Talk:Plain tobacco packaging

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The image - wrong colour

The legislation actually before parliament describes the required colour of cigarette packs as "drab dark brown" rather than the olive green earlier proposed. I suspect it's because the olive growers complained that the connection gave their product a bad name.

This means that the pic is wrong. Can we find a new one? HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe "drab dark brown" is actually the same colour as the "olive green" proposed initially, however the name was changed due to the olive grower's complaints.--130.95.218.220 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual colour mandated to the manufacturers is "Pantone 448C". Pantone are an international company who apparently have set the "de facto" standard for colour information exchange within numerous industries.--MichaelGG (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added new info

I have added new information to this page, on the evidence and arguments for and against plain packaging, and a link to a Cancer Research UK campaign site that contains more information. A disclosure - I work for Cancer Research UK, who are actively lobbying for plain packaging. However, I hope the information I have added to this page will be seen as an attempt to enhance its usefulness, and I welcome constructive criticism about how this can be improved. I don't want to get into a fight over this! :) HenryScow (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the article, Henry: it's definitely relevant to have info about anti- and pro- plain packaging campaigns in the UK, including that of a major national charity such as CRUK. External links are not supposed to appear in the article body, so I've tidied up your paragraph a bit and given a clearer structure to the external links. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Canada: I have contacted Health Canada to learn if the department will pursue plain packaging of tobacco products. A project officer from the controlled substances and tobacco directorate responded, and I updated Canada's entry. My entry was reverted because the reference was unverifiable (an email from the directorate), but I ask that you maintain the revision for two reasons. First, verifiability for Health Canada's position can be made by simply contacting the department and asking them about their position on plain packaging. Second, I am enquiring about a published statement on plain packaging from the department so I can add a reference to a publication for my Wikipedia entry. I'll also add that the last (verifiable) entry that states Canada is considering plain packaging is no longer (or never was) Health Canada's intention. Is it better to have a published reference for inaccurate information, or accurate information that lacks a published reference but remains verifiable with an email or phone call? Hopefully, there will be more to follow in the next few days. Thank-you. If anyone wants to see the email from Health Canada, please let me know and I'll forward it to you, or you may contact Health Canada yourself at tcp-plt.questions@hc-sc.gc.ca Morechi (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is information about Canada still relevant then? If it is no longer considering plain packaging as a short term option and has not made any formal statement about it, I think that the paragraph may be simply removed. Ydecreux (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose Canada's removal from the list. Many countries are not listed.Morechi (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I have replaced the text that stated:

Because it hasn't been implemented anywhere yet, all the evidence available to date is anecdotal and based on statements of intentions or surveys.

With a paragraph stating:

Direct, concrete evidence of plain packaging’s effectiveness is unavailable as it has not yet been rolled out in any country. However evidence from quantitative studies, qualitative research and the internal documents of the tobacco industry consistently identify packaging as an important part of tobacco promotion.

While I think the statement that 'it hasn't been implemented yet' is fair, the line about 'all evidence being anecdotal' is not - there is a substantial body of peer-reviewed research looking at the effect of packaging on people's intentions, plus, of course, the internal documents from the tobacco industry itself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryScow (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text about the colour of plain packs in Australia is confusing

One source, from the normally very reliable ABC (here), but published before the legislation was actually passed, tells us that "research indicated olive green was the least attractive colour", and this is mentioned in the article. However, the legislation as passed (here - page 21) actually requires the packs to be "drab dark brown". That's also mentioned in the article. What's missing is any explanation of why the legislation doesn't reflect the research. I don't know why. Does anybody? Could we write this better? HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Olive Association complained accorded to this article.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surlytim (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. It's wonderful when today's news provides the answer to a question! I'm fussy enough to add that to the article. Any objections? HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Race and Sex demographics, reasons, facts

There needs to be a section on the target race and gender.

Near or Caucasian race is only used for images.

A story of one Caucasian man is used for content.

The following package warning text has been selected as an example of how female gender is removed: "Smoking harms unborn babies" The warning on such packages does not describe passive smoking risk but it does include the text of 'pregnant women' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.112.63 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documented study time and political donation influence

I have noticed there are a lot of studies and research for the products within packages.

There is also 'anti-smoking lobby groups' who claim hidden research by product manufacturers. An Open Government would publish its marketing information, and time/cost spent on research for production of packages, and would also establish a table showing the amount of research time spent on that product among others like alcohol.

A graph of donators to the ALP should be included (drug companies, medical quick quick patch industry, alcohol industry, alcohol+drug advertisement industry). I assert it would show that the lessor the amount of money donations or gifts of support to that political party from a industry or group would show an increase in warnings and research being performed with the outcome of restrictive laws being sort upon the products/tax (1st) or its users (2nd), and now the package (3rd). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.112.63 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Three paragraphs have been proposed with insistence by new contributor Pavich99Stanley. It does not correspond to encyclopedic information. While the existence of some opposition is a fact that is already mentioned in the article, the rest correspond to a POV, be it of one person or many. The assertion that this decision would have received considerable criticism is only the perception of the author of the paragraph, it is not a fact. Criticism about a possible domino effect is not either of encyclopedic nature; it is purely polemic. As for the paragraph on the fact that some cigarettes are counterfeited, it may be true but the link with the subject of the article is not established; this is only a claim of tobacco companies to oppose the law. The only thing that is true is the fact that the purpose of this measure is to reduce and if possible suppress tobacco sales. Ydecreux (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the existence of some criticism is possible, but then it should not be arguments of the contributor him/herself or of an individual lambda; and the wording has to be neutral: "new packaging is anything but plain" is not neutral. It could be instead: "the Australian association of tobacco retailers has complained that the new packs were actually not plain because...". The fact that some other countries may want to adopt similar schemes to other products is a fact (or not; actually I have not checked); the idea that it may be linked to the Australian decision (domino effect) and that it would be a problem is a POV. The link with counterfeiting can be made, but references should not be about the magnitude of cigarette counterfeiting in the world; they should be a proof of a link between standardised packs and counterfeiting; or at least reports on significant people or institutions mentioning that as a risk. For instance: "the tobacco industry has argued that it could make counterfeiting of cigarettes easier". Ydecreux (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed your recent additions:
  • First paragraph: while all references present photographs as ugly, none of the first three makes it a critic of the scheme, and the last one is definitely not a valid source for an encyclopedy.
  • Second paragraph: the WHO desire to regulate other products has nothing to do with plain packaging, and it is not a critic. You see that as a problem, they don't. As for the Indonesia example, it is not about plain packaging; it is about warning messages.
Ydecreux (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, it seems to me that contemporary media such as the Huffington Post or The Atlantic, (both of which seem to be vocal proponents of plain packaging) chose to address concerns regarding the extent to which imagery was used and wether it crossed social boundaries for, to use their words, grotesque or otherwise inappropriate presentation. This seems to be a valid point under the pre-existing heading of "Criticism" as accuratelty reflecting a side of the debate that is otherwise largely ignored in the article. Criticism is, by nature, transient in nature and subject to change as positions are resolved or repudiated, but today these criticisms exist as demonstrated by the articles found through simple searches. Your edit summarizing critics as "Adverstisement companies, confectionary producers and consultants for the tobacco industry" dismisses questions raised by mainstream magazines or media sources. Lest I waste my time, is it your intent to immediately delete any discussion on the matter or can you suggest how I might address these issues in a manner you would find less objectionable?

Pavich 18:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may of course express your views, especially in this discussion page. The Atlantic article refers to a decision taken in the US about graphic warning, an obligation that has been in place in many countries for a number of years and has little to do with plain packaging. The specificity of plain cigarette packaging is the absence of logo, which is certainly not grotesque or ugly; if you want to add your references on a Wikipedia article on graphic warnings on cigarette packs, please feel free to do so.
Mainstream magazines report that advertisement companies and confectionary corporations are afraid of the scheme to spread to other types of business; they don't present that as being their own concern or the concern of anyone else. An encyclopedic article cannot be phrased vaguely like "concern has been raised", etc. The first article has been written by an author that explicitly states that he is working for Philip Morris International; this is honest to admit it, but it still means that his point of view cannot be considered as neutral. Nor is neutral the point of view of the co-founder of a think tank financed by BAT, even if he is a Scotland Yard retiree. Besides, his argument is quite poor: "once you have manage to counterfeit one brand, you have them all". If the main problem was to counterfeit the pack, it would be easy to solve; notes have plenty of cheap security features that could be used. The main problem of illegal tobacco is smuggling, an issue that cigarette companies have never tried to fight.
My objective is not to waste your time; however, I would observe that I was not the first contributor to delete your three paragraphs. Wikipedia rules say that when such situation appears, an agreement has to be found in the page of discussion prior to adding the paragraphs back. As you are new on Wikipedia, I don't blame you for not knowing that though.
Ydecreux (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long longtime reader but just getting my feet wet on editing. I was at first a bit surprised to see my edit "undone" and tried to work improvements, which appear to have been in part successful as parts of my contribution are now on the page. This was a challenge for me as I am taking a Devils Adocate stance, I don't smoke (chronic asthma since childhood) and frankly would just as soon see tobacco outlawed instead of what strikes me as a, hm, well sort of deceptive "packaging" of a law if you will in that the term "plain packaging" would be spot-on if it really meant what the words mean, but I have not seen much on packaging that is actually plain but actually a majority surface (65% I believe?) covered with what would amount to "branding" of a horrific outcome. If one wants a Plain Package law, push for plain packages. If one wants a Horrific Lable law, that is another thing, at least to me. On a personal level, I can see the lawyers running with this on all sorts of things saying "if you can do it there, you can do it here." It strikes me like a big can of worms being opened. But I digress. This has taken much more time than I had intended to commit to the effort, perhaps I should start with something a bit less... well, a bit less. I will look at your suggestion of creating a warning label page but that will take a new crop of research to become more familiar with the state of the art. I am much stronger background-wise on the counterfeit side of the equation, altho largely in other industries. I did not know the resolution process, this just seemed to be the logical place to start since it would be pointless to engage in an "undo war" with somebody. I may take another crack at my thoughts on this subject but will give some time to collect and reflect. Appreciate the input.

Pavich 21:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not too bitter about the edits; actually it is the usual process any time subjects are controversial. I just checked, there seems not to be any page specifically on graphic warning. I contribute little to Wikipedia in English because I'm not a native speaker, as you could probably notice. The name "plain cigarette packaging" indeed does not correspond to what these packs are, but it corresponds to what is new: graphic images have been in force in Australia since 2006 (see Cigarette packets in Australia), the new thing is the standard design and the absence of brand logo. Ydecreux (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move.

I would suggest moving this article to Plain tobacco packaging given that such bans could also apply to other tobacco products such as cigars and loose tobacco which have similar affects on health and I think the proposed legislation in the UK and Ireland cover this. Tk420 (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Are you sure that the new UK law is actually covering other products than cigarettes? Ydecreux (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the text to the Children and Families Act 2014 on www.legislation.gov.uk. Although the media calls it plain cigarette packaging, section 94 of the act (Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products) uses the term tobacco product throughout. This implies that the British ban covers all tobacco products just as warning labels do. Tk420 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I'm not a law specialist; from what I read, the law authorises the Secretary of States to enforce plain tobacco packaging but does not clearly state that it has to. In other words, the text does not say to which tobacco products plain packaging will actually be applied. I have no objection against changing the title of the article even if eventually those initiatives only concern cigarettes at first. Ydecreux (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources indicating that the Australian legislation also covers cigars. For instance: [2][3]. I therefore approve the move you suggest. Ydecreux (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plain tobacco packaging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

I note that there is no section here about Poland. I buy most of my cigarettes in Poland (they are much cheaper than here in the UK) and for the last year or two they have been in very similar packets to the plain ones used here. I know that personal experience is no basis on which to write Wikipedia content, but there must be plenty of reliable sources on which a section could be added. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oman missing

Oman is missing, however they are introducing plain packaging on April 4th, 2024: Source 2003:C1:1F23:6300:EDEE:BDFC:18BE:E638 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Plain_tobacco_packaging"