Oh so quiet. Silence speaks volumes about plain packaging review
Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 0:12 I'm genuinely surprised.
The Australian Government's long-awaited Post-Implementation Review of plain packaging was finally published yesterday (see previous post).
We expected significant media coverage but there's barely been a squeak despite some extravagant claims by tobacco control (Tobacco plain packaging a winner – saving lives).
Google 'plain packaging, Australia' as I did a moment ago and see what comes up.
I got Plain packaging works: report (Australian Journal of Pharmacy) and Federal Government’s cigarette plain packaging policy is helping the drop in smokers’ numbers (GeelongAdvertiser) and, er, that's it.
As I write the leading Australian newspapers have completely ignored it.
ASH tried to whip up interest the UK (Australian government report confirms standardised plain packaging works) but no-one has bitten, not even the Guardian or the BBC.
I'd like to think it's because journalists can see the review for what it is – a transparent exercise in spin with very little evidence to support its conclusions – but that hasn't stopped them running similar stories in the past.
I put it down to the fact that the Australian Government itself has taken a very low key approach and although the Department of Health was responsible for the review it was released quietly and without fanfare or even a press release that would have given journalists something 'official' to work with.
There could be two reasons for this.
One, as we anticipated, there is very little in the review to excite advocates of plain packaging so there's little by way of a 'story' (although, to repeat, that doesn't normally deter journalists, health correspondents in particular).
Two, plain packaging in Australia was a Labor initiative therefore the current Liberal government may be less inclined to 'celebrate' its alleged impact. (Or perhaps they too read the report and concluded, 'Nothing to see here, move along.'
In the UK that wouldn't stop the Department of Health because the DH seems to be a law unto itself, waging war on tobacco regardless of the party in power, but Australia may be different.
Anyway it's a bit of a mystery and although it's good news in the sense that silence speaks volumes about the content of the review, I feel a bit deflated. I was looking forward to a scrap (see Forest's response here)!
Reader Comments (4)
It's not over yet and watch your back. When you least expect it, the issue will flare up again, especially during the silly season when journalists are desperate for space fillers - even non news can be made into news.
The UK consumer's only hope for equality will depend on the action tobacco companies are taking to stop the theft of their packaging rights.
If that outcome is also stitched up then then there will be plenty of crowing and bragging by the smokerphobic political lobbyists and lots and lots splashed everywhere about how Aus successfully forced scum smokers to quit. That it isn't true makes no difference.
According to my MP, the UK government is not responsible for the Department of Health and the Chief Medical Officer is not answerable to our elected representatives
I can of course understand why any government might seek to distance itself from anything as intellectually inept, morally inexcusable and vilely authoritarian as the UK Department of Health but that does not excuse Cameron's cowardice. Nor that of his party.
“I feel a bit deflated. I was looking forward to a scrap.”
Interesting thought, that one, Simon. I must admit that I’ve been quite surprised by how low-key many smoking-related stories have been since the ban was imposed, and I rather thought that with it in place (and all those rather-too-highly-visible pubs closing up in the aftermath) people – and thus the media – had kind of fallen out of love with All Things Anti Smoking. Or perhaps that they’d just got a bit bored with all that anti-smoking hype. It had, after all, been pretty relentless in the years running up to the ban – and then the ban came in, so it was (in minds of many of “the convinced,” at least) “job done” and so no need to keep batting on about it.
But your little comment there makes me think that perhaps, as anger and resentment about the ban brought so many people to the Internet, with blogs, forums, Facebook groups etc, none of whom were in the slightest bit reluctant to start pointing out the very real flaws in all of the anti-smoking movement’s so-called scientific “proof” for pretty much everything they said, perhaps the once all-powerful anti-smoking campaigners are now deliberately avoiding the spotlight with their cherished little schemes and plans, because now – unlike the days of yesteryear, when people (including politicians, it seems) hung on their every word – they know full well that every announcement and claim that they make will be scrutinised, challenged and, often, found wanting. Not the kind of publicity they want at all!
But, as Pat says - keep an eye on it. Just because they are having trouble whipping up the type of self-righteous fury they used to doesn't mean they'll simply hang up their hats and go home (sadly). Like a festering sore, they'll keep doing their damage in the background, even if unnoticed, right up until - to continue the sore analogy - they are completely eradicated.
It absolutely amazes me that this theft of the ability to display a brand may go through. If it does then everyone else who markets a product which a well funded gobshite group of fanatics like ASH dislike had better watch out. The whole basis of free market economics is at risk here. Sounds extreme but is true. If you don't want to smoke fair enough but you should have no right to stop others enjoying tobacco and being able to freely choose from openly displayed products what brand you want !