Explainer: What do changes to the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act mean?

SINGAPORE — All tobacco products, including cigarettes, sold in Singapore will soon come in standard packaging without any logos, colours or brand images after amendments to the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) Act were passed in Parliament on Monday (Feb 11).

Graphic Health Warnings (GHWs) will also be magnified under the Government’s new restrictions on cigarette packaging in a bid to lower smoking rates here. 

During the Parliamentary debate, Senior Minister of State for Health Edwin Tong explained the grounds for the amendments and how they would boost public health objectives.

WHAT ARE THE CHANGES?

• All logos, colours, brand images and promotional information will be removed from the retail packaging of tobacco products. All permitted information such as brand and product names have to be displayed in a standard colour and font style.

• The colour, size, shape, opening and finish of the retail packaging will be standardised, together with aspects of the tobacco product’s appearance.

• The minimum size of mandatory GHWs will be increased from the existing 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the package.

• The import, distribution, sale, offer for sale or possession for sale of non-compliant tobacco products in Singapore is an offence.

WHY THE MOVE?

Mr Tong said that tobacco use remains a significant public health problem in Singapore and is the second highest contributor to ill-health and premature death here.

While smoking rates have fallen as a result of multiple measures over the years, Mr Tong pointed out that these rates have been harder to sustain in recent times. Smoking rates fell from 23 per cent in 1977 to 19 per cent in 1984, and again to 12.6 per cent in 2004. But they have been fluctuating between 12 and 14 per cent over the last 10 years, with no clear pattern of continuous decline.

“Clearly, we need to do more to stem tobacco use among Singaporeans, with a view to de-normalising the use of tobacco products and bringing overall smoking rates to a level that is as low as possible,” said Mr Tong.

He said the authorities have been studying best practices in other countries and recommendations adopted under the auspices of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

Design and packaging is significantly used to promote tobacco products, functioning as an effective marketing medium between company and consumer, he added. 

This role that branded packaging plays in encouraging children and young adults to experiment with tobacco, establish and continue a habit of smoking is “one of particular concern” in Singapore, with over 90 per cent of smokers starting before the age of 21.

A local study carried out by the Health Promotion Board (HPB) found that current cigarette pack designs influence both smokers’ and non-smokers’ perceptions towards various attributes of cigarettes.

Plainer, standardised packs were generally seen as less attractive than current packaging. Singaporeans considered packaging with darker colours and at least 75 per cent GHW to be least attractive and more harmful, the HPB’s findings showed. 

DID IT WORK IN OTHER COUNTRIES?

Singapore joins a growing list of other countries who have moved towards standardised tobacco packaging, including Australia, France, Thailand and the United Kingdom, among others.

Australia was the first to introduce standardised packaging in December 2012. According to a study commissioned by the Australian Government between December 2012 and September 2015, plain packaging reduced smoking prevalence by 0.55 percentage points, equivalent to 180,000 people.

Last year, a study by the French Department of Public Health found that one million daily smokers quit between 2016 and 2017. This “historic” decline, according to the French authorities, was due to a raft of tobacco control measures implemented in 2016, including standardised packaging.

WILL THERE BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?

Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Member of Parliament (MP) for Tanjong Pagar Group Representation Constituency (GRC), asked whether standard packaging would lead to “down trading”, where smokers switch to cheaper brands due to the difficulty in distinguishing the different products.

This could conversely lead to increased demand as consumers buy more cigarettes because prices are lower.

He also asked if the plain designs would facilitate counterfeiting of cigarettes.

But Mr Tong said that the contribution of standardised packaging to “down trading” is likely to be modest after assessing previous trends in Australia where a shift towards lower priced tobacco products was observed even before the packaging measure was introduced.

As for the possibility of counterfeit tobacco products, Mr Tong said that standardised packaging is unlikely to materially contribute towards an increase in illicit trade here, as the prevailing form of illicit tobacco in Singapore is contraband or duty-unpaid cigarettes as opposed to counterfeit ones.

Manufacturers would also not be incentivised to counterfeit cigarettes for sale due to the relatively small cigarette market here.

‘SELL-THROUGH’ PERIOD FOR RETAILERS

While the Ministry of Health (MOH) acknowledged that standardised packaging will impact tobacco and other related industries, Mr Tong said that the “positive objectives and public health outcomes warrant its introduction”.

Ms Lee Bee Wah, MP for Nee Soon GRC, asked if MOH would reach out to retailers to help them understand the new packing requirements and to hear their feedback on the implementation deadlines.

The ministry will meet with manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers to brief them on the proposed specifications for the standardised packaging and other operational issues.

A transitional “sell-through” period will allow retailers to clear their existing stocks and ease the implementation burden.

As with other changes relating to tobacco products, nine to 12 months’ advance notice is likely to be given, said Mr Tong.

HOW TOBACCO FIRMS REACTED ABROAD 

When Australia first introduced standardised packaging measures, major tobacco firms Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco attempted to overturn the laws through a constitutional challenge in the Australian High Court, but lost the case in August 2012.

Philip Morris Asia then sued the Australian government again in that same year, arguing that Australia's ban on trademarks breached foreign investment provisions. Their claim was dismissed in 2015 by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Hague.

Last year, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rejected complaints by Cuba, Indonesia, Honduras and the Dominican Republic that Australia had infringed tobacco trademarks and violated intellectual property rights.

In the UK, where standardised packaging rules were effected in May 2016, tobacco companies British America Tobacco, Imperial Brands and Japan Tobacco submitted an appeal, claiming that the laws infringed on their human and intellectual property rights. The appeal was rejected.

They then went to the supreme court, but were refused permission again in April 2017. The UK packaging laws came into force a month later.

In that same year, tobacco company Swedish Match lost a court case against the Norway government over standardised packaging restrictions on snus, a wet snuff tobacco product.