The fact is, instead of demonstrating that plain packaging is reducing smoking, the ABS data – and other government data – show the opposite. Tobacco consumption stopped declining and even increased following the implementation of plain packaging.
The WHO has ignored its own advice and guidelines in recommending a 75% global tobacco tax, knowingly dismissing the true health, economic and business realities of its policy.
No tobacco company, government, or law enforcement agency alone can eradicate the illegal tobacco trade, which requires effective policies, continued focus, and coordinated actions by all.
Illicit tobacco trade is a complex, global and growing problem that can only be solved by the industry, governments, law enforcement and civil society working together to make every day ‘World No Illegal Tobacco Day.’
In today’s economy, increasingly connected and global, brands and trademarks are among the most important distinguishing factors that allow for free market competition and offer a range of choices for consumers.
Recently published research confirms that tobacco consumption has not changed as a result of the measure, and excludes any hard data to evaluate impact on smoking prevalence.
PMI supports thousands of tobacco regulations worldwide, but an arbitrary mandate to censor trademarks, which have been used for decades in compliance and consistent with the law, is disconnected from public health objectives. We are asking for equal treatment and a fair hearing.
A balanced view and facts on the topics raised by the “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” program, including PMI’s marketing practices and approach to regulation.
We are interested in an informed debate about the impact of plain packaging and are committed to quality, independent research.
Annual surveys from five major Australian States show no decrease in smoking prevalence after the introduction of plain packaging.
Attempts to promote false claims as new proof highlight the lack of any reliable evidence that this is a sensible measure in support of public health objectives.
A proposal to exclude any legal product or sector – including tobacco – from international trade and investment agreements is a flawed policy that would undermine the rule of law and deny a legal industry access to justice.
Promoting studies funded by policy proponents while discrediting industry-funded research does not contribute to a substantive policy debate and undermines an informed decision-making process.
Banning logos and trademarks is misguided and unjustifiable, and the unintended consequences — particularly the impact on the black market — are unmistakable.
We oppose this arbitrary and irrational ban because it destroys our valuable assets and impedes competition.
The results of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) survey are outdated, methodologically flawed and do not measure the policy’s effectiveness.
Media reports revealed the lack of basic transparency and called out the excessive cost of the event against the backdrop of an ongoing global public health crisis.
The case focuses on the fundamental principles of the rule of law and whether or not Uruguay must keep the promises it makes to respect and protect intellectual property investments.
Our arbitration argues that Australia breached its obligations by making it illegal to use our registered trademarks, banning all design features on cigarette packages that the graphic warnings do not cover, and forcing us to sell premium products as though they were low-quality commodities.
Misrepresenting the facts or taking them out of context might make for good TV viewing or for an interesting read, but does not qualify as serious reporting.
Banning stakeholders, the public and the media from even observing the CoP proceedings is anti-democratic and demonstrates the lack of transparency within the FCTC.