The brand- and trademark-busting policy of generic plain packaging, started first with tobacco products, is now moving to sweets, soda, cakes and so on. State nannyism is becoming a monster year after year.
Now comes this 44-pages report,
See the first four reports here.
3. CHEWING GLUM Sweets, crisps and sugary drinks should be in plain packaging to reduce ‘pester power’ from kids, health campaigners say
---------------
Soon the nanny states will go for plain packaging of all beer, wine, whiskey and rhum, all candies, cookies and cakes.
Statists still do not realize that nature abhors a vacuum: penalize and restrict the legal, unique supply, the illegal and easy-to-copy generic supply will fill the gap. These illegal products are a lot cheaper and hence they will encourage more consumption of the targeted 'bad, unhealthy' products. In addition, the investment climate will sour for legal brands as the illegal brands undermine them.
The nanny state and its activist advocates ultimately will go for socialism and heavy-handed interventions and prohibitions. Soon people can go to jail because they ate the unique, non-plain packaged soda or cake or candy. What a lousy society it will be then.
---------------
See also:
Now comes this 44-pages report,
ENDING THE BLAME GAME
THE CASE FOR A NEW APPROACH TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
PREVENTION
https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-06/public-health-and-prevention-june19.pdfSee the first four reports here.
1. Sweets and fizzy
drinks are to be sold in cigarette-style plain packaging in latest bid to
tackle the UK's obesity epidemic
PUBLISHED: 22:01 BST, 3 June 2019 | UPDATED: 01:47 BST, 4
June 2019
To combat the
obesity epidemic, Cadbury, Walkers Crisps, Coca-Cola and other major brands
would be forced to abandon their vibrant designs.
Instead they would
be compelled to use a uniform drab design intended to put off consumers. This
would be in line with the greeny brown colour – chosen for its ugliness – seen
on cigarette packs….
Simon Stevens, who
is chief executive of the NHS, said last week that obesity was becoming the
‘new smoking’.
The proposals from
the Institute for Public Policy Research, an influential think-tank, also
include:
* Extending the sugar
tax on soft drinks to sweets and cakes as well as milkshakes;
* A ban on day-time
TV adverts for junk food, sweets, soft drinks and processed food;
* Free fruit for
pupils and a ban on fast-food outlets within 160 metres of school gates;
* Supermarkets to be
ordered to provide cookery lessons;
* Raising the legal
age for buying cigarettes from 18 to 21.
2. Is it time to
treat sugar like smoking?
Nick Triggle 4
June 2019
From the smoking ban in 2007 to the introduction of plain
packaging a decade later, everything has been done to discourage people from
taking up the habit.
And there are signs sugar is heading the same way.
Sugary drinks are already taxed - and now a leading think
tank has even suggested sweets, snacks and sugary drinks should be wrapped in
plain packaging to make them less appealing, given the excess consumption of
the sweet stuff….
3. CHEWING GLUM Sweets, crisps and sugary drinks should be in plain packaging to reduce ‘pester power’ from kids, health campaigners say
By Shaun Wooller 4th
June 2019, 2:13 amUpdated: 4th June 2019, 2:14 am
The Institute for
Public Policy Research also calls for the products to be taxed, their adverts
banned from daytime TV and for supermarkets to fund healthy cooking classes for
customers.
Critics say plain
packaging, like with cigarettes, will make shops “grey and boring” and do
nothing for waistlines.
But the IPPR’s
research found two decades of progress in reducing preventable disease has
stalled since 2012.
4. Fat chance of
tackling obesity without advertising bans
clare foges, june 3 2019, 12:01am, the times
Freedom campaigners
against ‘nannying’ taxes are condemning the poorest children to a life of ill
health
5. In defence of food
advertising
Chris Snowdon, 30 MAY 2019
The Department of
Health's consultation on banning adverts for HFSS (high in fat, sugar and salt)
food and drink before 9pm on television closes on June 10th. The government's
various allies and sockpuppets have been encouraging people to make a
submission so I thought I would too.
Banning advertising
is a hunch-based policy, but the Department of Health's impact assessment is
obliged to make it look evidence-based…
the government
wants to tackle something that is far less common than it thinks by restricting
something that is far less important than it thinks, in order to make financial
savings that probably don't exist….
There is no
meaningful difference between the state banning an advert because it
disapproves of the product being advertised - or the views of the person
featured in it - and the state censoring an article, speech or play being it
doesn't like what is being said. If a ban on cakes, ice creams and jam being
advertised before the watershed becomes law, it will give licence to every
obsessive, single-issue fanatic to press for further prohibitions. Once we
start banning inoffensive adverts for harmless products, the censoriousness
will become a runaway train.
6. The IP squeeze:
Brand restrictions around Malaysia — Etienne Sanz de Acedo
01 March 2019
The sky is the
limit when one believes there is no downside to plain packaging. For example,
there even have been calls in Australia to plain package financial services —
lest consumers be induced by brands to take on bad loans.
With plain
packaging, trademarks will cease to serve their function to distinguish one
producer from another. This will ultimately hurt consumers.
Ultimately, the
question is whether taking such a radical step as removing trademarks from
legal products that consumers trust and rely upon will be beneficial for a
country overall.
And what could come
next?
7. Banning Brands: A
Menace To The Global Economy
Lorenzo Montanari Feb
21, 2019, 04:46pm
Just last month The
Lancet published the “Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate”
which called for advertising restrictions on all “unhealthy food” in order to
protect the environment.
By spreading to
more industries than tobacco plain packaging has the potential to disrupt major
industries and trade relationships. Far more countries are stakeholders in the
targeted food, sugar, and beverage industries. These categories contain the
most well-known and valuable brands in the world -- many headquartered in the
United States.
Statists still do not realize that nature abhors a vacuum: penalize and restrict the legal, unique supply, the illegal and easy-to-copy generic supply will fill the gap. These illegal products are a lot cheaper and hence they will encourage more consumption of the targeted 'bad, unhealthy' products. In addition, the investment climate will sour for legal brands as the illegal brands undermine them.
The nanny state and its activist advocates ultimately will go for socialism and heavy-handed interventions and prohibitions. Soon people can go to jail because they ate the unique, non-plain packaged soda or cake or candy. What a lousy society it will be then.
---------------
See also:
IPR and Innovation 41, Governments and the UN on patent prizes, February 23, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment