HEADLINES

• Australia to ban cigarette packet branding
• Ferrari F1 barcode a ‘smokescreen for cigarette adverts’
• Cigarette makers challenge ban on displaying tobacco products
• Doctors issue health warning over smoking in British film blockbusters
• Arteries Age twice as fast in smokers

• Australia to ban cigarette packet branding

  Canberra is waging a battle against the world’s biggest tobacco companies by announcing a series of measures to crack down on smoking, including new laws that will force cigarette companies to adopt plain packaging from 2012.

  Other countries, including the UK, are also considering plain packaging – which bans logos, colours and brand imagery – but Australia believes it will be the world’s first nation to have the changes enshrined in law.
  
  Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, said that the government would also increase excise taxes on cigarettes by 25 per cent and announced restrictions on internet advertising for tobacco products. The government would also set aside A$28m (US$25.9m) in funding for new anti-smoking campaigns, he said.

  The higher tax would provide an additional A$5bn over four years for health and hospital costs, he added.

  The crackdown has served to focus the political debate in Australia on healthcare, a key battleground ahead of elections due later this year, and comes only days after Canberra abandoned its proposal for a controversial emissions trading scheme until 2013 at the earliest.

  Australia’s move to plain packaging will be fiercely opposed by tobacco companies, which believe the change will lead to an increase in counterfeit products and lower government tax revenues.

  Tobacco companies will also be concerned that Australia’s moves will be adopted by other countries, since earlier anti-smoking measures such as indoor smoking bans, large pictorial health warnings and display bans in shops are now prevalent around the world.

  The Australian unit of British American Tobacco said it was examining legal avenues, including whether mandatory plain packaging violated international trade laws and treaties. It added the changes could also rob the company of its intellectual property.

  “We are saying it’s not advertising,” said Louise Warburton, head of corporate communications for BAT’s Australian unit. “It is a navigation tool to help consumers decide which products they want to purchase and which cigarettes they want to smoke.”

  The group said in a statement: “Governments around the world, including Canada, NZ (New Zealand) and the UK have already looked very closely at this measure and have decided it wouldn’t work.”

  However, the UK as recently as February said it was considering a raft of proposals to cut smoking, including plain packaging.

  Canberra said the move to plain packaging removed “one of the last remaining frontiers for cigarette advertising”.

  A proposed package design with graphic health warnings would make cigarettes less appealing, particularly to young people, it said. Brand and product names will be allowed on cigarette packages but in a standard position, colour and font size.

  Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris International also oppose plain packaging.

  Analysts said BAT, maker of Dunhill, Kent and Lucky Strike, has the biggest exposure to Australia, with 6 per cent of its operating profit coming from that market. It is followed by Imperial and PMI, which respectively generate 3 per cent and 1-2 per cent of their operating profit from the country.

  With 22.9bn cigarettes smoked in 2007, Australia is a relatively small market compared to China (2,162bn), Japan (258bn), Russia (331bn) and the US (357bn).

  The industry has successfully offset a drop in sales volume in many western markets by raising profits, but analysts say that plain packaging could go a long way to undermine the power of tobacco brands and accelerate moves toward cheaper and lower-margin cigarettes.

  “We view generic packaging as the biggest regulatory threat to the industry, as packaging is the most important way tobacco companies have to communicate with the consumer and differentiate their products,” said Adam Spielman, analyst at Citigroup. “Our worry is more about mix than volume. If branding were removed, we fear consumers will have less reason to buy premium brands – and premium is much more profitable than discount.”

  In the UK, PMI, BAT, Japan Tobacco, Imperial are taking legal action against Westminster’s attempt to ban the display of tobacco products in shops. Analysts also expect tobacco companies to challenge the move to impose plain packaging.

  “The industry will undoubtedly sue for compensation for loss of intellectual property, and the compensation potentially could run into billions,” said Mr Spielman

  Other sources:
  
  Source: The Independent, 29 April 2010
  Link:      http://bit.ly/cax0dp

  Source: Business Week, 29 April 2010
  Link:      http://bit.ly/coDsBQ

  Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 29 April 2010
  Link:      http://bit.ly/bipaS0
  
  Source:  AFP, 29 April 2010
  Link:      http://bit.ly/d494p6

  Source: The Financial Times, 29 April 2010
  Link: http://bit.ly/9OttV8

• Ferrari F1 barcode a ‘smokescreen for cigarette adverts’

  Leading doctors are demanding an immediate government inquiry into “subliminal” tobacco advertising on Ferrari’s Formula One cars, and the company’s $1 billion relationship with the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, The Times has learnt.

  The red, white and black bar code emblazoned on Ferrari’s racing cars and its drivers’ overalls is designed to remind viewers of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes, it is claimed. Under EU legislation it is an offence for a tobacco company to sponsor sporting events.

  Yesterday a spokesman for the European Public Health Commissioner said he thought that Marlboro’s approach constituted potential subliminal marketing. He urged the Spanish and British governments to ascertain whether the world’s second-biggest tobacco company might be in breach of the law.

  Formula One teams are due to fly into Spain for the European leg of the season which begins in ten days’ time. The British Grand Prix is on July 11.
  
  Don Elgie, chief executive of Creston, which owns the advertising agency DLKW, said he thought that the bar code was subliminal advertising — where a brand is so recognisable that consumers can be reminded of a product without actually seeing it.

  John Britton, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and director of its tobacco advisory group, said: “The bar code looks like the bottom half of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. I was stunned when I saw it. This is pushing at the limits. If you look at how the bar code has evolved over the last four years, it looks like creeping branding.”

  Gerard Hastings, director of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research, said: “I think this is advertising. Why a bar code? What is their explanation?”

  Frank Dobson, who was Health Secretary between 1997 and 1999, also called for an inquiry. Mr Dobson, now a backbench Labour MP, said: “The tobacco firms were working out years ago how they could advertise if there was a ban on tobacco advertising.”

  Spokesmen for Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, and the Department of Health refused to comment. A spokesperson for the BBC, which has a contract to broadcast Formula One, said: “We are confident that Formula One, and as a result our coverage of Formula One, is fully compliant with regulations.”

  In September 2005 Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro, extended its financial backing for the Ferrari team until 2011, despite the ban on cigarette branding on cars racing in the European Union. The contract is understood to be worth $1 billion over ten years and Philip Morris said Ferraris would not carry Marlboro branding where there was a ban.

  A spokesman for the Italian car maker said: “The bar code is part of the livery of the car, it is not part of a subliminal advertising campaign.”

  Asked about the Philip Morris contract he said: “$100 million [a year] is not a correct figure. We do not disclose the figure — the figure you mention, it is lower.”

  Ferrari is the only Formula One team with a tobacco brand in its formal title, Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. Its logo also has the bar code and its drivers, Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa, wear overalls bearing the bar code next to the Ferrari logo on each arm.

  Philip Morris said: “We are confident that our relationship with Ferrari does not violate the UK 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act. The Formula One Grand Prix in the UK does not involve any race cars, team apparel, equipment or track signage carrying tobacco product branding. The same is true for all other Formula One races across the world.”

  Source: The Times, 29 April 2010
  Link: http://bit.ly/bgFsyp

• Cigarette makers challenge ban on displaying tobacco products

  Retailers and tobacco giants have stepped up their campaign to see off legislation that will make it illegal for shops to display tobacco products. 

  Imperial Tobacco Group PLC fired the first salvo this week when it sought a judicial review to fight the legislation which under the Health Act 2009 will force large retailers to stop displaying tobacco products from October 2011, and will extend to small retailers by 2013. The company, makers of JPS, Davidoff and Fortuna cigarettes accused the government of taking a "disproportionate approach" to regulating tobacco.

  Gareth Davis, its chief executive said: "There is no credible evidence to support the idea that children start smoking or that adult smokers continue to smoke as a result of the display of tobacco products."

  But the British Medical Association disputes this. Speaking to the BMJ, a spokesperson said: "There is ample evidence to demonstrate that product design, packaging, distribution and pricing all have a role to play in promoting cigarettes and encouraging young people to start smoking.

  "The display of tobacco products at the point of sale acts as a form of tobacco advertising that reinforces deceptive notions about the glamour and normalcy of smoking to young people. In the USA, tobacco companies are known to pay retailers in order for their brands to be prominent within the displays.

  "One study has shown that adolescents become more aware of tobacco brands when cigarettes are on display, and that they are more likely to express an interest in trying named brands. School children shown a cigarettes display at point of sale were more likely to perceive that it would be easy for them to buy cigarettes than those who were shown a till point with no cigarette display."

  Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the public health charity ASH, said: "Putting tobacco displays out of sight helps put smoking out of mind and is both proportionate and necessary given the deadly nature of this product."

  But the ban is unpopular among retailers. Richard Dodd, spokesman for The British Retail Consortium said: "Any regulation forcing retailers to keep tobacco products ‘under the counter’ must be based on evidence that the gains will outweigh the practical difficulties for shops, especially smaller retailers who have less space and can less easily afford store refits."

  Source: BMJ, 28 April 2010
  Link: http://bit.ly/93m5ci

• Doctors issue health warning over smoking in British film blockbusters

  Some of Britain's biggest recent films have come under fire from doctors who say they are more likely than Hollywood movies to include specific cigarette brands. 
  
  They are demanding an overhaul of the film classification system so that cinema releases are given a higher age rating depending on the amount and type of tobacco consumption they portray.

  Such a move is needed because the presence of smoking on the big screen is likely to influence young viewers, according to researchers from Nottingham University, writing in the journal Thorax.

  They counted the number of incidents of smoking or smoking-related references or depictions in the 15 most popular films released in the UK between 1989 and 2008. "Although smoking imagery and branding images in the most popular films have become substantially less common over the past 20 years, it is apparent children and young people watching films in the UK are still exposed to frequent and, at times, specifically branded tobacco imagery, particularly in films originating from the UK", Prof John Britton and colleagues write.

  Bridget Jones's Diary featured Renée Zellweger regularly smoking Silk Cut, as she does in the book on which the film was based. The film was rated as suitable for anyone aged 15 or over.

  The authors write: "In About a Boy, the main character, Will [played by Hugh Grant], also smoked Silk Cut regularly throughout the duration of the film, mostly in the presence of a 12-year-old boy. In the novel on which this film was based, Will smoked infrequently and no brand was identified."

  The authors call on the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to factor depictions of smoking much more heavily into its ratings, just as it already does for portrayals of violence and illicit drug use.

  The board currently rates about two-thirds of films which portray smoking as suitable for viewing by under-18s, even though 18 is now the legal age at which people are allowed to smoke, they add. Many medical leaders backed reclassification. "This is an important public health issue because impressionable children and teenagers look up to role models, including sporting heroes and TV and film stars," said Prof Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

  "While British TV has made great strides in reducing on-screen smoking, the film industry lags behind. There are still too many 'heroes' smoking in films shown across the UK."

  Prof Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: "At present children are protected from images of hard drug use with an 18 certification, but films which show smoking in a glamorous way can still get a U classification. We believe that unless there is solid factual evidence for it, smoking should not be portrayed in films aimed at under-18s."

  And Prof Terence Stevenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said: "Where possible the censors should edit out non-essential scenes involving smoking from any film that is accessible to under-18s."

  Martin Dockrell of the campaign group Action on Smoking and Health said the UK should take action to outlaw product placement by cigarette manufacturers in films, as tobacco advertising is banned here. "The tobacco companies have a long history of product placement in films aimed at children including the Muppet Movie and Superman. This wouldn't be allowed in the US and it is astonishing that it should happen in the UK where tobacco advertising is against the law. It is time we adopted WHO guidelines that recommend films should certify that no paid product placement.

  A BBFC spokeswoman, Sue Clark, said it had no intention of changing its policy. "These doctors [the authors] are out of step with public opinion. We have asked the public specifically if smoking should be a classification or category-defining issue, and the response overwhelmingly was no, it shouldn't."The board flags up overt smoking content through its consumer advice, the short sentence on all film advertising which warns about sexual or violent content, and also by setting out on its website the factors underlying its decision to grant a film a particular rating, she added. "It's then up to parents whether or not they stop their children seeing that film."

  BBFC assessors only use smoking as a criterion if it is "actively promoting smoking to a very young audience, of children aged 12 and under", added Clark, who admitted that they had never seen such a film.

  New films containing smoking are mainly set in the past, when smoking was more common, partly because of the 2007 ban on smoking in public places.

  Source: The Guardian, 29 April 2010
  Link: http://bit.ly/9omNJb

• Arteries Age twice as fast in smokers

  It's well-known that smoking is bad for the heart and other parts of the body, and researchers now have chronicled in detail one reason why - because continual smoking causes progressive stiffening of the arteries.

  In fact, smokers' arteries stiffen with age at about double the speed of those of nonsmokers, Japanese researchers have found.

  Stiffer arteries are prone to blockages that can cause heart attacks, strokes and other problems.

  "We've known that arteries become more stiff in time as one ages," said Dr. William B. Borden, a preventive cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City. "This shows that smoking accelerates the process. But it also adds more information in terms of the role smoking plays as a cause of cardiovascular disease."

  For the study, researchers at Tokyo Medical University measured the brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity, the speed with which blood pumped from the heart reaches the nearby brachial artery, the main blood vessel of the upper arm, and the faraway ankle. Blood moves slower through stiff arteries, so a bigger time difference means stiffer blood vessels.

  Looking at more than 2,000 Japanese adults, the researchers found that the annual change in that velocity was greater in smokers than nonsmokers over the five to six years of the study.

  Smokers' large- and medium-sized arteries stiffened at twice the rate of nonsmokers', according to the report released online April 26 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology by the team from Tokyo and the University of Texas at Austin.

  That's no big surprise, said Borden, noting there's definitely a dose-response relationship. "The more smoking, the more arterial stiffening there is per day."

  The study authors measured stiffening by years, not by day, but the damaging effect of smoking was clear over the long run.

  The finding gives doctors one more argument to use in their continuing effort to get smokers to quit, said Dr. David Vorchheimer, associate professor of medicine and cardiology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.

  "One of the challenges that physicians face when trying to get people to stop smoking is the argument, 'Well, I've been smoking for years and nothing has happened to me yet,'" Vorchheimer said. "What this study emphasizes is that the damage is cumulative. The fact that you've gotten away with it so far doesn't mean you'll get away with it forever."

  The stiffening of arteries is "one of the earliest and most subtle changes that occur" in smokers' bodies, Vorchheimer said. "Some people's arteries can be safe for a few years. The good thing about that is the possibility that the damage will heal if you give up smoking."

  Another notable aspect of the study was the analysis of the effect of smoking on C-reactive protein, a molecular marker of inflammation that appears to play a role in cardiovascular disease. The study found no relationship between blood levels of C-reactive protein and arterial stiffening.

  That finding adds one more piece to the puzzle of C-reactive protein and cardiovascular disease that researchers are trying to assemble, Borden said. "We're still trying to understand the role of CRP, whether it's a cause or a marker of other factors that lead to cardiovascular disease," he said.

  Source: HealthDay, 29 April 2010
  Link: http://bit.ly/bX24D0