The people’s award for undermining taxpayer-funded health promotion messages goes to…

Comments

3 responses to “The people’s award for undermining taxpayer-funded health promotion messages goes to…”

1. 

   Matthew Ginn

   5 June, 2019

   How long before we see the equivalent of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 for food advertising? Are Australia’s health law specialists presently looking at this issue in any great number?

   Thanks

   Matthew Ginn
   Principal Trade Mark Attorney
   Acorn Trade Mark Attorneys

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   rogermagnusson

   6 June, 2019

   As a trade mark attorney, acting for those with an economic interest in protecting their trade marks and IP, you’ve asked an interesting question. Marion Nestle had a go at answering it here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530120-200-if-tobacco-gets-plain-packets-will-junk-food-be-next/

   It’s often said that food is different from tobacco: half of persistent smokers will die a premature and nasty death because of their smoking.

   However, at the global level, dietary risks may kill as many, perhaps even more than smoking. According to a recent Lancet study , 11 million deaths were attributable to dietary risk factors in 2017, headed by too much salt (3 million) and, perhaps surprisingly, low intake of whole grains (3 million) and low intake of fruits (2 million). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673619300418?via%3Dihub

   The trend in future seems pretty clear: we will see more regulation of food and the food industry that aims to inform customers of the dietary risks of food, and to reduce the burden of diet-related disease.

   In Australia, the regulatory tug-of-war is mostly being carried out in areas relating to labelling, and junk food marketing to kids.

   We’ve seen that with the recent public consultations over the best way to inform consumers about added sugars in food, and the future of the Health Star Rating System.

   But none of that has anything to do with mandatory plain packaging of food – which to my mind is a step too far. I support plain tobacco packaging. (The tobacco industry, of course, wants to link the two).

   That is not to say that law does not and will not control claims, packaging and will take steps to prevent consumers being misled.

   For example, the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes recommends countries implement a range of controls, including bans on point of sale advertising, and clear labelling to ensure that pregnant and lactating women are not misled into believing that infant formula, cleverly marketed by multinationals, is superior to a mother’s breast-milk.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Matthew Ginn

      6 June, 2019

      Thanks, Roger, for that considered reply.

      I too am sceptical about the plain packaging legislation. Not that it affects my own business – the big tobacco firms and other billion-dollar multinationals don’t turn to small players like us for help with their IP. Instead, I see plain packaging as poor public policy and worse legislation. However, now that it’s in place it is a great big hammer in the government’s toolbox. I won’t be surprised to see them reach for it again, especially over issues that can be twisted to play on the emotions.

      But even though we don’t have a dog in this particular fight, the legislation does affect us. In my firm, the issue is simply the uncertainty about where policy and legislation are heading. This uncertainty cuts in two directions. First, uncertainty can pose a challenge when advising clients. After plain packaging came in, the message is now that ‘your trade mark will be valid for ten years, unless the government changes its mind’. Second, the uncertainty created by plain packaging tends to undermine confidence in the trade mark system itself.

      While some might celebrate this, I don’t remember it being one of the objectives set out in the Explanatory Memorandum (nope, not there, I just checked).

      Interestingly, you note that importance of consumers not being misled. This is absolutely central to the trade marks profession, although of course from a different angle. I don’t think you’d get much argument from us on that point!

      Thanks once again for taking the time to reply in detail.

      Cheers

      Matt

      Matthew Ginn
      Principal Trade Mark Attorney
      Acorn Trade Mark Attorneys

      LikeLike

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here…

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ