Its purpose is broad, and thus its strict requirements aim to curb smoking habits by diminishing trademarks and advertising on all tobacco products.Other member and non-member states that choose to import tobacco products into Australia will face identical stringent regulations. Unlike the European Communities in EC-Trademarks and Geographical Indications, Australia has no reciprocity requirement for importers of tobacco.In fact, the only requirement is to abide by the regulations in the TPPA and TPPR, which Australian tobacco companies must do as well.Because the TPPA does not afford Australia any special treatment, the Panel most likely found that it is a non-discriminatory measure in compliance with Australia’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.Indonesia’s Article III:4 claim will again meet the same fate as the national treatment provisions in the TBT Agreement and the TRIPS Agreement. Article III:4 is an anti-discriminatory provision in the GATT, and an in depth look at Korea-Beef will show that it was not violated by the TPPA. In Korea-Beef, the Appellate Body illustrated a three-element test for a violation of Article III:4. The elements include: the products in question must be “like” products, the measure in question must be a “law, regulation, or requirement affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or use,” and the imported products must be accorded less favorable treatment than the domestic products.In this case,indoor cannabis grow system the imported and domestic products are both tobacco products for retail sale in Australia.It is unlikely that the first element will be in dispute, and if it is disputed, the Panel’s analysis will likely be short.
The second element is also unlikely to be in dispute, as the TPPA is a law that regulates packaging and affects the sale, purchase, distribution, and use of tobacco products.The final element should be the central point of contention. Indonesia believes that it is receiving less favorable treatment because the TPPA has a negative commercial effect on its imported tobacco products. However, domestic tobacco products are subject to the same restrictions. In Korea-Beef, the Appellate Body noted that Korea’s dual retail system resulted in “establishment of competitive conditions less favourable for the imported product than for the domestic product.”The important distinction in Australia-Plain Packaging is that domestic tobacco products will also be harmed, resulting in competitive conditions that are equal for domestic and imported goods. Korea had nearly 40,000 more domestic beef stores than imported beef stores, a discrepancy that was a direct result of the contested measures.Under the TPPA, domestic and imported tobacco products will be sold at the same stores and in the same manner as before, except the packaging will be regulated. If anything, the TPPA makes competitive conditions more equal. Because of this equality of the competitive conditions between domestic and imported products, the Panel should find in favor of Australia.Using tobacco products and, specifically, smoking cigarettes, is extremely unhealthy and can lead to death.In fact, according to the World Health Organization , tobacco use “is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced, killing more than 7 million people a year.”Part of the reason tobacco kills so many people is the fact that tobacco products contain nicotine, which has been proven to be a highly addictive substance.Its addictive properties have been compared to other illicit drugs.It is likely that once a person starts smoking, it will be much harder for them to stop.
Further, most smokers begin by experimentation when they are adolescents.It follows, then, that if most smokers begin in their teen years and become addicted, a regulation that curbs the experimental appetite of teenagers would reduce the amount of tobacco use. Another danger of tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, is second-hand smoke. Smoking not only hurts the smoker, but also anyone else who may be around.The WHO estimates that around 890,000 people die from secondhand smoke every year.This is what separates smoking from the other vices mentioned in this Paper. Sugar can cause obesity, which can lead to diabetes, heart disease, and other life-threatening diseases. Alcohol is also problematic, as long-term use can lead to cancer, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, and even depression.However, each of these examples only affect the consumer’s health. Eating unhealthy foods will not give heart disease to friends or strangers. Aside from violence stemming from alcohol intoxication, alcohol only hurts others when combined with something else, such as a car. Having a glass of wine with an evening meal will likely be harmless and may even be beneficial.A regulated amount of natural sugar has physiological benefits.However, even one cigarette can steal minutes from one’s life expectancy.Second-hand smoke has been proven to cause medical issues, and no amount of smoke inhalation is safe. Thus, enacting regulations that curb the appetite of smokers and deter the public from smoking must be a positive measure.The positive effects of plain packaging will undoubtedly take time to reach their maximum potential. However, there are early signs that plain packaging is working to deter customers.
One 2009 study states that the plain packaging regulations are an effective way to curb the public appetite for tobacco products.Further, proponents of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control , a treaty established by the WHO, have opined that plain packaging works.Specifically, the TPPA and TPPR are working as expected in Australia. Australia’s Department of Health stated that “while the full effect of tobacco plain packaging is expected to be realised over time, early available evidence indicates that the measure is beginning to achieve its public health objectives and is expected to continue to do so into the future.”Two years after the commencement of the TPPA and TPPR, the Australian government began a “Post-Implementation Review” of the tobacco plain packaging regulations.The purpose of the PIR was to “assess whether a regulation remains appropriate, and how effective and efficient the regulation has been in meeting its objectives.”After over a year of data collection, the report concluded that “the tobacco plain packaging measure has begun to achieve its public health objectives of reducing smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke in Australia and it is expected to continue to do so into the future.”According to the PIR, the positive impacts of plain packaging include: “reducing the appeal of tobacco products, increasing the effectiveness of health warnings, and reducing the ability of the pack to mislead. The studies also provide early evidence of positive changes to actual smoking and quitting behaviours.”In addition to the PIR, the Australian Department of Health also had Dr. Tasneem Chipty, an expert in econometric analysis, analyze smoking prevalence data to determine whether the TPPA and TPPR “had a discernible effect on the prevalence of smoking in Australia”.Dr. Chipty’s results showed “a statistically significant estimated decline in smoking prevalence of around 0.55 percentage points between December 2012 and September 2015, or about one quarter of the total drop in prevalence during the period.”During the roughly three year period Dr. Chipty estimated that the plain packaging regulations resulted in a total reduction of 108,228 smokers.While these studies may seem like minor progress, they are extremely encouraging, and the Australian government expected the progress to be slow-going.The regulations are working as expected, and now Australia has roughly 108,228 less smokers than it did before. While a decrease in the overall number smokers is evidence that the regulations are working, the most worthwhile study may be one on adolescents. Studies show that most smokers start before the age of eighteen.The strategy is simple: make it “uncool” for teenagers to start smoking and they will be less likely to start. In their 2015 research paper, Victoria White, Tahlia Williams, and Melanie Wake field sought to examine the impact of plain packaging on youth perception of pack image and perceived brand differences.The study was conducted on adolescents from the age range of twelve to seventeen from schools all over Australia.
It included samples collected over two years, 2011 and 2013, at 179 schools.The students were first asked if they had recently seen a cigarette pack,equipment for growing weed then asked to rate cigarette brand appeal, attraction of cigarette packs, and brand differences.The results of the study showed that standardized pack-aging has decreased usage among all smoking status groups.Because the study only collected data in 2011 and 2013, a plethora of collectable data remains. The authors believe that further research could show whether continued exposure to plain packaging decreases interest in cigarettes even more.This study is vital, especially considering the adolescents surveyed had only been exposed to nationwide plain packaging for one year. The TPPA and TPPR seem to be working and making Australia a healthier place to live.The panel’s decision was correct for several reasons. The decision was consistent with the previous interpretations of each Article addressed. WTO jurisprudence shows that the TPPA is consistent with Australia’s national treatment obligations under the TBT Agreement, TRIPS Agreement, and the GATT.But perhaps the path to understanding why this was the correct decision stems from common-sense. First, these regulations do not restrict consumer choices, because consumers are free to buy tobacco products just as they were before. Packaging changes only make it more difficult for certain products to catch the eye of consumers. For example, small children can relate colorful fruit loops boxes to delicious, but unhealthy, sugary cereals. Advertising is not always a good thing-just ask any parent who has had to make the difficult decision of refusing a temper-tantrum-throwing-three-year-old his fruit loops in a public market. Advertising groups spend billions every year looking for ways to target consumers to maximize their profits.While this is a completely normal business tactic, targeting specific groups with unhealthy products, especially young people, can be regarded as immoral. Second, even if it is a little more inconvenient, wouldn’t the benefit outweigh the harm? This tobacco measure is statistically reducing the number of smokers in Australia, which reduces cases of cancer, heart disease, and lung disease.Is that not better than allowing tobacco companies to have the creative control they want? Further, the negative impact of widespread tobacco use can hurt the economy. Take the United States as an example, a country where plain packaging does not exist. The Center for Disease Control estimates that smoking alone costs $300 billion dollars a year.What the regulations take away from one sector, they give to another. Less sick people means money can be spent on things other than healthcare, which will stimulate the economy. It also means that the cost of healthcare will go down for everyone. Using the United States as an example, $300 billion dollars could go a long way to helping people. Imagine if that amount of money was donated to Cancer research instead of treating those who already have the disease. Regardless of economics, the health of citizens is of paramount importance. Without health, what do we have? While the jury is still out on the complete impact the regulations will have, it is important to remember that societal changes take time. The packaging limitations set forth in the TPPA and TPPR commenced on December 1, 2012.Limiting the amount of time to judge whether these regulations are effective to five years would be a crucial mistake. These regulations need time to take effect and influence younger generations of citizens before any decision can conclusively be made as to their effectiveness.Now that the decision has been made, this could open the floodgates for countries to regulate other products. There are many other unhealthy products being imported and exported around the world. The hypothetical at the outset of this Paper delves into what such a world could look like, and a discussion on the possible impact is certainly not frivolous. Recently, the Chilean government started a war on unhealthy foods by implementing several measures that diminish the marketing and packaging rights of companies all over the world.The measures are extremely ambitious, even more so than the TPPA.The Chilean measures prevent companies from using tactics to lure children to purchase products, such as using an animated character on a cereal box, including a trinket with a sugary treat, or even advertising on television channels or certain internet sites that are frequented by children.The measures also ban any marketing of infant formula to encourage breastfeeding and impose an 18 percent tax on all sugary sodas.But perhaps the most analogous measure to the TPPA is the new labeling requirement that packaged food must “prominently display black warning logos in the shape of a stop sign on items high in sugar, salt, calories or saturated fat.”