tip off

Smoking out the truth in the Oz‘s plain packaging war

You can cherry-pick the data to prove the case either way, but it seems The Australian’s war on plain packaging is self-defeating in the face of evidence.

The Australian has launched another salvo in its bizarre war with Crikey, Media Watch, economist Stephen Koukoulas, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and common sense over tobacco plain packaging. The story thus far: the Oz published a highly dubious story using research funded by Big Tobacco arguing that the number of cigarettes sold in Australia had gone up since the introduction of plain packaging. Media Watch (and Crikey, days before) debunked the story. The Australian doubled down on its original claim, devoting five new stories to the claims. Since then, The Australian has continued the assault with articles by Judith Sloan and, over the weekend, a column from Henry Ergas:

… basic economics shows that instead of lowering tobacco consumption, plain packaging may increase it, and the risk of cancer with it. “The reasons are straight­forward. Before plain packaging, at least some consumers were willing to pay a premium to consume, and be seen to consume, the higher quality brands. Moreover, each brand had its own, expensively cultivated, image and loyal clientele. With rivalry between brands focused on ‘look and feel’, the result was to mute price competition in the industry, thereby raising cigarette prices and lowering ­demand … “… as a result, by lowering prices, plain packaging may actually boost consumption, compared to what would have happened without it. And with teenagers’ demand for cigarettes about three times as price responsive as that of adults, the perverse consequence may be to enlarge the base of younger smokers [former health minister Nicola] Roxon pledged her policy would shrink.”

Note the “may” boost production, but it might not. It depends if price is more effective than other cultural influences over consumer behaviour, like “cool”. The argument is pretty theoretical anyway, given the tobacco excise increases are dramatically increasing the price. Here is the ABS data on aggregate spend, over the long term:

tobacco graph

And more recently:

tobacco graph

So who is right in this debate? Is plain packaging working, and does it matter? Well, in seasonally adjusted terms, spending did increase year-on-year to December 2013, so one could cherry-pick an argument to say it isn’t working. But over the same period in trend terms aggregate spending fell and trend is the more useful statistical measure. If you add another quarter then sales are crashing, after another tax hike. The Treasury last week released more qualitative data supporting the case that the policy is effective:

The Commonwealth Treasury has further advised that tobacco clearances (including excise and customs duty) fell by 3.4% in 2013 relative to 2012 when tobacco plain packaging was introduced. “Clearances are an indicator of tobacco volumes in the Australian market”

Neither of these tells us which policy is working, though prima facie it looks like tax increases are probably having a more powerful effect, but it’s impossible to isolate plain packaging as a single policy at this aggregate data level. Treasury also released qualitative data:

Recent figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that total consumption of tobacco and cigarettes in the March quarter 2014 is the lowest ever recorded, as measured by estimated expenditure on tobacco products i.e. $5.135 billion in September 1959, $3.508 billion in December 2012 and $3.405 billion in March 2014. See Table 8 at 5206.0 – Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product, Mar 2014 “The Commonwealth Treasury has further advised that tobacco clearances (including excise and customs duty) fell by 3.4% in 2013 relative to 2012 when tobacco plain packaging was introduced. “In April 2013, the CEO of a major tobacco company noted a decline in tobacco product sales: “‘As I’m looking at Asia Pacific, I should also mention Australia, we’ve had the first six months of the plain pack environment in Australia. We’ve seen the market decline roughly 2% to 3%, so maybe not as bad as we might have anticipated.’ Transcript of Imperial Tobacco half-year 2013 results – Interview with Alison Cooper, CEO, and Bob Dyrbus, FD

It looks like a reasonable circumstantial case to me, but at the end of the day does it matter all that much? There is a war on smoking, and it’s winning. It’s fair enough that the state does what it can to prevent smoking given it picks up the healthcare costs. And targeting the “cool” of smoking is a fair strategy. The same argument can be extended to other products, too. That’s economic rationalism as much as it is nanny-statism. In the name of disclosure let me say that I feel for smokers. I used to be one and would still be if it did not kill you. It’s a tremendous pleasure that non-smokers really don’t understand. I’m sure if you asked them if they prefer to be targeted by price hikes or plain packages they’d elect the latter! Over-simplification and data cherry-picking appears to be happening on both sides of the debate, but at the end of the day the perceived (or real) axis of evil constituting the tobacco-funded Institute of Public Affairs, the Labor-hating Australian newspaper and the tobacco industry is so self-defeatingly egregious that I’d recommend all three back away from an argument they are very clearly going to lose. *This article was originally published at MacroBusiness.

13
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    It’s in print - someone, somewhere, is going to quote Murdoch’s “The Oz Rent-seeker” (tag-teamed to it’s IPA Rent-a-Crowd, with it’s sponsorship-habit) as an authority, for their own purposes.
    While others will look to facts.

  • 2
    Steve777
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    I was wondering whether that article in the Australian a couple of weeks ago was an opening salvo in an IPA/Liberal/Big Tobacco push to reverse plain packaging laws. It has the marks of being a campaign of some sort, although the Australian usually doesn’t just make stuff up, leaving that sort of thing to its tabloid stablemeates.

    Perhaps it was a matter of ‘run a flag up a pole and see who salutes’, testing the water.

    In any case Plain Packaging will probably work. How do we know? Well, the Tobacco industry hates it.

  • 3
    81dvl
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    It’s fair enough that the state does what it can to prevent smoking given it picks up the healthcare costs.”

    Please - really - someone check ‘Tobbacco revenue’ at ABS. This is so often quoted as support for the moral high-ground and is simply not true. The facts will astound.

    I remember when to “Profit from the sale of a drug of addiction”, was a serious offence. Now the government is behaving like a neighbourhood dealer; pushing up prices because people are addicted and the ‘market’ is cornered.

  • 4
    Thadeus Thermopylite
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    @Steve777 - the most plausible theory I’ve heard is that it’s more targeted at influencing UK lawmakers on behalf of uncle Rupert & his Big Tobacco backers

  • 5
    19 maurice
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    The Australian’s ‘campaign’ is a pretty flagrant attempt to frame the plain packaging debate in the UK. viz. How can it be a good idea for the UK if it’s been so ‘ineffective’ in Australia? Look it says so in “The Australian”…(Doubt Peddling 101)

    This is almost as silly as the argument from big tobacco two years ago in Australia that “it’s never worked anywhere else so why try it here”. Remember that one? Oh how we laughed….

    That long term graph shows the effects of mandatory warning labels (1972), banning TV advertising (1976), banning print adverts (1989), public indoor smoking restrictions (mid 90’s), restricted sport sponsorship (late 90’s), the end of point of sale adverts in the mid 00’s with trend ‘elbows’ rather well doesn’t it?

    Not sure about the vertical axis however. It says 1000’S of something, not sure what. There was 5000 of ‘em in 1959 and 3500 of ‘em in 2013 and it peaked at about 7600 in 1975.

    What exactly is meant by ‘aggregate spend’ in the context of this article? (Wikipedia says it’s something to do with US healthcare spending…)

  • 6
    Camille Bache
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Whether its plain packaing or not, cigarettes will always be on sale since a lot of people are smoking.

  • 7
    CML
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    @81dvl - I agree with your comments, but most of the ‘holier than thou’ lot do not want to talk about the billions made by the government through the sale of tobacco products. This is more than enough to take are of the health costs of smokers.

    On a different tack - what about the sales of so called illegal tobacco products? There are many stories in the media about truck loads of cheap, suspect cigs/tobacco (chop chop?) being pedaled around the country. My guess is that if these could be quantified, the purchase of tobacco products overall has indeed increased. So much for plain packaging?!!

  • 8
    CML
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    …take care of. Sorry.

  • 9
    rhwombat
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    CML: I’m a physician who treats the victims of the tobacco trade. Like the slave trade, on which the tobacco industry was based, the cost for victims is in no way compensated for by the pathetic amount of the blood money coughed up by victims of Big Tobacco - or do you still cling to the pathetic belief that the naked evil of predatory capitalism is justified by your addiction?

  • 10
    Scott
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    It’s still a legal product people. And we are talking.about the government taking intellectual property away from a business.

    At the minimum there should be evidence that smoking is reduced as a consequence of plain packaging. It’s not good enough to say, because its big tobacco, anything goes.

  • 11
    AR
    Posted Monday, 23 June 2014 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    CML - The cost of cardio-pulmonary care alone is more than the tobacco excise, never mind all the other negatives of the dumbest addiction ever - doesn’t even get one high.

  • 12
    CML
    Posted Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    I understand that the tobacco excise collects somewhere around $3-4 billion annually. If that is indeed the case, then are those above suggesting that around one-third of the entire health budget is spent on the effects of smoking?
    Sorry, I just don’t believe that.
    My second point, which you all ignore, is that smoking is being driven underground because of the steep rise in excise, and that plain packaging is irrelevant. Tobacco is just becoming another black market commodity which cannot be accurately monitored.
    Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!!

  • 13
    Bob's Uncle
    Posted Tuesday, 24 June 2014 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    CML, your figuures are off by more than a factor of 10. A quick search brings up total healthcare spending figures from 2011/2 of $140 billion, while excise that year was $5.4 billion.

    So tobacco excise is less than 4% of health spending.

    The costs of tobacco (which would include direct health spending as well as well as lost productivity and indirect/intangible costs) is harder to quantify, but is generally measured in the 10’s of billions of dollars annually.

    But I’m sure everything else you say is 100% accurate.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...