Better late than never, BBC publishes Forest response to plain pack report
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 12:50 Well, that was weird.
At 14.05 yesterday BBC News published a report entitled Plain cigarette packs 'encourage smokers to quit'.
It 'revealed' that:
Selling cigarettes in unbranded packs seems to make tobacco less appealing and encourages smokers to quit, suggests a study ...
The findings come days after ministers were criticised for putting on hold a plan to impose plain packs in England.
There were quotes from Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation but nothing from 'our' side.
An hour or two later, in response to a tweet by BBC News linking to its own report, Forest tweeted:
@BBC News Another biased, one-sided report. Where's the evidence that youth smoking rates or even consumption have fallen?
It appears that someone at the BBC read it because this morning I was invited to submit a comment. I wrote:
"The study offers no credible evidence to suggest that plain packaging will reduce youth smoking rates or have any impact on adult consumption.
"The research, which was carried out in November 2012, before plain packaging was introduced, is based on highly subjective responses to questions about the perceived quality of cigarettes and the satisfaction consumers derive from smoking cigarettes sold in standard packs.
"There is no evidence that the sale or consumption of cigarettes has fallen in Australia since plain packs were introduced in December.
"So far the policy has made no difference to sales and no amount of spin or bluster can disguise that fact."
You can read the report ("Last updated at 14:05" yesterday) here.
Update: Chris Snowdon has this to say, That plain packaging study.
Simon Clark
No surprises for guessing who was among the first to welcome the study (above).
That's right, Ireland's Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly.
"Given all we know about the dangers of smoking, it is not acceptable to allow the tobacco industry to use deceptive marketing gimmicks to lure our children into this deadly addiction and to deceive current smokers about the impact of their addiction ...
“This study provides further evidence that plain pack cigarettes are the next step forward in tackling this addiction.
Really?
The study found that, when consuming cigarettes from standard packs, smokers are 66 per cent more likely to think their cigarettes are of poorer quality, they are 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying, and they are 81 per cent more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day and rate quitting as a higher priority in their lives.
In that case, why haven't the sale or consumption of cigarettes in Australia fallen since the introduction of plain packs in December?
Note: the UK and Irish media would have us believe this latest study is new. Actually, it was conducted in November 2012, when branded packs were still available and consumers still had the opportunity to compare the two.
Now they have got used to them, consumers Down Under don't seem to care two hoots.
My colleague in Ireland, John Mallon, has issued this statement:
The study that Mr Reilly refers to was conducted in November 2012 when branded packs were still on sale in Australia.
Researchers asked 536 smokers to respond subjectively to questions about their perceptions concerning the quality of cigarettes and the satisfaction they derive from smoking cigarettes that are sold in standard packs.
What the study emphatically does not do is demonstrate that plain packaging changed their behaviour after plain packaging was introduced the following month.
Indeed there is not a shred of credible evidence to suggest that plain packaging has reduced youth smoking rates or had any impact on adult consumption in Australia.
To date the policy has made no difference and no amount of spin or bluster by Minister Reilly can disguise that fact.
Update: Click here for an interesting post by "Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog".
I suspect there's not a great deal of competition in that field but it's well worth reading all the same.
Reader Comments (9)
So Ireland's Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly says “This study provides further evidence that plain pack cigarettes are the next step forward in tackling this addiction"
Oh dear, Doctor Reilly sounds more like Old Mother Reilly than a real life doctor.
Firstly, if plain packaging really works, how come it doesn't with hard drugs? I mean, we don't see heroin sold in brightly coloured packaging do we, yet that seems to be doing quite well, as the overtly rich drug barons will testify.
Secondly, who say that smoking tobacco is an addiction? I for one am certainly not addicted to smoking, any more than I am addicted to eating lobster or steak - I do all three things simply because I like them and often refrain from smoking or eating these things for weeks at a time - hardly what could be described as an addiction.
If someone is going to call themself a doctor, they should at least have some knowledge of the subject they are supposed to be specialising in.
The anti-smoking lobby spin, and the way the BBC and other media swallow it wholesale — lazy, cut-and-paste press release journalism with no story-checking — is beyond contempt. And when is public health minister Anna Soubry going to be sacked for unconstitutional behaviour in office, something the 'media' seems to have missed completely, probably because it's concentrating on a woman having a baby; now, that's news!
Peter – Your comment 'often refrain from smoking or eating these things for weeks at a time' precisely describes my experience.
I put my pipe down almost 5 months ago quite simply out of boredom, but I shall take it up again over Christmas when the urge takes me.
So what addiction do the antis talk about?
In my view there is no such thing as addiction, it depends upon how someone interacts with something i.e. to a small degree, a larger degree, or where your behaviour becomes compulsive. But the object of your desire is not addictive per se; it is how you interact with it at any given time.
You yourself have the ultimate control over your own behaviour and how intense you allow it to become.
Does anyone know who Kate Alley is? I am wondering why the BBC think that her press release deserved to be brought to the attention of the population at large. Does Alley really represent a majority opinion at CRUK or do they still employ people who have an understanding of science and some sense of shame? Even by the extremely low standards of the plain packs campaign, Ms Alley's effort is pitiful, which of course speaks volumes about editorial standards at he BBC. Nice of them to include your comment Simon but why promote such low quality "research" in the first place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the FDA declared smoking as an "addiction" back in the early 80s. I believe there was criticism at the time that it had condemned ordinary consumers but the FDA knew that people couldn't be forced to quit if they believed smoking was a choice. Neither could legitimate consumers begin to be denormalised until they were first branded as drug addicts akin to heroin users.
Don't forget that before any major definitive study on smoking and health and especially "passive" smoking and health was done, the American Cancer Society decided in 1970 that it wanted a smoke free world by the year 2000.
That silly woman Cecelia Farron was infected with the idea when she went to the USA. She admitted on TV she began smoking because she was jealous of a pretty girl who smoked. She quit because she wanted to kiss a good looking non smoking boy. Health was never her motivation by her own admission. As a drug addict, she appeared to find it easy to quit - millions more have too without too much difficulty.
It was said in my childhood and it is true today. Those who want to quit will do so easily. Those who don't but have to will struggle.
Re addiction, quite so, Pat. But the claim was not backed up by any decent evidence. They had to change the definition of 'addiction' to make it fit, since their no significant physical effects of stopping smoking. The black hole of despond maybe, and some grumpiness perhaps, but no fits, no shivering, no nose-bleeds, no desperate stealing.
People who want to quit don't even get the grumpiness. They quit and feel proud it was so easy - and it was easy because they simply didn't want to smoke any more.
Not direct but related. I wish to pick up on a couple of comments. First, Anna Soubry. If her crime had been related to practically anything else, she would be being totally rubbished, front page headlines, radio and tv. It was not however about practically anything else, it was about tobacco, so they turn a blind eye, in fact, they are not even bothered.
Cancer Research UK is my second comment. Their tv adverts are annoying, but not as annoying as their latest.
It says that all their money comes from the public, that is lie no.1.
It says that they are doing research. Investing in lobbying for putting cigarettes in standard packs somehow does not ring true as cancer research for me.
Lie no.3 is that it says that they will cure cancer. You cannot cure cancer totally, ever. If heart failure does not get you first, cancer will. OK, many people get cancer before old age, whatever that may be. Yes, early cancer can be treated and in many cases eradicated. To say, however, that with the public's money and all smokers stopping they will cure cancer is a lie.
James Reilly would be better placed auditioning for the staring role in a Werewolf movie because he's a natural and wouldnt have to spend any time at all in makeup as he has all the facial hair required for the part, except maybe two plastic fangs over his incisors.