PLAIN PACKAGING RULES ARE ANTI-CONSUMER
Distinctive branding helps prevent counterfeiting, Bruce Cran writes.
The Consumers’ Association of Canada (CAC) is calling on the federal government to put an end to its war on consumer rights, as most recently evidenced by plain packaging regulations introduced for tobacco products. In addition to plain packaging, the regulations seek to standardize the appearance of packages and even individual cigarettes.
The CAC is raising this concern not due to any affinity for tobacco products, but because of the dangerous precedent set when any product is subject to such a draconian policy. We believe that other products risk becoming a target for similar treatment and consumers have a right to easily identify their preferred brand of a product, whether tobacco, alcohol, soft drinks, or snack foods.
Research commissioned by the CAC and shared with the health minister and the House of Commons health committee found 50 per cent of consumers feel it is important to be able to easily identify their preferred brand of a product based on packaging; 58 per cent feel plain packaging will mean they are unable to distinguish their preferred brand of a product; 71 per cent feel it will be more difficult to identify their preferred brand of a product with plain packaging; 54 per cent are concerned they will buy the wrong brand; and 69 per cent are concerned the product they are buying under plain packaging could be counterfeit.
Our polling on this matter is clear and decisive, but it has unfortunately been ignored throughout the process leading to these regulations and the federal government apparently does not want to hear from consumers, even though this is presented as consumer policy. Given the polling results, the CAC must take a principled stand against plain packaging because it is fundamentally anti-consumer.
Branding exists to protect consumers and that is why the CAC is so opposed to plain packaging for any product. Neither the health minister nor Health Canada can provide any guarantee the policy will not be applied to other products, and in fact, the minister has implied it will be considered for other products, despite questionable evidence that it will work, which is what makes the precedent even more troubling.
That risk is becoming a reality elsewhere. In May 2015, the United Kingdom passed a law requiring plain packaging of tobacco products. Before that policy was fully implemented, Public Health England, Health Canada’s equivalent, was aggressively lobbying for plain packaging of alcohol.
Tobacco plain packaging regulations have been in place in Australia since 2012 and now the Australian government is in the process of passing legislation to impose stricter penalties for contraband tobacco offences. It suggests the rise in illegal tobacco in that country is attributable to plain packaging.
What does the Australian government know that the Canadian government does not? Surely they would not be in the process of passing stronger penalties on illegal tobacco were it not a problem.
The counterfeit fear is also very high in Canada and it seems obvious that plain packaging will greatly increase the counterfeit risk. When all products must look exactly the same, the counterfeit process becomes easier.
In fact, anyone who suggests otherwise is being dishonest. The federal government itself seems to recognize this. All the new designs and formats of our currency are increasingly sophisticated in an effort to fight counterfeit.
If we need more sophisticated designs of our currency to prevent counterfeit, how does the federal government dismiss the fact that forcing a less sophisticated design on a multibillion-dollar product will lead to a counterfeit explosion?
There is no other logical conclusion.
This is even more obvious given the contraband tobacco situation in Canada. Does anyone truly believe that the gangs involved in contraband tobacco are not dancing for joy at the prospect of plain packaging?
More importantly, what assurances can the federal government offer to consumers that this problem is going to be addressed? It has demonstrated no capacity to deal with contraband in a non-plain packaging environment, so how will it address the problem with plain packaging?
No one disputes the negative health impacts of tobacco. In fact, we suspect you would be hard pressed to find anyone unaware of those health impacts. That awareness is seemingly reflected in the national smoking rate, which continues to decline and is now at a record low.
How much lower the rate can realistically go is an open question, but not an insignificant one. The level of regulation on tobacco products is unprecedented, including display bans, product bans, marketing restrictions, and health warnings. Each new precedent related to tobacco could then be applied to other products.
The CAC is taking a principled position against plain packaging as it is anti-consumer and treats consumers as if they are idiots. Consumers have a right to be able to clearly and easily identify their preferred brand of a product, and to know that the product they are purchasing is in fact the product they want, not some counterfeit knock-off. That is a right we will continue to vigorously defend.
Probably 50 or 100 years from now our descendants will consider that things we did were wrong, but to us it was valid in our time, in keeping with our morals and thinking. That’s history. Manley Price, letter writer Branding exists to protect consumers and that is why the CAC is so opposed to plain packaging for any product.
Douglas Todd will return.