• Full Story

BAT packaging move proves govt deterrence

Email
Print

Packaging move proves govt deterrence

3News NZ

BAT has launched an online, print, radio and television campaign (file)

BAT has launched an online, print, radio and television campaign (file)

A tobacco company's decision to launch a campaign against plain packaging proves it's an effective anti-smoking measure, the Government says.

British American Tobacco (BAT) - which represents nearly three-quarters of the country's tobacco market - announced on Wednesday the launch of an online, print, radio and television campaign.

It is in response to a Government consultation document which proposes stopping tobacco companies using the design and appearance of packaging to promote their products.

Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia, who is in charge of anti-smoking legislation, says tobacco companies have claimed in the past that plain packaging doesn't cut down smoking.

"If this isn't going to work, as they claim, why are they investing so much money to try to stop it?" she said.

"They're on about profit, we're on about saving lives."

BAT New Zealand general manager Steve Rush won't reveal the exact cost of the campaign or how long it will run.

However, he admitted the company will probably be spending "hundreds of thousands".

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) director Ben Youdan says the campaign shows BAT is worried.

"They're very worried about plain packaging, they're worried it's going to affect their bottom line," he told NZ Newswire.

Australian plain packaging legislation is due to take effect in December, after the High Court rejected a challenge from four tobacco companies.

NZN

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

23/08/2012 2:18:10 p.m.

Shaun wrote:

Despite the inherent fallacies, there's more to Wiseacres' post than any controversy that surrounds it (to paraphrase an industry slogan). It demonstrates that what passes for 'informed choice' is frequently nothing more than ignorance. All of these (spurious) objections have been accounted for, and simply cutting & pasting the same post suggests an intellectual laziness which is already demonstrated in the post itself. Let readers reflect: BAT have threatened the government intent on protecting people from tobacco harm. The tax argument rings hollow. Why run the risk of losing all the tax revenue and getting offside with this toxic industry if not genuinely committed to citizens health? Our Oz neighbours have done it. Let NZ follow suit.

23/08/2012 2:04:52 p.m.

CAROLE wrote:

Plain packaging will have no effect on those who must have a smoke. They will bring back the cigarette cases back with more velour than before. Yes tobacco companies will be put out but they know it won't make a difference to the smokers who don't care what packaging is involved. Time to consider what really can be done and to consider pricing and no legal allowance through customs. This means that those who wish to really smoke won't come here but that does include all drugs as well. Harsh but true! Of course there will be a black market but it can be deterred nobody is going to give up without a fight. It's a killer but so is drink,drugs and high colestral foods.

23/08/2012 9:34:13 a.m.

Wiseacre wrote:

The alcohol industry is being allowed to *self-regulate*. When will intelligent, informed, free-thinking & consenting adults be allowed to *self-regulate*? What people choose to put in their own body is their business, no-one else's. Is it right to smoke in an enclosed area with other people? Of course not - that's where consideration for other people comes in. There is much in this world that is not *safe*. I contend that the pollution of our *fresh air* caused by traffic & industry is far more hazardous to our health than the occasional whiff of 2nd-hand smoke. For some people - especially those on low incomes - smoking can be their one pleasure in an otherwise tough and stressful life. Many people tend to feel relaxed while and after smoking, as their stress levels tend to go down. Despite the fact that smoking is indeed bad for your health overall, there are some therapeutic benefits to be had from smoking. Smokers have become the latest socially-acceptable target to demean and disparage, and an easy mark for the Government coffers. Smokers more than cover the costs of their ill-health. Where is the consideration for them?

23/08/2012 8:26:28 a.m.

Shaun wrote:

This campaign can be seen as a form of advertising known as 'brand-stretching', and on that basis it is BAT who are breaking the law.