 10:22 | Unregistered CommenterAudrey Silk

Excellent points Audrey Silk and no, it isn't you being simpleminded at all. This is the way all 'statistics' and 'surveys' are skewed. Some of us, however, are wising up to it and starting to realise that for years we have had the wool pulled over our eyes!

With things like smoking and more recently drinking and obesity, 'science' and 'surveys' only show the 'statistics' and 'answers' that are required by whoever is paying for the 'research'! The old adage, "He who pays the piper calls the tune".

Friday, December 30, 2011 at 12:56 | Unregistered CommenterLyn

I had precisely the same thoughts as AS.

In the BHF’s 2011 polling, 16-25 year olds were asked to compare an Australian-style plain pack with UK picture warnings placed on the front, alongside two existing brands. Over 87 per cent of respondents found the plain packs to be the least attractive, with the reaction stronger among regular smokers with 91 per cent finding plain packs the least attractive.

So said their report.

So if I am shown two cars, one of which is a sleek, modern sports car and the other is an old banger, am I to be undecided about which is 'the more attractive'?

I would say that their survey was a cheap-muck propaganda stunt, but what I think is very curious is that, in my opinion, it shows exactly the opposite of what they intend. This is because any effect that packaging might have can ONLY have that effect AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO BUY CIGARETTES.!

Friday, December 30, 2011 at 17:22 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

Well done to Audrey, Lyn and Junican for dismantling Big Tobacco’s case perfectly. It is Forest and its tobacco paymasters who have been claiming that they need to be able to choose how to design packs so customers can choose between brands AFTER they have decided to buy cigarettes. As you say, for only 1 in 6 to say pack design is important shows just how empty Big Tobacco's claims are.

So what about the role of packaging in influencing WHETHER OR NOT people decide to buy cigarettes? The key stat is that as many as 4 in 5 think selling cigarettes without glitzy branding would make it easier for people to smoke less or quit.

I’m delighted you’ve been able to throw off the blinkers of the pro-smoking lobby’s twisted logic.

Friday, December 30, 2011 at 19:36 | Unregistered CommenterRollo Tommasi

I read the BHF report and nearly missed the following which appeared right at the very, very bottom of the report:

The BHF would like to thank Action on Smoking and Health for support in developing this report.

Sounds a bit fishy to me. Why should a big boy like the BHF want or need the support of a tiddler like ASH?

Friday, December 30, 2011 at 21:40 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

Rollo, that is the most pathetic attempt at spin I've seen in a long time. It's even beneath YOU. One can smell the desperation. I won't dignify most of it by taking the bait.

But I do find it hilarious how a color and a font (package "design") can be described as "glitzy." Or that, once the rest have been exposed you stutter "but, but, but, the KEY stat..." Except that one is also more of the same. It's one thing to ask someone what they think OTHERS will think. Where's the question that asks the respondent if it would change THEIR own mind? How many times have we seen polls about just about anything that change depending on who the respondent is answering for -- themselves or someone else. An example would be, for instance, asking teens if they cheat. For themselves, the percentage for "no" is higher (e.g. 70 don't out of 100). But asked how many of their friends do they think cheat and the number barely matches what all the individuals answered (e.g. 70 would out of 100). If the BHF didn't pre weigh the design of the question to elicit the most favorable response then hell has frozen over.

This survey has got to be one of the cheapest ones ever produced. There's no defense for it. I don't even think the cover-up could be worse than this "crime."

Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 4:44 | Unregistered CommenterAudrey Silk

Audrey, you read my thoughts again!

Sarcasm isn't your thing, Rollo.

We're talking about the BHF survey - or should that be the ASH survey disguised as a BHF survey?

Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 13:54 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>