News

The article ''Thailand's draft tobacco consumption control act: Plain packaging and beyond'' by Alan Adcock published on Oct 19, 2012, in the Business section presented several false claims about plain packaging.

 First, it claimed that graphic health warnings are not effective. This is not true based on many studies, like the findings from a 2012 study in Canada that graphic health warnings show ''a statistically significant effect on smoking prevalence and quit attempts''.

In another 2012 study from Thailand: ''The new Thai pictorial health warning labels have led to a greater impact than the text-only warning labels, and refreshing the pictorial images may have helped sustain effects. This finding provides a strong support for introducing pictorial warning labels in low- and middle-income countries where the benefits may be even greater given the lower literacy rates and generally lower levels of readily available health information on the risks of smoking.''

Second, the article stated that plain packaging violates rights of property, including trademark, and that it ''cancels'' trademark ownership. In fact, the Australian High Court found no constitutional infringement on trademark rights, no taking of trademark, but only restriction of its use. Restricting use of a trademark is not taking or cancelling a trademark as the Australian court found.

Third, the author notes that international trade agreements require unconditional protection of intellectual property rights, including all uses of a trademark. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) provides consideration of justifiable national measures for restriction of trade, and countries that disagree can bring a WTO trade challenge.

In the case of Australia, trade challenges have been brought by countries with little or no trade with Australia, making it clear that this action is being driven by corporate tobacco interests. Given the weakness of these challenges, Australia is not concerned, and views this effort as but another example of tobacco industry intimidation.

The author also maintains plain packaging would increase counterfeiting and illicit trade. Illicit and counterfeit trade is a specific enforcement matter that can be dealt with successfully through measures developed, and to be adopted this November in South Korea by the Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), an international tobacco control treaty that Thailand has ratified.

And last, the article stated that plain packaging is extreme because there are legal and economic objections to it. Overall, Thailand needs to take a positive, strong approach to meeting its tobacco control obligations under the FCTC and not be cowed by lawyers of the tobacco industry who try to scare and intimidate Thailand, as they did with Australia, with imaginary trade threats that they raise to interfere with health measures and benefits for Thais. Most importantly, research shows that plain packaging is less appealing to youth and young adults that the tobacco industry targets in marketing their products.

NAOWARUT CHAROENCA
Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University