Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services  
 
 
 
 
Consultation  on the proposal for standardised 
tobacco packaging and the implementation of  
Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on 
Tobacco Control  
 
 
 
  Table of contents  
1. INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  4 
1.1 Background  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  4 
1.2 Further details about the main content of the Ministry’s proposal  ..............................  7 
2. BASIC FACTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  8 
2.1 Tobacco use in Norway  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
2.2 Harmful health effects from tobacco use  ................................ ................................ ... 10 
3. STANDARDISED TOBACCO PACKAGING AND PRODUCTS  ...............................  13 
3.1 Existing law  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  13 
3.1.1  EU legislation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
3.1.2  The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control  ................................ ..............  15 
3.2 Objectives and justification  ................................ ................................ .......................  17 
3.3 Regulations in other countries  ................................ ................................ ...................  20 
3.3.1  Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  20 
3.3.2  United Kingdom  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 21 
3.3.3  Ireland  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  22 
3.3.4  New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 23 
3.3.5  France  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  23 
3.3.6  Sweden  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  23 
3.3.7  Finland  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  23 
3.4 Research on the effects of standardised tobacco packaging  ................................ ...... 23 
3.4.1  Choice of colours  ................................ ................................ ...............................  27 
3.5 Regulation regarding smokeless tobacco ................................ ................................ ... 28 
3.6 Public opinion  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  30 
3.7 Norway’s international legal obligations in the area of trade law, trademark and 
design law, the Norwegian Constitution and the ECHR  ................................ ......................  31 
3.7.1  EEA and EU law  ................................ ................................ ................................  31 
3.7.2  WTO Agreements  ................................ ................................ ..............................  32 
3.7.3  Tradem ark and design legislation ................................ ................................ ....... 33 
3.7.4  The Norwegian Constitution and the ECHR  ................................ ......................  34 
3.8 The Ministry’s proposals  ................................ ................................ ...........................  36 
3.9 Supervision and sanctions  ................................ ................................ .........................  40 
3.10  Authority for seizure and destruction ................................ ................................ ..... 40 
4. ARTICLE 5.3 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL  41 
4.1 Background  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  41 4.2 Tobacco industry tactics  ................................ ................................ ............................  42 
4.3 Applicable laws  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  50 
4.4 FCTC Article 5.3 Guidelines  ................................ ................................ .....................  51 
4.4.1  Purpose and scope  ................................ ................................ ..............................  51 
4.4.2  Overarching principles  ................................ ................................ .......................  52 
4.4.3 Primary recommendations of the guidelines  ................................ ......................  52 
4.4.4  Enforcement and monitoring  ................................ ................................ ..............  55 
4.5 The WHO’s assessment of Norwegian tobacco control work  ................................ ... 55 
4.6 Status of implementation of Article 5.3 in Norway  ................................ ...................  56 
4.7 Proposal by the Norwegian Directorate of Health  ................................ .....................  57 
4.8 The Ministry’s proposals and assessments  ................................ ................................  59 
5. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSEQUENCES  ................................ ....... 60 
5.1 Standardised tobacco packaging  ................................ ................................ ................  61 
6. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE TOBACCO CONTROL ACT  ...............................  63 
7. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE LABELLING REGULATIONS  ............................  65 
 
  1.  INTRODUCTION  
 
The Ministry of Health and Care Services hereby submit s for consultation  a proposal to 
introduce mandatory standardised packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Act No. 
14 of 9 March 1973 relating to Prevention of the Harmful Effects of Tobacco (the Tobacco 
Control Act). We also propose certain other amendments and specifications to the Tobacco 
Control Act and R egulations No. 141 of 6 February 2003 on the contents and labelling of 
tobacco products , as well as Regulations No. 989 of 15 December on the prohibition of 
advertising of tobacco products etc. , in part to implement certain aspects of the new EU 
Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU ) related to the design of tobacco packaging and 
related products.    
Norway is one of 180 parties  to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control  
(FCTC) , whereby the parties, under Article 5.3, pledge to implement measures in order to 
prevent the tobacco industry from influencing tobacco  control  policies. The Article 5.3 
guidelines give  recommendations for specific measures to implement this  obligation . Various 
possible measures are discussed below, and we ask for contributions from interested parties  
with regard to measures that may be appropriate  in a Norwegian context.  
The Ministry also requests that all parties  making a submission  to the consultation report any 
direct or indirect links with, cooperation with, or financial support from the tobacco industry. 
Furthermore, we request that all assertions and statements be accompanied by  documentation 
which  includes  source references  with links, and particul arly whether purported studies and 
reports were  either wholly or partly financed by the tobacco industry, cf. the discussion  in 
section 4 below. If this information has not been published  on the internet, we request that the 
document be attached to the submission .    
1.1 Background  
Despite significant  progress in the area of tobacco control  in Norway, smoking continues to 
be a major risk factor  and the single largest  preventable cause of  premature death and poor 
health. Snus also has harmful effects, and its use has increased over the past few  years, 
especially among young adults . A significant decline  in the number  of tobacco users is 
therefore the single most important measure for improving public health.  
 
The health risks of smoking are well known. In Norway, an estimated 6,600 deaths are 
attributed to smoking each year. Each of these lives were cut short by an  average of 11 years, 
and nearly 50  % of heavy smokers die before the age of 70. Cardiovascular di sease is clearly 
the leading cause of death.    
 
Over the past few years smoking prevalence  has steadily declined, but more than one -fifth of 
young adults ages 16 to 24  years  continue to smoke. The use of snus among young people has 
also increased since the turn of the millennium. One-third of all young men are now using 
snus, while the percentage of young women using snus has increased from practically zero in 
2000 to 18  % in 2014.   
According to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, tobacco smoke is most likely the 
single  factor responsible for the greatest amount of harm  to public health over the past decade. 
In the Public Health Report from 2010, the Institute stated  that we are hopefully now  seeing 
the “beginning of the end of the tobacco epidemic”, but added  that major efforts are still 
necessary to end the era of tobacco -related diseases. If we are able to reduce the use of 
tobacco to a minimum over the next few years, the epidemic of tobacco -related diseases may 
be over by 2050.   
 
The overarching vision of the national tobacco control strategy for the peri od 2013 –2016 is a 
longterm goal of making Norway a tobacco free society.  This is also part of the Tobacco 
Control Act objective , cf. Section 1. More specifically, one of the goals of the strategy  is to 
reduce the  percentage  of children and young adults  who smoke by half, to less than  6% by 
2016, and to stop  the increase  in daily snus use  among young people.  
 
The first part of the strategy period focused on restrictions on the  sale and use of tobacco . 
These measures have been  important, but regulation of tobacco products in the current 
legislation  is minimal.  The next “stage” of the Ministry’s strategy will therefore involve  
making tobacco less appealing  to children and young adults . Discouraging  children and young 
adults  from starting to  use tobacco is the primary focus of the Ministry’s tobacco prevention  
efforts . Most individuals who begin using tobacco are minors , and research indicates  that they 
tend to underestimate the risk of addiction . Tobacco packaging is one of the few remaining 
forms of tobacco advertising in Norway. The tobacco industry has invested considerable  
resources in development of packaging design targeted toward s specific groups, including 
women and young people, and in t he course of just a few years, snus has become a new trend 
product for the younger generation.   
 
Due to the rise in snus use among young people, measures aimed at limiting  the use of snus 
have gained  a more central position in tobacco control efforts.  In 2014, the Institute of Public 
Health carried out a n evidence  review of the health risks associated with  snus.1 The report 
concludes that snus is carcinogenic , leads to a poorer  cancer prognosis, increases the risk of 
mortality following heart attacks and strokes, increases the risk of diabetes type 2, and can 
harm the foetus during  pregnancy . In their report, the Institute of Public Health states that the 
prevalence of snus use in Norway has tripled over the last five years, with the highest increase 
among young people. The Institute adds that the sharp rise in snus use among young people 
could  be characterised as an epidemic, and that there are indications  that this use will continue 
to rise. The Institute believes there is  every  reason to be concerned about  the number of 
cancer  cases that may result from  snus, given  today’s many young snus users, and also about 
the number of women who use snus during pregn ancy – a group that is likely to grow in 
number over  the coming years.  
 
                                                 
1 Institute of Public Health , Helserisiko ved bruk av snus  (2014 : http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/35f7c1d9e4.pdf  Norway is committed to the WHO’s global goal of achieving a 25 % reduction in premature 
mortality from non -communicable diseases (NCD) by 2025. New  international research 
indicates  that in order to reach this goal, a reduction in the use of tobacco is crucial . Two 
effective measures , which Norway has yet to utilise , include  standardised packaging and a ban 
on flavouring. The latter is covered  by the EU’s new tobacco product directiv e and will 
therefore not be discussed here.   
 
Mandatory standardised tobacco packaging as  a measure aimed at discouraging  young people 
from using tobacco  was considered  in Norway  as early as 2002. In a knowledge review 
published by the Norwegian Institute for Alc ohol and Drug Research (SIRUS) of measures 
for reducing the prevalence of smoking among young people  it was stated :  
 
“Tobacco packaging is designed to be appealing  and represents  a kind of symbol. The 
overall effect of removing this symbol content is uncertain, but it is likely that we can 
reduce youths’ interest in using these tobacco packs  as means of expression .”2 
In 2010 , the World Health Organisation carried out an assessment  of tob acco control efforts in 
Norway. In their report WHO recommended, among other things, that Norway should  
consider introducing  standardised tobacco packaging .3 
In 2012, the National Council on Tobacco and Health stated:   
 
“Plain packaging: We believe there is too little focus on plain packaging, or brand -free 
products. A ban on current product labelling  should be part of a strategy and long -term 
planning.  Considering the industry’ s opposition to the idea , this is an extremely 
important measu re.”4 
 
The p roposals included in this consultation paper will contribute toward fulfilling Norway’s 
obligations as a party to the FCTC. The proposals will furthermore implement aspects  of the 
EU Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU. The Ministry will return with a separate  
consultation on the implementation of the remaining provisions of the directive.   
 
                                                 
2 Lund and Rise (2002) , En gjennomgang av forskningslitteraturen om tiltak for å redusere røyking blant 
ungdom  
3 WHO (2010), Evaluation of Norwegian tobacco control efforts : http://www.regjeringen.no/ upload/ HOD/
CapacityAssessmReportNORWAY.pdf , see section V.1.3.2 on page 27.  
4 Consultation response by the Norwegian National Council on Tobacco and Health, 23 March 2012: 
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c09165b697834c56a8ae4b0415f9ad10/nasjonaltraad_tobakksforebygg
ing.pdf   Tobacco products are legal, but differ substantially from other consumer products  in that they 
pose significant health hazards , regardless of the type of use. There is no safe level  for 
tobacco use apart from total abstinence. The Ministry emphasises that the harmful effects of 
tobacco use provide compelling and legitimate reasons for the government to further regulate 
the design of the tobacco packaging and related products, in order to make tobacco products 
less appealing  to you th. Other legitimate reasons for regulating tobacco products include the 
fact that the choice to begin using  tobacco is often made by minors  who have misconceptions 
regarding  risks, and that the freedom to quit is often limited by addiction. There is also the 
aspect of passive smoking, which affects the health of others.      
 
In addition to the abo ve-mentioned arguments, smoking imposes a significant economic 
burden on society. In a report from 2010 by the Directorate of Health, it is estimated that the  
total socioeconomic cost of smoking in Norway  is between 8 and 80 billion NOK annually.5 
This is a broad  estimate, and the lowest estimate  involves only  the cost of health care and loss 
of production due to increased morbidity and premature death, while the highest estimate  also 
comprises  an economic valuation of 150 –180 000 lost years of life. This estimate is based on 
the prevalence  of smoking over the last 10 to 30 years.   
 
In the report it is further estimated that the decline in the number of daily smokers over the 
last 20 years , has led to potential socioeconomic benefi ts in the amount of  approximately 26 
billion NOK per year,  and that the potential benefits of an even sharper  decline in the number 
of daily smokers may have an annual social value of approximately 2 to 3 billion NOK per 
percentage point . However, it is im portant to note that it may take time before the effects of 
these measures on the smoking population become apparent, and that the most widespread 
smoking -related diseases appear only after several decades.    
1.2 Further details about the main  content of the Ministry’s proposal  
The Ministry proposes the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging in Norway. This 
proposal will apply  to all types of tobacco products. Standardised tobacco packaging involves  
a uniform  layout and desig n on all to bacco packaging, as well as a ban on  manufacturer s’ 
logos , trademarks, images, colours or other forms of advertising. Packaging shall only have  
one solid colour, and some of the products will be required to have specific packaging 
materials. Brand names an d variant names , as well as manufacturer information , shall  have 
standardised colour, placement, font and size. The Ministry also proposes standardisation  of 
other elements such as barcodes, packing material, etc. The packaging shall  retain the 
mandatory health warnings and other information in accordance with current legislation.   
                                                 
5 Directorate of Health (2010), Samfunnsøkonomiske kostnader av røyking,  IS-1825: 
http://www.helsedirektoratet.no/vp/multimedia/ archive/00312/IS -1825_Samfunns_ko_312409a.pdf  The Ministry furthermore proposes that the design of tobacco products and smoking  
accessories should be standardised to a certain extent, including the col our of the cigarette 
paper and snus portions, as well as the specification of brand names and variant names.  A 
legal basis for standardising tobacco surrogates is also be proposed , but specific regulations 
are not be proposed at this time. Tobacco surrogate s include herbal cigarettes and herbal snus, 
among others.   
The EU Directive  2014/40/EU includes  specific regulations regarding  a ban on misleading 
labelling (Article  13), shape and contents of tobacco packa ging (Article  14) and size of  the 
lateral surfaces of boxes with hinged lids  (Article  9 no. 3 third paragraph ). Since these 
regulations are closely linked with the regulation of standardised tobacco packaging, the 
Ministry also proposes  the implementation of these regulations in this consultation.   
Furthermore, it is proposed that certain labelling and advertising  provisions  be repealed  as a 
result of the new legislation  on standardised tobacco packaging.   
 
The F CTC  Article 5.3 states that effective measures must be implemented in order to protect 
tobacco policies from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. The Ministry outline s 
possible measures aimed at protecting tobacco policies  in chapter 4 below , and asks for  
feedback on how Norway should implement its FCTC obligations .    
2. BASIC FACTS   
2.1 Tobacco use in Norway   
There was a sharp decline in the percentage  of daily smokers between  1973 and 2013. I n 
1973, 51 % of all men and  32 % of all women reported that they smoked on a daily basis. In 
2014, 13  % of the population were daily smokers, and 9% smoked occasionally . This is the 
equivalent of 920,000 people. The group of people that smoke occasionally  has remained 
stable, although  the number of daily smokers has sharply decline d during the same period. 
Smokers are also unevenly distributed by socioeconomic level. Among those with little 
education in 2014, 27  % were daily smokers, as opposed to 8  % of those with higher  
education.  
According to statistics from the OECD, Norway has  had the largest  decline in the percentage 
of smokers of all OECD nations between 2000 and 2010.6 Over the last decade, the 
percentage of daily smokers has been halved  – from 26  % to 13  %. This is equivalent to about  
400,000 people.   
In 2014, 5  % of young people between the ages of 16 and 24  were daily smokers, in addition  
12 % smoked now and then. This means that slightly more than 100,000 young people  still 
smok e.  
                                                 
6 OECD (2014), Health at a Glance: Europe 2014 : http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance_eur -2014 -en   Over half of today’s smokers and ex -smokers began smoking before the age of  18, and more 
than 70  % of them started smoking before they turned 20 .7 The median a ge of debut for each 
age cohort  has fallen , so that those who begin smoking today are much younger than their 
parents were when they began smoking .8  The average smoking de but age is about 16. Those 
with less education tend to begin  smoking at a younger age than those with more education.   
 
While fewer and fewer are smoking, an increasing number of people are using snus. In 2014, 
9 % of the population were using snus on a daily basis. Snus is more widespread among 
young people. Among those between  the ages of  16 and 24, 18  % we re daily snus users, in 
addition  8 % use d snus occasionally . This is equivalent to just over 150,000 young people. 
Snus use is more common among youn g men (a total of 33  % of this age group in 2014), 
however, over the past few years, there has been a sharp increase among young women as 
well (a total of 18  % of this age group in 2014). Fifteen years ago, 10  % of young men used 
snus daily, while scarcely  any young women were snus users. The Institute of Public Health 
refers to  the increase in snus use among young people as an epidemic .9  
 
Statistics from Norway indicate that  34 % of those who use snus daily or occasionally  have 
never smoked.10 Statistics from Sweden indicate that nearly 40  % of male snus users have 
never smoked, while 10  % of young people who smoke began using snus first.11  
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
7 SSB/Directorate of Health (statistics 2013)  
8 Directorate of Health (2013), Tal om tobakk 1973 -2012 , IS-2064  
9 Institute for Public Health (2014), Helserisiko ved bruk av snus : http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/35f7c1d9e4.pdf  
10 Report from 18.3.2011 from the Institute of Public Health to the Ministry of Health a nd Care Services  
11 The Swedish National Institute of Public Health , web case 23.11.2010: 
http://www.fhi.se/Aktuellt/Nyheter/Snus -bidrar -till-att-fler-ar-tobaksberoende -/   2.2 Harmful health effects  from tobacco use   
 
Harmful health effects of smoking  
In Norway, smoking continues to be the major risk factor for premature death and loss of 
healthy years of life.12 Statistics from the Global Burden of Disease project indicate that an 
estimated 6,600 deaths in Norway are attributed to smoking each year , which is equivalent to 
16 % of all dea ths. In a report entitled “How fatal is smoking?” from 2006, the Institute of 
Public Health states  that those who die from smoking -related diseases  have their lives cut 
short by a n average of 11 years .13 Smoking is the cause of 26  % of all deaths a mong women 
between the ages of 40 and 70,  while the corresponding figure for men is 40  %. Men in this 
age group who die from smoking lose an average of 14 years of life, while women lose an 
average of 20 years. New research from Australia has shown that tw o-thirds of those who 
smoke for an extended  period of time will die of smoking -related diseases, and the risk of 
premature death for this group is three times as high as for those who have never smoked or 
who have quit .14 
 
More than 40 diseases, including 2 0 fatal diseases, are directly linked to smoking .15 Major 
diseases include various types of cancer, respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. 
The World Health Organization estimates that approximately  20 % of cardiovascular diseases 
are caused by s moking, and that heart attacks and strokes are the most common among  
 these diseases. The risk of heart attack is considered to be two to three times higher among 
smokers than among non -smokers, but other studies have found this risk to be up to seven 
times higher for both men and women, regardless of age (the younger the smoker, the higher 
the relati ve risk), and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Smoking increases the risk of 
cancer in a number of different organs. Lung cancer is the type of cancer that is most strongly 
linked to smoking. Roughly  80 to 90  % of all lung cancer is due to smoking.   
 
In addition to cancer, smoking leads to  several respiratory diseases. One of the most serious is 
COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease). Approximately  370,000 people in Norway 
have COPD, which is primarily caused by  smoking. Smoking causes and exacer bates other 
lung diseases as well, such as asthma and chronic bronchitis.     
 
                                                 
12 WHO (2009), Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks: 
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf   
13 Vollset SE m.fl , Hvor dødelig er røyking? Rapport om dødsfall og tapt e leveår som skyldes røyking, Report  
2006:4, Institute of Public Health:  http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/F96A862E2C.pdf   
14 Banks  E et al, Tobacco smoking and all -cause mortality in a large Australian cohort study: findings from a 
mature epidemic with current low smoking prevalence , BMC Medicine  2015 ,13:38: 
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741 -7015/13/38  
15 U.S. Departmen t of Health and Human Services (2004) , The health consequences of smoking: A report of the 
Surgeon General : http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/smokingconsequences/index.html , Storvoll E m.fl, 
Skader og problemer forbundet med bruk av alkohol, narkotika og tobakk , Sirus -rapport nr. 3/2010: 
http://www.sirus.no/filestore/Automatisk_opprettede_filer/sirusrap.3 .10.pdf   In general, there is a clear link between smoking  and the risk of mortality. The risk of  death is 
relatively higher for heavy  daily smoking . Although  the risk of mortality from smoking is 
highest among heavy smokers, there is a significant excess mortality even among those who 
smoke 1 to 4 cigarettes per day .16 Health risks from smoking  even  fewer cigarettes per day  
have also been identified. According to a report from 2010 by the U.S. Surgeon General,  
occasional smoking and passive smoking  can both cause immediate damage to the body 
which may lead to serious illness or death .17 Inhaling even small amounts of tobacco smoke 
may damage DNA, which may later lead to cancer.   
 
In the introduction to a 2014 report by the  U.S. Surgeon General  it is stated that the tobacco 
epidemic was initiated and maintained by the tobacco industry’s aggressive strategies, which 
wilfully misled the population about  the adverse health effects of smoking.18 The report states 
that research evidence is now able to p rove a causal relationship between smoking and disease 
in nearly every organ  of the body. Evidence from  recent research indicates that smoking 
increases the likelihood  of treatment failure for all types of cancer, that smoking may lead  to 
arthritis and  an impaired immune system,  and that it  increases the risk of tuberculosis and 
death from tuberculosis, the risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility, and clef t palate in 
foetuses early in pregnancy.  
 
A major American study from February 2015 shows that the list of diseases caused by, an d 
exacerbated by smoking is even longer than previously assumed , and that the number of 
deaths due to smoking is most likely much higher than currently estimated.19  
 
Furthermore, a 2014 report by the  U.S. Surgeon General states that even though today’s 
smokers smoke fewer cigarettes than the average number 50 years ago, they still have a 
higher risk of developing lung cancer. This is partly due to changes in the design and content 
of cigarettes since the 1950s. Studies indicate that ventilated filters may be contributing  to a 
higher risk of lung cancer, since smokers inhale more strongly and therefore inhale the 
carcinogenic chemicals deeper into their lung tissue. At least 70 of the chemicals in cigarette 
smoke are carcinogenic. The level  of some of these chemicals has increased, since production 
processes have changed  over time .  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
16 BjartveitTverdal,  Health consequences of smoking 1 –4 cigarettes per day , Tobacco Control 2005;14:315 –320. 
17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010) , How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology 
and Behavioral Basis for Smoking -Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General : 
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/tobaccosmoke/index.html    
18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  (2014) , The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of 
Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General : http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50 -years -of-
progress/inde x.html   
19 Carter B et al.,  Smoking and Mortality — Beyond Established Causes , N Engl J Med 2015; 372:631 -640, 
12.2.2015: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1407211   Harmful health effects from snus  use 
Although the use of snus is far less harmful to health than smoking, the use of snus also 
increases the  risk of serious disease. The Institute of Public Health published a report in 
November 2014 about the adverse health effects of snus  use.20 This report  concludes that snus 
is carcinogenic , and evidence shows that  snus use increases the risk of cancer in th e pancreas, 
oesophagus and mouth. There is also evidence that snus use may increase the risk of cancer in 
the stomach, colon and rectum. However, it is not possible to determine how high the risk 
would have to be in order to develop  cancer. The degree of i ncrease d cancer risk would most 
likely  depend on how early a person began to use  snus, as well as the frequency of use, the 
amount of  snus used, the number of years snus has been used,  and the content of dangerous 
chemicals in the snus product. There is so me evidence that snus users have a poorer prognosis 
in the event of cancer diseases.  
There is convincing evidence that snus use may lead to a higher risk of mortality  from heart 
attack or stroke. Quitting snus after surviving a heart attack may reduce the risk of mortality 
by half.   
 
The report also provides significant evidence that use of snus during pregnancy can lead to 
reduced birth weight,  and an  increased risk of premature birth and still birth. There are 
indications that use of snus dur ing pregnancy may lead to pre-eclampsia, increased risk of 
respiratory failure in newborns, cleft palate, and in the long -term, behaviour problems and 
other disorders. The developing brain is very sensitive to nicotine . We have limited 
knowledge of the extent of snus use during pregnancy, but there are indications that the use of 
snus among pregnant women is rising. Statistics from 2009 show that around 20  % of users 
continued using snus during pregnancy.  The sharp rise in snus  use among young women ove r 
the last few years increases the likelihood  that more pregnant women will be using snus in the 
years to come.  
 
There is little or no evidence that the use of snus leads to an increased risk of cardiovascular 
diseases or stroke. There is, however, signifi cant evidence that snus use leads to an increased 
risk of mortality from heart attack and stroke . Quitting snus after surviving a heart attack can 
reduce the chance of mortality by 50  %. Acute effects of snus use include increased heart rate 
and increased blood pressure, and heart function may also be affected. There are indications 
that use of snus may be associated with an increased risk of heart failure.  
 
There is also evidence to indicate that heavy use of snus may be linked to an increased risk of 
developing diabetes type 2, and evidence to suggest that snus use may be associated with an 
increased risk of weight gain and obesity.  There are also indications that snus use may reduce 
fertility.    
 
                                                 
20 Institute of Public Health (2014), Helserisiko ved snusbruk :  http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/35f7c1d9e4.pdf   Use of snus may damage mucosa l membranes  in the mouth , causing the formation  of white or 
red patches. These are known as  snus-induced lesions. Some of these lesions have been 
classified as pre -cancerous, but most of them go away after  the person quits using snus. There 
may be permanent local areas of receding gum tissue in the spot where the snus was placed. 
This may lead to exposed roots and nerve pain, and possibly loss of teeth in localised areas .  
 
One important issue is whether snus use among young people increases the risk that they will 
later begin smoking. There are several studies on this issue, but so far results have been 
contradictory. There is a predominance of evidence to indicate that snus  use increases the risk 
of later smoking behaviour.    
The Ministry maintains that the health risks of snus use among young people should primarily 
not be compared with the health risks of smoking, but rather with not using tobacco at all.  
      
3. STANDARDIS ED TOBACCO PACKAGING AND PRODUCTS  
3.1 Existing law  
The Tobacco Control Act includes, inter alia,  the following restrictions: a ban on tobacco 
advertising and sponso rship , a ban on free distribution of, and discounts on tobacco products, 
a ban on the visible display  of tobacco products at point s of sale, a ban on self -service, an age 
limit of 18 years for buying tobacco , a ban on the sale of packs of less than 20  cigarettes, a 
ban on the use of tobacco on schools  grounds  and during school hours for  students , a 
normative provision on children’s right to a smoke -free environment, and a complete ban on 
smoking in all buildings and transportation accessed by the public, including workplaces, 
entrances to health institutions and public offices.    
 
The Act is supplemented by three regulations:  Regulations no. 989 of 15 December 1995 on 
the prohibition of advertising of tobacco products (hereinafter the Advertising Regulation s), 
Regulations 141 of 6 February 2003 on the contents and labelling of tobacco p roducts  
(hereinafter the Labelling Regulation s), and Regulations 1044 of 13 October 1989 on the 
prohibition of new tobacco  and nicotine products.  
 
The Tobacco Control Act, the advertising and labelling regulation s all include specific 
provisions on the labelling of tobacco packaging. These are to a large extent an 
implementation of the current EU Tobacco Products Directive,  2001/37/E C.  
 
The Tobacco Control Act , Section  30 states : 
 
“Section 30 Requirements concerning labelling of tobacco products  
 
It is prohibited to bring into Norway, sell or distribute tobacco products that are not 
labelled with a warning indicating the health risks of using these products. Cigarette 
packets shall similarly carry a declara tion of their contents.   
It is prohibited to bring into Norway, sell or distribute tobacco products which by their 
text, name, trademark, illustrations or other sign or symbol suggest that a particular 
tobacco product is less damaging to health than other tobacco products.  
 
A manufacturer or vendor of tobacco products may not by means of symbols or text 
on packaging provide their own information on the health consequences of smoking . 
 
The Ministry will issue more detailed regulations on labelling pursuant to this 
section.”  
 
The Labelling Regulations, Section 17 states :  
 
“Section 17. Misleading product descriptions   
To ensure that consumers are not misled with regard to the damage to health caused by 
using tobacco products, it is prohibited to import into Norway, process, sell or transfer 
tobacco products which imply by text, name, trade mark, illustrations or other signs 
that a particular tobacco product is less harmful to health than others.”  
 
The Advertising Regulations, Section 6 states :  
 
“Section 6. Prohibition of untraditional designs or appearance of tobacco product 
packets  
It is prohibited to sell tobacco product packets that may as a result of  non-
traditional  design or appearance lead to an increase in sales. It is prohibited to design 
tobacco pro duct packets with the aim of increasing sales among young people. This 
includes untraditional designs of tobacco product packets with respect to logos, 
colours, shape of packet or continually changing design which may encourage 
collecting.”  
3.1.1 EU legislation  
Norway is bound by two EU Directives relating to tobacco: Directive 2001/37/ EC regarding 
the manufacture , display  and sale of tobacco products, and Directive 2003/33/EC regarding 
tobacco advertising and sponsor ship. The new Directive 2014/40/EU of 3 April 2014 
regarding the manufacture , display  and sale of tobacco and tobacco -related products replaces 
Directive 2001/37/EC, and will be implemented in all member states  by 20 May 2016 .21 The 
Directive is EEA relevant and the process of incorporating this direct ive in to the EEA 
agreement has begun.    
                                                 
21 The European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/40/EU of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of 
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, 
display and sale of tobacco and related products and repea ling Directive 2001/37/EC : http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/DA/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014L0040&qid=1413455761491&from=EN  Directive  2014/40/EU contains a number of new requirements which will apply to all tobacco 
and to bacco -related products in the E U, including , inter alia,  larger health warnings and the 
regulation of additives. The Ministry will consult separately on the implementation of the 
Directive during 2015.   
The Directive does not directly regulate standardised tobacco packaging, but Article 24 (2) 
specifies that th e Directive does not prevent member states from introducing such legislation, 
provided that certain conditions are met. Article 24 (2) states:    
“This Directive shall not affect the right of a Member State to maintain or introduce 
further requirements, applicable to all products placed on its market, in relation to the 
standardisation of the packaging of tobacco products, where it is justified on grounds 
of public health, taking into account the high level of protection of human health 
achieved through t his Directive. Such measures shall be proportionate and may not 
constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade 
between Member States. Those measures shall be notified to the Commission together 
with the grounds for maint aining or introducing them.”  
 
The right to introduce such legislation beyond the explicit provisions of the Directive are 
stated in the Directive’s preamble, number  53:  
“Tobacco and related products which comply with this Directive should benefit from 
the free movement of goods. However, in light of the different degrees of 
harmonisation achieved by this Directive, the Member States should, under certain 
conditions, retain the power to impose further requirements in certain respects in order 
to protect pub lic health. This is the case in relation to display and packaging, including 
colours, of tobacco products other than health warnings, for which this Directive 
provides a first set of basic common rules. Accordingly, Member States could, for 
example, introd uce provisions providing for further standardisation of the packaging 
of tobacco products, provided that those provisions are compatible with the TFEU, 
with WTO obligations and do not affect the full application of this Directive.”  
 
3.1.2  The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control  
The World Health Organization’s convention on tobacco control is a evidence -based, 
international , legally binding agreement.22 The objective of the convention is presented in 
Article 3:    
 
                                                 
22 WHO Framework C onvention on Tobacco Control (FCTC): http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/
9241591013.pdf , Norwegian translation : http://www.helsedirektoratet.no/vp/multimedia/archive/ 00000/
Rammekonvensjonen_om_f_603a.pdf    
 “The objective of this Convention and  its protocols is to protect present and future 
generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic 
consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke by providing a 
framework for tobacco control measures to be implem ented by the Parties at the 
national, regional and international levels in order to reduce continually and 
substantially the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke.”  
 
The Convention currently  has 180 Parties, and Norway was the first country to sign and ratify  
it.  There is an ongoing effort  to implement and elaborate on the obligations of the 
Convention, including the preparation of guidelines. Provisions of the Convention provide 
considerable  freedom to the various parties in  terms o f forming their own legal provisions and 
measures based on the conditions in each country. Provisions of the Convention determine 
what must be regulated by the Parties, as well as the goals they must strive toward. However, 
the parties are often free to de termine the manner in which these regulations will take shape. 
The guidelines are more detailed , and some  provide explanations  on the manner in which  
parties have agreed on the interpretation and implementation of Convention provisions. Other 
guidelines pr ovide only suggestions for various measures and examples of best practice.   
 
Guidelines under  Article 11 of the Convention, regarding labelling and packaging of tobacco 
products, and guidelines under  Article 13 regarding the ban on advertising, recommend that 
the Parties consider introducing standardised tobacco packaging. The guidelines for Article 11 
refer to “plain packaging” in point 46:  
 
“46. Parties should consider adopting measures to restrict  or prohibit the use of logos, 
colours, brand images or promotional information on packaging other than brand 
names and product names displayed in a standard colour and font style (plain 
packaging). This may increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings 
and messages, prevent the package from detracting attention from them, and address 
industry package design techniques that may suggest that some products are less 
harmful than others.”  
 
The guidelines for Article 13 refer to “plain packagin g” in points 15 to 17 :  
 
“Packaging and product features  
15. Packaging is an important element of advertising and promotion. Tobacco packs or 
product features are used in various ways to attract consumers, to promote products 
and to cultivate and promote brand identity, for example by using logos, colours, 
fonts, pictures, shapes and materials on or in packs or on individual cigarettes or other 
tobacco products.  
 16. The effect of advertising or promotion on packaging can be eliminated by 
requiring plain p ackaging: black and white or two other contrasting colours, as 
prescribed by national authorities; nothing other than a brand name, a product name 
and/or manufacturer’s name, contact details and the quantity of product in the 
packaging, without any logos o r other features apart from health warnings, tax stamps 
and other government -mandated information or markings; prescribed font style and 
size; and standardized shape, size and materials. There should be no advertising or 
promotions inside or attached to th e package or on individual cigarettes or other 
tobacco products.  
 
17. If plain packaging is not yet mandated, the restriction should cover as many as 
possible of the design features that make tobacco products more attractive to 
consumers such as animal or other figures, “fun” phrases, coloured cigarette papers, 
attractive smells, novelty or seasonal packs.  
 
Recommendation  
Packaging and product design are important elements of advertising and promotion. 
Parties should consider adopting plain packaging requ irements to eliminate the effects 
of advertising or promotion on packaging. Packaging, individual cigarettes or other 
tobacco products should carry no advertising or promotion, including design features 
that make products attractive.”  
 
The proposals provid ed in this consultation paper  will contribute toward enabling Norway to 
fulfil  the obligations of th e FCTC .   
3.2  Objectives and justification  
The overarching objective of the proposal to introduce standardised tobacco packaging is to 
reduce the number  of children and young sters who begin smoking and using snus, in order  to 
protect them from the harmful effects of tobacco use. More specifically the objective is to 
make  tobacco products less appealing by limit ing the advertising effect of the packaging, 
increas ing the impact  of the mandatory health warnings, as well as minimis ing the risk that 
the packaging design gives  misleading information about  the harmful health effects of 
tobacco . It is assumed that the meas ure will also contribute toward a moderate reduction in 
the use of tobacco among adults  by helping people to quit smoking and using  snus, and by 
helping to prevent relapse  among those who have quit. It will  also have the effect of 
denormalising tobacco products and tobacco use .  
The Ministry believes that this measure may help to prevent today’s children and young 
people from becoming the next generation of tobacco -dependent  adults.  The measure would 
also c ontribute toward fulfilling the long -term vision of a tobacco -free society.   Research has shown that packaging design may give the false impression  that tobacco 
products are less harmful to one’s health than is actually the case , especially to young people. 
In the preamble of the new EU Directive, point 27 states that certain types of tobacco 
packaging may give the impression that the product purports  benefits in terms of weight loss, 
sex appeal, social status, or qualities such as femininity, masculinity or elegance. Th e 
packaging  is designed to make the use of tobacco appear more attractive and appealing, 
especially among young people, and reduces the impact  of the health warnings.  Furthermore, 
it is well known that the appeara nce of various brands may have some importance as identity 
markers.  It is therefore the opinion of the Ministry that standardised appearance and design of 
tobacco packaging may be a useful and effective preventative measure , especially with regard 
to youn g people.  
Most people who start smoking are minors , and research shows that they tend to 
underestimate the risk of becoming addicted to tobacco.23 The appearance of tobacco 
packaging is an important factor in attracting young users. A number of tobacco products with 
an untraditional design have appeared on the market over the last few years. Tobacco 
packaging design  serves as advertising, with the greatest impact on young people. Older, 
more established tobacco users rarely switch brands.  
 
More than hal f of smokers began smoking before they turned 18 . Despite extensive tobacco 
control measures in Norway since the 1970s, the total percentage  of smokers and snus users in 
the 16 to 24 age bracket remains high. It is therefore necessary to implement further measures 
if the goal of a tobacco -free generation is to be realised.    
The proposal will only have consequence s for the tobacco industry , s it will limit their  
opportunity to display trademark s on their products. The measure will not affect adult s’ 
opportunity to purchase and use tobacco.  
 
It is well-documented that tobacco advertising affects  tobacco use . This is a fundamental tenet 
of the FCTC . The preamble states that its parties are  “seriously concerned about the impact of 
all forms of adverti sing, promotion and sponsorship aimed at encouraging the use of tobacco 
products.”  In Article 13, no. 1 it is stated that the parties “recognize that a comprehensive ban 
on advertising, promotion and sponsorship would reduce the consumption of tobacco 
products.”  
 
Norway , as many other countries,  has introduced a number of restrictions on marketing and 
sponsorship of tobacco, and has a near total ban on advertising, including a display ban at 
points of sale . Due to these strict regulations, promotion through the product packaging is the 
only remaining legal form of advertising.   The tobacco industry has therefore invested large 
sums in the development of packaging design and brand  imaging.   
 
                                                 
23 Lund and Rise (2002), Gjennomgang av forskningslitter aturen om tiltak for å redusere røyking blant ungdom , 
Directorate for Health and Social Affairs, IS -1037, p. 22 -23.  The tobacco industry itself has stated that tobacco packagin g represents the  company’s 
”billboard” .24 One UK study found a  significant development in product innovation following  
the introduction of a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.25 During this period, a high 
number of  innovative packaging designs  began to appear, and many had  advanced design and 
packaging elements.      
 
The fact that packaging serves as advertising was also noted  by the Directorate of Health in a 
report from 1 November 2006  regarding a tobacco display ban at points of sale . In this report, 
the Directorate referred to research which, with reference to  previous internal documents from 
the American tobacco industry, revealed that tobacco packaging design is an integral part of 
the industry’s marketing strategy, intended to ser ve two purposes: Packaging should attract 
attention in a shop display of tobacco, and it should communicate a message about image. In a 
later research report by Sirus, it was noted  that packaging is a communication medium which 
has grown in importance, sin ce an increasing number of countries are placing restrictions on 
ordinary tobacco advertising. 26 This is also the conclusion from several other international 
studies. The guidelines of Article 13 of the FCTC  states  that “packaging and product design 
features are important elements of advertising and promotion”. Briefly summarised, the 
general opinion of the research literature is that  tobacco packaging marked wi th a logo and the 
manufacturer ’s own design brand const itutes one of the last remaining influential channels by 
which tobacco manufacturers can reach consumers .27 
 
                                                 
24 Article in  WIPO Magazine, February  2013,  Cigarettes will kill you: The High Court of Australia & plain 
packaging of tobacco products : http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2013/01/article_0005.html  
25 Cancer Research UK  (2012), The packaging of tobacco products : http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ —
prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@new/@pre/documents/generalcontent/cr_086687.pdf   
26 Lund and Rise, Kunnskapsgrunnlag for forslaget om et forbud mot synlig oppstilling av tobakksvarer , Sirus -
Skrifter 1/2008 ( hereafter Lund & Rise 2008): http://www.sirus.no/filestore/I mport_vedlegg/sirusskrifter1.08.pdf  
27 See Lavik and Scheffels, Evaluering av forbud mot synlig oppstilling av tobakksvarer, Report  no. 2-2011 , 
Sirus ( hereafter Lavik & Scheffels, 2011);  Cancer Council Victoria, Australia, Plain packaging of cigarettes: a 
review of the evidence, 2011, p. 6-10; Moodie  and Hastings  (2010) , Tobacco Packaging as promotion : 
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/2/168.full ; Scoll o and Freeman  (2012) , Packaging as Promotion : 
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/2/168.full ; Moodie et al, Plain Tobacco Packaging: A Systematic 
Review  (hereafter Moodie 1):  http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf ; as well as updates 
(hereafter Moodie 2): http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/Plain%20 Packaging %20
Studies %20Update.pdf ; Chantler, Standardised packaging of tobacco , UK (hereafter Chantler) : 
http://www.kcl.ac. uk/health/10035 -TSO -2901853 -Chantler -Review -ACCESSIBLE.PDF?utm_source=rss&utm_
medium= rss&utm_campaign=standardised -packaging -of-tobacco -report -of-the-independent -review -undertaken -
by-sir-cyril-chantler -pdf; Hammond, Standardized packaging of tobacco prod ucts, Evidence Review , Ireland:  
http://health.gov.ie/wp -content/uploads/2013/12/2014 -Ireland -Plain -Pack -Main -Report -Final -Report -July-26.pdf  With the introduction of the display ban, tobacco packaging no longer ha s any advertising 
impact  in retail outlets . After purchase, however, tobacco  packaging is still visible, and 
continues to have an advertising effect while the product is being used. An Australian study 
showed that 81  % of ordinary cigarette packages were displayed in such a way that the brand 
was visible after purchase (in cafes, restaurants, etc.), so that the effect of advertising  was 
significant also after the sale of the package .28 A person who smokes a packet  of 20 cigarettes 
per day is exposed to this packaging more than 7000 times a year.29 Snus boxes  are also very 
visible in social settings.   
 
Children are repeatedly taught about the danger s and addictive qualities of tobacco products, 
that tobacco should never be used, and that it is illegal to sell tobacco products to children and 
young sters under th e age of 18. Yet children are often exposed to tobacco products with 
appealing packaging, colours and designs. Adults can more easily deal with these mixed 
messages  due to  the government’s comprehensive health warnings, but children are not able 
to sort ou t mixed messages in the same manner. It is the Ministry’s opinion that the measure 
clearly has the potential for reducing tobacco use.  
3.3 Regulations in other countries   
The introduction of standardised tobacco packaging has currently been implemented in 
Australia, adopted in Ireland  and United Kingdom , and considered  introduced in France , New 
Zealand , Sweden and Finland among others .   
3.3.1 Australia  
Australia was the first country  in the world to introduce mandatory standardised tobacco 
packaging, effective from 1 December 2012. Australia ’s goal is to reduce the prevalence of 
smoking to 10  % by 2018, and the measure is a means to achieve this goal. The measure is 
meant to encourage  the population to quit smoking and reduce its use of tobacco, and to make 
it easier for people who are trying to quit or have quit using tobacco, as well as reduce the 
public’s exposure to tobacco smoke. The specific purpose of the regulation of tobacco 
packaging, its appearance and design, is to reduce the appeal of tobacco products, especially 
for children and young people, as well as to increase the impact of health warnings, reduce the 
opportunity for tobacco packaging to provide misleading information  about the harmful 
effects of tobacco use, and in the long term, along with other tobacco control measures, 
contribute toward reducing the number  of tobacco users. The provisions of the law state that 
the measure  also will  contribute toward fulfilling Australia’s commitments under the FCTC .  
 
Australia has a long history of comprehensive  tobacco control policy, including  a ban on 
advertising, on display, and on smoking in public areas, in addition to comprehensive 
smoking cessation campaigns.   
                                                 
28 Wakefield et al,  The silent salesman: an observational study of personal tobacco pack display at outdoor café 
strips in Australia , Tob Control.  2014 Jul;23(4):339 -44: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23427292   
29 Department of Health,  England,  Impact Assesment, 5.3.2012: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/170569/dh_133576.pdf , see page  10. Standardised tobacco packaging is a knowledge -based measure, and Australian authorities 
based the introduction of the measure on extensive  studies .30  
In summary, Australia found  evidence to support the claim  that standardised packaging led to 
more effective health warnings, minimised misconceptions about  the risks associated with the 
various brands, and reduced the appeal associated with tobacco use. For further details on 
these studies and the effects of the  measure, see point  3.4 below . 
 
Shortly after the introduction of the measure, Australia was sued by several tobacco 
companies in domestic courts. The main issue of the case was whether the measure could be  
considered  legitimate , based on the provisions of  the country’s constitution . The government  
won the case. Philip Morris Asia  then brought a case before an arbitration court on 21 
November 2011, based on a bilateral investment agreement with Hong Kong. The case has 
not yet been decided. Five countries ha ve initiated dispute settlement cases against  Australia 
in the  WTO  system. The tobacco industry is covering court costs for several of them. It is 
expected that the cases will be decided sometime between 2016 and 2017. Norway is a third 
party in the se cases.  
3.3.2 United Kingdom  
The United Kingdom  adopted  primary legislation providing for the introduction of  
mandatory standardised tobacco packaging on 13 March 2014. Supplementary regulations for 
England were approved in the House of Commons on 11 March 2015.    
 
The purpose of this measure is to prevent the use of tobacco by reduc ing the appeal of tobacco 
products to consumers , increasing the effectiveness of health warnings on the packaging of 
tobacco products , reduc ing the ability of tobacco packaging to mislead consumers about the 
harmful effects of smoking , and having   a positive effect on smoking -related attitudes, beliefs, 
intentions and behaviours, particularly among children and young people.  The measure  only 
cove rs cigarettes and  hand -rolling tobacco, since these products are the most prevalent among 
young people in England.     
 
Two evidence  reviews were  carried out, along with one independent study of the effects of the 
measure . All three  concluded that the measure is likely  to have a positive effect on the 
population’s health, especially with regard to children and young people.31 In the conclusion 
of the final report it is stated:   
 
                                                 
30 Quit, Cancer Council Victoria, Plain packaging of cigarettes: a review of the evidence , April 2011 : 
http://www.cancervic.org.au/plainfacts/browse.asp?ContainerID=plainfacts -evidence   
31 First knowledge review, Moodie 1: http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf ; Updated 
version of first knowledge review, Moodie 2: http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/
documents/Plain%20Packaging%20Studies%20Update.pdf ; Chantler review: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035 -
TSO -2901853 -Chantler -Review -ACCESSIBLE.PDF?utm_ source=rss& utm_medium=rss&utm_campa ign=
standardised -packaging -of-tobacco -report -of-the-independent -review -undertaken -by-sir-cyril-chantler -pdf  
 “In conclusion, research cannot prove conclusively that a single intervention such as 
standardised packaging of tobacco products will reduce smoking prevalence. For 
various reasons, as cited, it is not possible to carry out a randomised, controlled trial. 
Even if it was possible, it would be extremely difficult to control for all the various 
confounding factors which are known to affect smoking. However, after a careful 
review of all of the relevant evidence before me, I am satisfied there is sufficient  
evidence derived from independent sources that the introduction of standardised 
packaging, as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures, would be 
very likely, over time, to contribute to a modest but important reduction in smoking 
prevalence,  especially in children and young adults . Given the dangers of smoking, 
the suffering that it causes, the highly addictive nature of nicotine, the fact that most 
smokers become addicted when they are children or young adults and the overall cost 
to society , the importance of such a reduction should not be underestimated.” (our 
italics).  
3.3.3 Ireland  
In 2013 , Ireland adopted a strategy  to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use to less than 5 % by 
2025. One measure aimed at achieving this objective was the introduction of standardised 
tobacco packaging on 3 March 2015. Irish authorities specify that this measure is one of many 
intended to reduce the use of tobacco in the population. The purpose of the legislation  is to 
reduce the appeal of tobacco produ cts, increase the effect of health warnings, and minimise 
misconceptions about  the risks of tobacco use. It is also noted that the legislation  will 
contribute toward fulfilling Ireland’s obligations under  the FCTC. The legislation applies to 
all tobacco products.   
 
An Irish  evidence  review concludes that the measure is appropriate  for achieving these 
objectives .32 The review contains an analysis of studies from a number of disciplines, such as 
marketing directed toward young people, and the causal relationship between marketing and 
use of tobacco, health warnings, understanding of risks, consumer behaviour, choice o f 
colour, and studies on the effect of the measure in Australia.   
 
The report also indicates  that Western countries are very similar in terms of the conditions 
that influence  smoking  uptake , pattern s of use, as well as cessation . The tobacco industry’s 
practice with regard to the design and use of tobacco packaging as promotion is also similar  
across countries . Results of research on packaging from other Western nations  may therefore 
reasonably be applied  to Ireland. Findings  from the v arious countries are consistent, and they  
support the conclusion that studies and results from other countries may be transferred to, and 
used as a foundation for the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging in Ireland. The 
measure is wide ly supported by the public . According to a European study from  2012, 81  % 
of the Irish population supported the proposal.33  
                                                 
32 Hammond (2014), Standardized packaging of tobacco products – Evidence Review : http://health.gov.ie/wp -
content/uploads/2013/12/2014 -Ireland -Plain -Pack -Main -Report -Final -Report -July-26.pdf   
33 http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/eurobaro_attitudes_towards_tobacco_2012_en.pdf   3.3.4 New Zealand  
In 2011, the government adopted the goal to make New Zealand a smoke -free nation by 2025. 
In 2012, a proposal to introduce standardised tobacco packaging was sent on  public  
consultation. . With this  proposal, New Zealand  wished  to establish  regulations that were  to a 
large extent aligned  with the Australian legislation. A legislative proposal was present ed to 
the parliament on 17 December 2013. The objective of the proposal was to reduce the appeal 
of tobacco products, particularly among  children and young people, denormalise the social 
acceptance of tobacco products in the population, raise awareness and increase the impact  of 
health warnings, and reduce misconceptions about  health risks caused by tobacco packaging .   
3.3.5 France  
France presented  a bill regarding standardised tobacco packaging to its parliament on  
27 October 2014. The purpose of the legislation  was to discourage  the use of tobacco among 
children and young people.    
3.3.6 Sweden  
A Swedish public committee has been given the task of assessing the possible introduction of 
standardised tobacco packaging in Sweden. The committee report will be presented by  
1 March 2016.34 
3.3.7 Finland  
Finland adopted  a new tobacco strategy in 2014, where the long -term goal is to reduce the 
prevalence of tobacco use to less than 2  % by 2040. One of the measures in the strategy  is the 
introduction of standardised tobacco packaging . The goal is to reduce the use of tobacco, 
particularly among children and young people, by reducin g the appeal of tobacco products .  
3.4 Research on the effect s of standardised tobacco packaging  
Preliminary findings from Australia  indicate that the measure has been effective, and that in 
time it will help to ensure that tobacco use in younger generations is gradually phased out.  All 
countries that have introduced or that have begun to introduce standardised tobacco packaging 
have carried out evidence  reviews. Major reviews and reports carried out in Europe include 
the following : 
 
 United Kingdom :  
o Moodie et.al. (2011), Plain Tobacco Packaging: A systematic Review , 
University of Stirling.35 
o Moodie et.al.  (2013), Plain Tobacco Packaging Research: An Update , 
University of Stirling.36  
o Chantler (2014),  Standardised packaging of tobacco products. Report of the 
independent review undertaken by Sir Cyril Chantler .37 
                                                 
34 Socialdepartementet , Kommittédirektiv 2015:16 , Tilläggsdirektiv till Utredningen om genomförande av EU:s 
tobaksproduktdirektiv (p.  2014:16) : https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument -Lagar/Utredningar/
Kommittedirektiv/ Tillaggsdirektiv -till-Utrednin_H3B116/    
35 http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf   
36http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/ schools/management/documents/Plain%20Packaging%20Studies%20Update.pdf    Ireland: Hammond (2014), Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products. Evidence 
Review , University of Waterloo.38 
 Norway: Sirus (2015), Oppdatering av kunnskapsgrunnlaget om standardiserte 
tobakkspakninger (Updat e of the knowledge base for standardised tobacco 
packaging)39 
 
New Zealand and Australia have also carried out studies and evidence reviews.40,41 
 
On 11 February 2015, Sirus presented an updated  review  on standardised tobacco packaging . 
Sirus reports that the extent of experimental studies of the measure have risen significantly 
since the previous knowledge review in 2012. The Sirus report confirms that the research is  
sufficient to draw conclusions on the effect of the measure , in terms of the  level of 
recruitment of young people to tobacco . 
 
Evidence reviews include descriptions and analyses of studies which apply to various aspects 
of standardised tobacco packaging , with particular focus on the three main goals of the 
measure. Several  studies  have also looked at the measure’s effect on attitudes and behaviour 
related to tobacco use, as well as ill icit trade of tobacco products.   
 
Less appealing tobacco packaging  
One of the key findings from all studies focusing on appeal and attractiveness  is that 
standardised packaging  was ranked as less appealing than equivalent packaging with logos or 
brand designs (ordinary packages). Standardised packaging was also perceived to contain a 
product with poorer quality and taste. The positive impression of  smoker identity and 
personality characteristics associated with specific tobacco brands was weakened or erased 
completely with standardised packages. Another consistent finding was that non -smokers and 
younger people reacted more negatively to standardise d packaging than smokers and older 
people.    
 
 
 
 
  
                                                                                                                                                         
37 http://www.kcl.ac. uk/health/10035 -TSO -2901853 -Chantler -Review -ACCESSIBLE.PDF?utm_source= rss
&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=standardised -packaging -of-tobacco -report -of-the-independent -review -
undertaken -by-sir-cyril-chantler -pdf  
38 http://health.gov.ie/wp -content/uploads/2014/06/2014 -Ireland -Plain -Pack -Main -Report -Final -Report -July-
26.pdf   
39 http://www.sirus.no/kunnskapsoppsummering -om-standardiserte -tobakkspakninger/  (updated knowledge 
review from 2012)  
40 http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/proposal -introduce -plain -packaging -tobacco -products -new-zealand   
41 http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealt h/publishing.nsf/Content/home -1  More visible health warnings  
Several of the studies have looked at the relationship between standardi sed packaging and 
perceptions of  the prominence of health warnings on the packages. The majority of the  studies 
concluded that the health warnings were more visible on standardised packages than on 
ordinary packages, and participants remembered the warnings more often after observing 
them on standardised packages . Results from qualitative studies on the topic indicate that 
standardised packages emphasise health warnings to a greater extent because these packages 
are less “busy”. There is less of a visual impression to inte rfere with the message, and drab 
packages are seen to emphasis e the seriousness and credibility of the health warnings.   
 
Reduced misconceptions about  health risks  
Other studies examined perceptions regarding health risks and harmful effects. A review of 
these indicates that standardised packaging may reduce misconceptions about  the gene ral 
harmful effects of various brands of tobacco. Studies also found that the use of terms such as 
“gold” or “smooth” on standardised cigarette packets  may potentially give the consumers the 
wrong impression of harmful effects, much as ordinary packages do .   
 
Increase in negative attitudes toward tobacco use  
Other studies have focused on the possible impact of standardised packaging on smoking -
related attitudes and smoking behaviour. These studies primarily found that standardised 
packaging appears to increase negative attitudes toward smoking, and that general perception s 
of standardised packaging may help to discourage  young people from starting smoking, and 
established smokers to quit. These perceptions were most common among non -smokers, those 
who s moke fewer cigarettes, and younger people.    
 
  Norwegian studies – with particular focus on snus  
Sirus has also carried out studies in Norway.42 The main conclusion from these studies was 
that standardised packaging  appeared less attractive, especially to young people. Furthermore, 
the health warnings on these packages had a stronger impact and received more attention. 
Most of the smokers did not believe that standardised tobacco packets would make them stop 
smoking, but they did think that standardised pa ckages might prevent someone else from 
starting.  
 
One study from Norway showed that standardised snus packs were  perceived by young 
people as being less appealing.43 The study indicates that the design of a snus pack  is 
important for the product’s appeal t o young people between the ages of 14 and 18. Packaging 
design and snus brands communicate social identity, while design, colour and use of materials 
all influence  young people’s perception of the snus products.  Brands had a clear social 
significance for young people , through their interactions with others. Brands also had a 
greater symbolic significance, since they were used to express  social identity and affiliation. 
Participants described snus products on the market as identity markers, the reason being  that 
the packages were so different. Packaging design was also important for young people’s 
perception of health risks. Light -coloured tins with flavouring were perceived as less harmful 
than other brands. Other tins were perceived as containing something  other than tobacco, 
especially the light -coloured or colourful tins with flavouring. These made people think of 
candy, cosmetics or chewing gum. Several of the participants mentioned that new products 
with smaller and thinner snus portions were especially  appealing to young people. In 
summary, the study showed that packaging design for snus, like cigarettes, is important to 
young people, and it may represent identity markers and carry social significance when young 
people  interact . Furthermore, packaging d esign and product development is important for the 
recruitment of young and new snus users.  
 
Key findings from Australia  
A number of studies have been carried out in Australia following the introduction of the 
measure.  Key findings include the following :  
 Standardised packaging may have an impact on attitudes toward smoking.   
 The measure  does not appear to have had any negative impact on general sales and 
purchases in shops or on the preference for larger or smaller retail  outlets. Neither do they 
appea r to have had any impact on ill icit trade.  
 Smokers perceive standardised packaging as less attractive.   
                                                 
42 Scheffels & Sæbø (2013),  Perceptions of Plain and Branded Cigarette Packaging Among Norwegian Youth 
and Adults: A Focus Group Study , Nicotine & Tobacco Research  15(2):  450-456; Lund & Scheffels (2013),  
Young smokers and non -smokers perceptions of typical users of plain vs. branded cigarette packs: a between -
subjects experim ental survey , BMC Public Health  13(1): 1005; Scheffels & Lund (2013), The impact of cigarette 
branding and plain packaging on perceptions of product appeal and risk among young adults in Norway: A 
between -subjects experimental survey. , BMJ Open  3(12). 
43 Sirus (2015), Oppdatering av kunnskapsgrunnlaget om standardiserte tobakkspakning er  Cigarette packages have become less visible in public places – a 15 % decline in 
comparison with the period prior to the introduction of standardised packaging. This 
decline is sharper  in places where young people tend to gather.   
 There has been an increase in the number of people calling the quit line, and an increase in 
the number of those expressing an intent  to quit.   
 Support for standardised packag ing among smokers rose from 28  % prior to introduction 
of the meas ure, to 49 % after the introduction of the measure .   
 After the measure was introduced, there has also been a reduction in the percentage of 
smokers in Australia, from 15.1  % in 2010 to 12.8  % in 2013.44 This is the largest  decline 
since surveys began in 1991. The percentage  of young people between the ages of 18 to 
24 who reported that they had never smoked rose from 72  % in 2010 to 77  % in 2013.   
 
The Ministry emphasises that the effects of the measure will primarily occur  in the long term, 
particularly when it comes to  decline in tobacco  use. However, the abovementioned studies 
indicate that the measure has already been effective in  Australia.45 
3.4.1 Choice of colours  
Several studies have looked at packaging colours and their impact on relevant outcomes. 
Results from these studies consistently show that darker colours are perceived as significantly 
less appealing.46 A UK study found that brown packets  were perceived as less appealing than 
white pack ets, and the former was also associated with the perception of more severe  health 
risks.47 Another UK study found that brown packs with a dull finish were perceived as 
containing a higher level  of tar and great er health risks, and that this colour made the health 
warnings more visible.48 Qualitative studies among young smokers in Scotland found that 
dark brown packs were perceived as less appealing than  light brown and light grey packs in 
all focus groups.49 In Australia, a number of studies concluded that darker colours were 
associated with higher risk, less appeal and judged to be more effective in discouraging  
tobacco use.50 These studies are consistent with results from other research, including 
research car ried out by the tobacco industry, which found that white and light colours are 
                                                 
44 Australian Department of Health website , Key facts and figures on tobacco sales, consumption and 
prevalence: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco -kff 
45 Sirus (2015) , Oppdatering av kunnskapsgrunnlaget om standardiserte tobakkspakninger  
46 Centre for Health Promotion  (1993) . Effects of plain packaging on the image of tobacco products among 
youth . Centre for Health P romotion, University of Toronto . 
47 Hammond  et al (2009),  Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth . Eur J 
Public Health 2009; 6:631 -637.   
48 Hammond  et al (2013), The perceptions of UK youth of branded and standardized, 'plain' cigarette 
packaging . Eur J Public Health 2013; 1 -7.  
49 Moodie and Ford  (2011),  Young adult smokers’ perceptions of cigarette pack  innovation, pack colour and 
plain packaging . Australasian Marketing Journal. 2011; 3:174 -180.   
50 Parr et al, Market research on determine effective plain packaging of tobacco products – Study 2: Consumer 
perceptions of plain pack colour , Australian Government D epartment of Health and Ageing , 2011 ; Parr et al, 
Market research on determine effective plain packaging of tobacco products – Study 4: Consumer perceptions of 
plain pack colour with brand elements , Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2011 ; Parr et 
al, Market research on determine effective plain packaging of tobacco products – Study 5: Face -to-face: 
consumer appraisal of plain packs with new health warnings using prototype packs , Australian Government 
Department o f Health and Ageing, 2011.  perceived as “healthier” and “cleaner”.51 Since the purpose of the measure is to reduce 
misconceptions about risks, and to make tobacco products less appealing, it is the opinion  of 
the Ministry that dark colours on tobacco packaging would contribute to this objective .    
3.5 Regulation regarding smokeless tobacco  
The Ministry proposes that the legislation on standardisation should apply to all tobacco 
products. Even if smokeless tobacco, especially snus, is not as harmful to health as 
combustible  tobacco, the Ministry would like to emphasise that use of smokeless  tobacco also 
presents serious health risks , see more detailed i nformation in point 2.2 above.  In order to 
protect younger generations from the adverse  health  effects of tobacco, the Ministry believes 
that the proposals described in this consultation paper  should apply to all tobacco products.   
If only combustible  tobacco were to  be included in this measure, it may be perceived as 
though there are no  health risk s associated with the use of smokeless tobacco. It would be 
unfortunate  if children and young people were to get this impression .   
The Ministry is particularly  concerned about the increased use of snus among young people, 
and it is the Ministry’s stated objective to stop this development. A number of tobacco 
products with untraditional designs have appeared on the market over the last few years. This 
is particul arly the case in the snus market.  In 2014, the Directorate of Health  recieved reports  
about the Norwegian tobacco market from tobacco importers. This information covered  what 
tobacco brands were sold in Norway, as well as their shape, weight, size and a description of 
sales volume for each of the products. This survey indicates that there are 97 brands of snus 
on the Norwegian market. In comparison, there are a reported 42 brands of cigarettes. Among 
the various types of snus, there are 11 brands of loose -weight snus and 86 brands with portion 
bags, including 77 brands with normal portion bags and 9 with mini -portions. Many of the 
snus tins have design  and colours that are meant to make the product  more attractive. In 2013, 
the Norwegian Design Council gave one snus brand an award for “best design” for their snus 
pack in the “packaging” category . This tin was designed with younger users in mind. In their 
impact assessment of the new tobacco product directive, the E uropean  Commission states that 
there has been a significant development of the snus segment .52 In 2002, Swedish Match had 
22 types of snus, in 2008  this number had risen to 180 .    
                                                 
51 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  (2012),  Preventing tobacco use among youth and young 
adults: A report of the Surgeon General , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for 
Chronic Disease Preventi on and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health , Atlanta, GA;  
52 http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/com_2012_788_ia_en.pdf  , see pages 10 and 11  One of the objectives of the proposal for standardised tobacco packaging is to facilitate  the 
denormalisation of tobacco products and tobacco use.  In November 2014,  Sirus published a 
report about Norwegian  newspaper coverage on the topic of snus from 2002 to 2011.53 The 
report notes  the following: “The content of the newspaper articles illustrates the tendency 
toward a normalisation of snus in Norwegian society. Even though several of the articles had 
a neutral or even negative tone, they may still play a significant r ole in the promotion of snus 
in a country such as Norway, where tobacco advertising is prohibited.”  It is the opinion of the 
Ministry that the proposed regulations should also apply to snus.    
 
The rise in snus use among young woman has also led to a growing problem with the use of 
snus during pregnancy. The adverse health effects of snus use among members of this group 
is one of the topics highlighted by the Institute for Public Health in their health risk 
assessment from 2014.    
Although snus involves fewer health risks than combustible  tobacco, the Ministry is of the 
opinion that the health risks of snus use, especially among  young people, should not primarily 
be compared with the health risks  of smoking, but rather with the level of risk of using no 
tobacco. Information about tobacco products and the various health risks  should be supplied 
through channels other than the introduction of differentiated regulations with regard to 
standardised to bacco packaging.   
Since the proposed regulations do not prohibit the sale of tobacco, various tobacco products 
will still be available on the market. Tobacco customers will continue to  have the opportunity 
to choose whatever tobacco product they wish, and are free to consider the risks associated 
with their choices. The Ministry is of the opinion that arguments for differentiating between 
products are not sufficiently strong, and propos e that the legislation  should apply to all 
tobacco products.  This is also in accordance with the FCTC , which states  that parties must 
implement measures to discourage  people from starting to use tobacco, to encourage and 
assist people in quitting , and to reduce the consumption of all types of tobacco . 
To ensure effective implementation and supervision of the proposed regulation, it is important 
that it should apply  to all tobacco products. Uniform regulation will also facilitate supervision , 
avoiding problems of distinguishing between, for instance, cigarettes, cigars and cigarillos, 
and other tobacco products.   
                                                 
53 Sæbø and Tokle (2014), Norske avisers dekning av snus 2002 –2011 – En innholdsanalyse , Sirus report no. 
2/2014: http://www.sirus.no/wp -content/uploads/2014/12/sirusrap.2.14.pdf   3.6 Public opinion  
In December 2014 and January 2015, Sirus carried out an opinion survey  commissioned by  
the Ministry, focusing  on public support for various tobacco regulations.54 As indicated by the 
survey, about one -third of the population supports standardised tobacco packaging (37 % for 
combustible  tobacco and  33 % for snus). Opposition is greatest among tobacco users. It is 
important to remember that the survey was carried out prior to the public proposal of  the 
measure. The reasoning behind the measure had not yet been debated in public and was 
therefore not well known .  
 
Furthermore, the survey indicates that many people agree that the design of the tobacco 
packets  have most likely  been developed for the purpose of appealing to young people. This 
applie s more to snus packs  than to cigarette packs (37 % for cigarettes and  49 % for snus). 
Many people agree with the claim that the tobacco industry attempt s to circumvent  the 
advertising ban by using product placement. Nearly half of the population believes this to be 
the case  (49 %).  
 
Experience has shown that support for tobacco control policies  tends to increase over time. In 
2003, before the smoke -free legislation in bars and restaurants  was introduced, only 23  % of 
daily smokers supported the initiative . This support rose to 69  % by 2010. Public support for 
the measure  has now reached 90  %. In 2010, just after the display ban was introduced, 50  % 
of the public supported the disply ban, including 22 % of daily smokers . By 2014 this support 
had risen  to 67 % of the public, including 3 6 % of daily smokers .  
 
Opinion  polls  from  England indicate that support for standardised tobacco packaging has 
increased from 42 % i n 2008 to 72 % by 2015.55,56 
 
In Australia , 28 % of smokers supported the initiative before the law was passed, and two 
years later support had risen to 49 %.57 
  
                                                 
54 Sirus, Befolkningens oppslutning om eksisterende og potensielle tobakkspolitiske reguleringer, med særlig 
vekt på tiltak for nøytral innpakking , report to the Ministry of Health and Care Services, 3 February 2015.  The 
survey was carried out by IPSOS MMI, sample size 5543 people, ages 15 –90.  
55 ICM survey commissioned by the UK Department of Health,carried out in October 2008.  Sample size was 
2606 people over the age of 18, in England.  They were asked:  ‘if there is e vidence that each of the following will 
discourage young people from starting to smoke, to what extent would you support or oppose each of the 
following: Selling cigarettes in plain packets with no logos or colours’ . 
56 YouGov survey, commissioned by the Ca ncer Research UK, utført januar 2015. Utvalgsstørrelse 1834 
personer over 18 år; https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/w3wqzsegsk/
CancerResearch Results_150114_smoking_Website.pdf  
57 Swift et al, Australian smokers’ support for plain or standardised packs before and after implementation: 
findings from the ITC F our Country Survey , Tob Control doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol -2014 -051880:  
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/10/27/tobaccocontrol -2014 -051880  3.7 Norway’s international legal obligations in the area of trade law, trademark and 
design law, the Norwegian Constitution and the ECHR  
 
3.7.1 EEA and EU law  
The EU Tobacco Products Directive  2014/40/EU does not  regulate  standardise d tobacco 
packaging  directly , but Article 24 (2), cf. preamble point 53, specifies  that the Directive does 
not prevent member states from introducing such a measure where it is justified on grounds of 
public health, is proportionate with regard to the objective, and does not constitute a means of 
arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. Questions 
have been raised regarding the interpretation of the Article 24 (2), but it is the opinion of the 
Ministry that the Directive does not restrict the intro duction of national legislation  on 
standardised tobacco packaging. The legality hinges  on the health impacts of the measure, 
specifically whether or not it can be justified on  grounds of public health and if it is 
proportionate to  the objective.  
These conditions mentioned in Article 24 (2) must be understood in light of the principle of 
free movement of goods, and the restrictions on  movement of goods that may be appropriate 
or necessary in the interest  of public health, according to Articles 11 a nd 13 of the EEA 
Agreement . 
The EEA Agreement includes  prohibitions on measures that prevent or restrict free movement  
of goods. The introduction  of standardised tobacco packaging and tobacco products 
constitutes a product requirement, and the Ministry considers this proposal to fall under  
Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, which prohibits quantitative restrictions on import and all 
measures having equivalent effect.   
 
The question is then whether the measure is legitimate  according to Article 13 of the EEA 
Agreement. The purpose of standardised tobacco packaging is to make all tobacco products 
less appealing to young people,  to increase the impact of health warnings and to denormalise 
the use of tobacco. It is therefore justified on grounds of public hea lth, which is a legitimate  
objective under  Article 13. The measure must in addition be considered both proportionate 
and necessary in order to achieve the established objectives.   
 
The Ministry finds  that the measure is appropriate for reducing the adverse health effects 
caused by the use of tobacco, especially by  reducing the number of young people recruited 
into tobacco use. The objective of standardised tobacco packaging is to make tobacco 
products less appealing by li miting the advertising effects, increasing the impact of health 
warning s, and by minimising  the risk that package designs lead to misconceptions about the 
risks of tobacco use. It is assumed that the measure will have a moderate effect on smoking 
among adu lts, and that the measure will contribute toward denormalising the use of tobacco 
and tobacco products. The Ministry refers to the evidence  base for the proposal, discussed  in 
point  3.4 above . In light of this , the Ministry finds  that the measure is approp riate for 
achieving the se objectives .  
 The next question is whether standardised tobacco packaging is necessary in order to reach  
the objectives, or whether they can be achieve d just as effectively with less restrictive  
measures.   
In this regard, i t must be emphasised that Norway for decades has had a particularly high level 
of protection in the area of tobacco  control , with comprehensive tobacco  control  legislation, in 
addition to other measures, but so far there has been very little focus on the r egulation of the 
tobacco packaging or products  themselves . The Tobacco Control Act  states that the long -term 
goal for Norw ay’s tobacco policies is to achieve a tobacco -free society, cf. Section 1.   
The Ministry finds that the proposal for standardised tobacco packaging is an important 
element in a comprehensive  set of measures whereby the objective is to reduce and prevent 
the harmful effects of tobacco use. This proposal must not be viewed as an alt ernative to other 
tobacco control  measures, but rather as a supplement to these.  The measures are meant to 
complement one another and achieve long term objectives over time.    
 
A key objective for the government is to ensure that as few young people as po ssible begin 
smoking or using snus, thereby preventing future tobacco addiction . This measure is 
specifica lly targeted at tobacco packaging  as a means of  advertising after the pack et has been 
sold, cf. how often cigarette pack ets are visible after sale, in the second to the last paragraph 
in point 3.2 above. Reducing the advertising effect of tobacco packaging will be a central 
issue, with regard to the absence of advertising and as a part of a denormalisation process. 
This will also i ncrease the impact of health warnings. The Ministry finds that there are no 
other measures which would have an equivalent impact on all the objectives that justify 
standardised tobacco packaging.  
3.7.2 WTO  Agreement s 
The World Trade Organization  (WTO) is the onl y global organisation that regulates trade 
between nations. Norway has been a member of the organisation since its establishment in 
1995, and membership involves an obligation to follow contractual obligations  regarding 
trade across national borders. The se obligations come in addition to  the obligation to ensure 
free movement of goods within the EEA. A breach of these regulations may lead to 
countermeasures from other members through a dispute settlement body . 
 
The WTO  agreements cover goods, services and intellectual property. The provisions to be 
considered with  regard to standardised tobacco packaging  include the Agreement on Trade -
Related Aspects of Inte llectual Property Rights ( TRIPS )58 and the Agreement  in Technical 
Barriers to Trade  (TBT )59. Five countries  (Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, 
Honduras and Ukraine ) have brought complaints against Australia’s plain packaging measure 
before the WTO’s dispute settlement body, citing breach of various provisions in the WTO 
agreements. Norway is a t hird party in these cases . 
                                                 
58 Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intel lectual Property Rights (TRIPS):  http://www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/27 -trips_01_e.htm .  
59 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade  (TBT) : http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17 -tbt_e.htm .   
Following an assessment of the relevant provisions, the Ministry finds  that the proposal is not 
in violation of any WTO agreements.   
3.7.3 Trademark and design legislation  
The proposal for standardised tobacco packaging will have an impact on tobacco 
manufacturers’ opportunities to use individual trademarks, logos, symbols, and other pictures 
or colours on their product packaging. This may be an aspect of manufacturers’ inte llectual 
property, and the proposal must therefore be assessed in light of  Norway’s obligations in the 
area of trademarks and design.   
 
One of the primary objections to the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging has been 
that it interferes with the tobacco manufacturers’ rights to use their trademarks or designs on 
the packaging of the tobacco products. This type of argumentation presupposes that trademark 
and design law grant  the right holders  a positive right to use their trademarks or designs.  
Another objection has been that standardised tobacco packaging may weaken the key 
objective of using trademarks as a guarantee for a product’s commercial origin (the so-called 
“essential  function”).   
 
In Norway, trademarks are regulated in the Trademarks Act of 26 March 2010, no. 8 . Section 
1 defines a trademark  right  as an  “exclusive right to use a trademark as a distinctive sign for 
goods or services in an industrial or commercial undertaking ” . The Trademarks Act 
implements the  Trademark  Directive 2008/95/EC.  Article 5 of the Directive, which is 
implemented in Section 4 of the Trademarks Act, grants  the trademark owner  the exclusive 
right  to prevent third parties from using a sign which is  identical to or that might be confused 
with the trademark. This provision grants  the trademark owner  a so-called negative right , in 
the sense that he on certain conditions can prohibit others from carrying out certain actions 
which may infringe  the trademark right . The  Ministry finds it clear that the trademark owner  
thus has a civil right to be the only one to use the trademark, and not a positive right  to use the 
mark in any desired circumstance .  
 
Article 5, Section 1 of the Trademarks Directive and  Section 4 of the Trademarks Act  are 
parallel to Article 16, No. 1 of TRIPS . According to these provisions, the trademark owner’s  
rights are limited to a negative right . The Ministry therefore finds that neither the Trademarks 
Directive no r TRIPS grants the trademark owner a positive right which may be infringed  by 
the introduction of national regulation s on standardised tobacco packaging.      
 As for d esign rights , they  are in Norway regulated by the Designs Act of 14 March 2003 No. 
15, which  also implements the Design Directive 98/71/EC. Article 12 of the directive, which 
is implemented  in Section 9 of the Designs Act states  that a design right entails that no third 
party is permitted to use the design without the permission of the right holde r.A right to a 
design, similar to the right to a trademark, is a civil prohibitory right:  the right holder  can 
deny  others the right to use his design in specific ways. The rights secured by a designer 
according to Article 26 of TRIPS , is also limited to the right to prevent third parties from 
using the design, making it a negative right.   
 
Even if national regulations on standardised tobacco packaging do not have a direct impact on 
trademark owners’ rights  as a result of trademark registration , the measure may undermine the 
primary purpose of the use of a trademark: to guarantee that the consumer will know  the 
product’s commercial origins.   
 
In this case, this undermining would follow from the possible risk that  standardised tobacco 
packaging may create  confusion, as the standardisation of both packaging and display of 
trademarks and brands would make it more difficult to distinguish between products.  This 
may then lead to a breach of the essential  function, cf. also Article 5, no. 1b of the 
Trademarks Directive and Section 4, first paragraph, litra b  of the Trademarks Act , whereby it 
is stated that a trademark owner  is entitled to prohibit the use of any sign that is identical or 
similar to the trademark on similar goods or services if there e xists a likelihood of confusion.   
 
Standardised tobacco packaging implies  that the origin of the goods will no longer be 
displayed with a trademark . Nevertheless , the consumer will still be informed of the product’s 
origin because this information will be printed  on the package. As long as the manufacturer 
and product  name is on the packaging, it will not be difficult see from  where the various 
products originate .  
 
Article I 10bis of the Paris Convention has a similar rule, where the purpose is to prevent 
unfair competition between business enterprises. The proposed regulations will apply on 
equal terms to everyone, and will therefore cause no imbalance in the tobacco manufacturers’ 
opportunities for competition, or in the relationships between competitors.  
 
In light of this, i t is the opinion of the Ministry that the potential risk of confusion as a result 
of the manufacturer s being unable to use their trademar k on the tobacco packaging is not of 
such a nature that the regulations raise questions regarding the purpose of trademark law or 
the essential  function, nor regarding the ban on unfair competition between business  
enterprises .  
3.7.4 The Norwegian Constitution and the ECHR  
The Ministry has also assessed the proposal for standardised tobacco packaging in relation to  
the Norwegian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).   Section 97 of the Constitution ensures a certain level of protection against  a retroactive effect 
of new legislation on established rights . It could be asserted that standardised tobacco 
packaging interferes with the tobacco manufacturers’ established trademark rights. A right  
holder must however in principle  accept interference by the legislative branch . The Supreme 
Court has declared that it is only in cases where interference with established rights has a 
“clearly unreasonable or unfair” effect that interference is prohibited under  Section 97 of the 
Constitution, cf. Case  1996 p. 1415 Borthen . Constitutional protection hinges  on a balancing 
of the  consideration for those who are affected by the interference  and those  societal 
considerations underlying the measure . It must also be co nsidered  whether the measure is 
necessary and justifiable in protecting the relevant interests of society. The proposal for 
standardised tobacco packaging is grounded in the need to protect  particularly strong and 
legitimate societal interests of protecti ng public health. These provisions are introduced  in an 
area with already extensive regulations and where further measures must be expected, and 
where the expectations of right  holders and consideration for their needs is therefore 
somewhat  restricted. The Ministry finds that the possible retroactive  aspect of the proposed  
legislation is not “clearly unreasonable or unfair” and therefore not in conflict with Section 97 
of the Constitution.  
Section 105 of the Constitution states that a perso n who is forced to surrender his “property” 
may claim “full compensation” for the financial loss suffered as a consequence of this 
surrender. It is clear that the imposition of standardised tobacco packaging does not constitute 
a surrender of property as described in  Section 105 of the Constitution, since it only entails 
governmental  limitations  on the use of the trademark.  
There may be an issue of whether intellectual property rights fall within the concept of 
“property ” in Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECH R, which provides protection for property rights . 
The Ministry finds that should the proposed  limitations in the use of trademarks be viewed as 
interference under  the provisions, it would still be deemed lawful  since  it has a legitimate 
objective and fulfils the requirements of  proportionality, as it does not involve a 
disproportionate intervention.  
Section 100 of the Constitution states the  right to freedom of expression . The Ministry has 
assessed whether standardise d tobacco packaging would conflict with  this provision, since it 
restricts tobacco manufacturers ’ right  to freedom of commercial expression . 
 
Commercial expression  is considered falling  outside the core area of the provision  on freedom 
of expression . In practice, the legislator s may limit commercial expression if there are  
compelling societal interests  which make this necessary . This includes the existing 
prohibition s on tobacco and alcohol advertising. The underlying premise is that c ommercial 
expression  in the form of  advertising for goods and services which have  been viewed as 
harmful to society , does not deserve the same constitutional protection as political, religious, 
moral and cultural expression .  
 Section 100 of the Constitution, second  and third paragraph , states that an assessment of the 
various  interests  is essential . The purpose of the interference must be able to justify the 
interference. The interests of the tobacco industry in advertising their products cannot be 
considered as important  as the objective of reducing the use of tobacco among young people, 
thereby preventing adverse health effects from tobacco use. In this assessment, consideration 
for public health weighs more heavily than consideration for the interests of the in dustry  in 
increasing its revenue from an exceptionally harmful pro duct. The Ministry therefore finds 
that standardised tobacco packaging does not conflict with Section 100 of the Constitution. A 
similar assessment will apply under  Article 10, no. 2 of the ECHR.   
3.8 The Ministry ’s proposals  
The Ministry proposes the introduction of standardised tobacco packaging, as well as other 
changes to labelling and design of tobacco packets , tobacco products, surrogate tobacco 
products and smoking accessories. These proposals are grounded in the  necessity to 
discourage  the use of tobacco, first and foremost amoun g young people, by making tobacco 
products less appealing.   
The Ministry finds it unacceptable that such a high number of  children and young people 
begin using tobacco. If we are to achieve our goal of a tobacco -free generation, and in the 
long term, a tobacco -free society, it is absolutely essential to limit the appeal of tobacco 
products to children and young people.   
The Ministry finds it appropriate that  the primary legislation and regulations to a large extent 
are aligned to the regulation in the United Kingdom  and Ireland. The Ministry asks for input 
on the suggested legislation . The Ministry has evaluated the extensive consumer surveys 
which formed  the basis for the colour choice for the tobacco packag ing in Australia (Pantone 
448 C), and find s that there is sufficient documentation to indicate that the chosen  colour will 
contribute toward achieving the established objectives. We therefore propose that this same 
colour be used in Norway. England and Ireland have also chosen this colour.   
A new provision is proposed in the Tobacco Control Act  Section 30, first paragraph, while the 
more detail ed regulations  are proposed to be included in the Labelling R egulations. Section 
30 of the Act  would provide  a legal basis for the standardisation of tobacco packaging and 
tobacco products with regard to colour, shape, size, material, labelling, opening mechanisms 
and other elements of design. The Ministry proposes that the new provision should apply to 
all tobacco products. There are important tobacco control policy reasons for this  and it is 
essential if we are to achieve the long -term objective of a tobacco -free society . 
Recommendations on standardised tobacco pac kaging in the  FCTC  Article 11 and 13 
guidelines  also apply to all tobacco products. Th e draft regulations will also apply to tobacco 
products in any sales area, including tax -free sales and specialised tobacco shops.   It is also proposed pursuant to Article 30, first paragraph, last sentence, a statutory authority 
for the Ministry to introduce  regulations on the standardisation of labelling and packaging for 
tobacco surrogates  and smoking accessories, including herbal c igarettes, filters, and casings  
for use with hand -rolling tobacco. Regulat ions are not proposed for tobacco surrogate s at this 
time, since there is a need for further evaluations  before such regulation is proposed .   
It is proposed that the existing Section 30, second and third paragraph, should be repealed . 
The provision include s the ban on tobacco labelling which suggest that one product may be 
less hazardous than another, as well as the prohibition on providing info rmation about health 
risks by the producer . The Ministry finds these provisions to be superfluous as a result of the 
new standardisation regulations. The existing second paragraph is replaced by the Labelling 
Regulations  draft S ection 24, first paragraph, litra b.  
It is furthermore proposed that the Labelling R egulations  Section 9 , second and third point, 
regarding an exception to mandatory labelling and standardisation for duty -free import quota, 
travel baggage and gifts be mov ed to the Tobacco Control Act  Section 30, new third 
paragraph. This is purely a technical alteration.    
The new draft provisions of the Labelling Regulations contain detailed specifications  on 
permitted colour and finish for packaging of all tobacco products, as well as the regulation of 
surfaces, linings, packing material, inserts , tab and seal , barcodes, calibration marks  and 
pack aging  elements that change after sale, see Chapter IV. Furthermore , specific requirements 
are proposed for the use of material, size, shape and opening mechanisms for certain tobacco 
packets , see Chapter V, as well as  regulations for  the permitted text for brand name and 
variant name as well as  text which gives details about the producer, see Chap ter VI.  
Regulation on the  labelling of the content and weight of tobacco packaging is further 
proposed in chapter VII, and certain tobacco products are to be standardised to a certain 
extent in terms of paper, colour and labelling of brand and variant name,  cf. the draft  
Labelling R egulations chapter VIII. Text stating the  brand and variant name on cigarettes is 
permitted in the UK  but not in Australia. The Ministry has proposed the same regulation s as 
in the UK , but asks for feedback  on the issue . The Ministry further proposes implementation of two of the  provisions in the new Tobacco 
Products Directive  2014/40/EU  (herafter TPD) , as these are closely linked  to the regulation of 
standardised tobacco packaging. TPD Article 13 covers certain aspects of product 
presentation and a ban on misleading elements and it is proposed to  implement  this article  in 
draft Section 24 of the Labelling R egulations. Research  indicates  that tobacco products or 
their packaging may mislead consume rs, particularly  young people, to think that some  
products are less harmful. This is  the case , for instance, with the use of  certain terms  or 
features, including  ‘low-tar’, ‘light’, ‘mild’, ‘natural’, ‘organic’, ‘without additives’ or ‘slim’,  
or with the u se of  certain names, images , and signs . Other misleading elements might include 
inserts or other additional material such as adhesive stickers,  scratch -offs and sleeves , or the 
shape of the tobacco product itself. The Directive also states that certain pac kaging may also 
mislead consumers by giving the impression that the product provides  benefits such weight 
loss, sex appeal, social status, social life or qualities such as femininity, masculinity or 
elegance. Such design  is intended  to make tobacco use appear more attractive and appealing, 
especially to young people, and reduces the impact  of the health warnings.   
The Ministry proposes to repeal  the current Section 6 in the Tobacco Advertising Regulations. 
This provision involves  a ban on untraditio nal design or appearance of tobacco packaging and 
is considered superf luous. The same applies to the Labelling R egulations Section 17 
concerning the ban on misleading product descriptions, which is a repetition of the Tobacco 
Control Act  Section  30 Paragraph 3. It is furthermore proposed to repeal   Section 20 of the 
Labelling R egulations, regarding  permission for the Directorate of Health to grant 
dispensations from the regulations. As far as the Ministry is aware, this provision  has never 
been used, and since many of the regulatory requirements are based on the TPD , the Ministry 
does not consider such a dispensation provision appropriate.  
TPD Article 14 regulates the appearance and content of unit packets  of cigarettes and hand -
rolled  tobacco, and det ermines  that cigarette packets  shall have a cuboid shape and shall 
contain at least 20 cigarettes, and also specifies the material and opening mechanism of the 
packet . The ban on  cigarette packets that contain less than 20 cigarettes is  currently regulated 
by the Tobacco Control Act  Section 33 Paragraph 1, but it is propose d that this be  moved to 
the Labelling R egulations draft Section 33 Paragraph 1. This is a purely technical amendment. 
It is further proposed that the requirements conc erning material, shape and opening 
mechanism for cigarettes is implemented in the Labelling R egulations draft Section 26. TPD 
Article 14 also regulates shape and minimum weight  for unit packets of hand -rolled  tobacco. 
This is proposed implemented in the Labelling R egulations draft Section 27 Paragraph 1 
(shape and size ) and draft Section 33 Paragraph 2 (minimum weight).  
Furthermore,  TPD  Article 9, no. 3,  third paragraph concerning the minimum size of the lateral 
surfaces for shoulder boxes with a hinged lid is  proposed  implemented in the Labelling 
Regulations draft  Section 26 Paragraph 3, and for hand -rolled tobacco in draft  Section 27 
Paragraph 2.  The Ministry will return with a separate consultation paper in 2015 on the  
implement ation of  the other parts  of the TPD. The Ministry proposes that the snus tins shall be  standardised in terms of shape and material, 
cf. the draft  regulations Section 28. A number of snus products with untraditional design have 
been put  on the market in recent years, which has contributed to an increased appeal among  
young people. The Ministry has therefore determined that standardised packaging is 
particularly essential for these products. The Ministry proposes  that snus tins shall have a 
uniform, flat lid, which means  it will no longer be permitted to place a lid on top of the snus 
tin lid, or include  other design elements intended to  increase the appeal  to young people.  
There are also snus boxes and snus  portion bags  in various sizes an d types, including slim, 
long, mini, max, pre -baked etc. We  request input on whether there is a need for further 
standardisation  of the snus tins, as well as the size of the snus portions. We also request input 
on whether there is a need to regulate the b oxes further, for instance,  whether straight edges 
should be mandat ory. 
We  also request input on whether other types of tobacco should be standardised in terms of 
shape and material, and if so, in what manner, including cigarillos, cigar tubes, pipe tobacco, 
chewing tobacco, dry snus and other smokeless tobacco. We  also requ est input on whether 
cigars should be requested to  be sold in cigar tubes if they are sold individually, cf. the draft 
regulations Section 33 Paragraph 3.  
Regulations on the labelling of the number of units in cigarette packages, cigarillos and cigars 
is further proposed in the draft  regulations Section 34, as well as labelling of weight in grams 
and content for hand -rolled  tobacco, snus, chewing tobacco and pipe tobacco in draft Section 
35, including the labelling on  packaging that describes the  tobacco ty pe, e.g. “snus” and 
“hand rolled tobacco ”. The Ministry asks for  input on the potential need for other types of 
labelling, e.g. “bulk snus”, “portion snus”, “mini portion”, “dry snus”, “best before”, “ keep 
refrigerated ” etc. We also ask for  input on whethe r there are other types of tobacco that should 
be regulated similarly.  
The Ministry considers  that a transitional period of one year from entry into force will allow 
the tobacco industry sufficient time to adapt to the new requirement s. In the United Kingd om 
and Ireland, the proposed entry into force is 20 May 2016 with a transitional period from 20 
May 2016 to 20 May 2017 to sell out tobacco products that are labelled in accordance with 
current  legislation. The Ministry considers it advantageous if the standardisation  provisions 
enter into force at the same time as  legislation to  implement the other parts of the TPD. The 
Ministry requests input on the transitional period.  
The Ministry is of the opinion that the proposals are not in violation of Norway’s obligations 
under EEA /EU law  or the WTO agreements. Since the purpose of the proposal is to reduce 
tobacco prevalence , the Ministry finds  the proposal to be in accordance with our legal 
obligations under  the various trade agreements.  3.9 Supervision and sancti ons 
Currently, the Directorate of Health supervises compliance with the ban on advertising and 
the rules concerning labelling , cf. the Tobacco Control Act  Section 35. The Ministry proposes  
that the Directorate of Health should continue this general supervisory task in relation to the  
new provisions on standardis ed packaging . However, the Ministry is working on proposals for 
a new municipal licen cing system  for the sale of tobacco products. It would  therefore be 
appropriate to gran t munic ipalities a local supervisory authority to ensure compliance with  
packaging provisions. The Ministry will return with more detailed information on this 
question in a future consultation.  
 
The Directorate has a legal basis in Section 36 of the Tobacco Control Act  to impose 
correctional sanctions  and establish compulsory fines in the event of breaches of inter alia the 
advertising  ban and the labelling provisions. Similar sanctions may be imposed in the event of 
breaches of the standardised packaging  requirements . 
3.10 Authority for seizure and destruction  
The Tobacco Control Act  currently lacks the authority for confiscation and destruction of 
illegally imported tobacco products etc.  
 
In the event of ill egal import, the customs authorities currently have two option al procedures. 
One is confiscation and reporting to the police in accordance with the Customs Act Section 
16-13, which gives customs a legal basis to confiscate goods that may be subject to seizure, 
but only when there are reasonable grounds to suspe ct a criminal  violation of the Customs Act 
with regulations. The other is a return of the goods to the country  of origin . The first option is 
cumbersome and demands significant resources , and often results in the case being dropped 
by the police. The other option is procedurally simple, but result  in the goods being returned 
to the sender, who can subsequently re -send the goods to the buyer or to other buyers in 
Norway. Confiscation and d estruction will prevent goods from being  illegally imported to 
Norway  a second time . 
 
On this basis, the Ministry proposes a new provision in the Tobacco Control Act  Section 41A 
with a legal basis for confiscation and destruction of illegally imported tobacco products, 
smoking accessories and tobacco surrogates , which would not require   report ing to the police. 
This would  be an administrative alternative to reporting to the police and confiscation 
according to the Customs Act Section 16 -13. A legal basis in the Tobacco Control Act  for the 
confiscation and destruction of such goods, without requiring the involvement of the  police, 
would  make it significantly easier for customs to ensure that these goods are taken out of 
circulation.  Confiscation and destruction will occur in accordance with the Public Administration Act’s 
provisions. The legal  requirement for prior notice, reporting and disclosure obligations, right 
of access, requirement for written and justified decisions, reversal of complaints and 
procedural costs will apply as usual . An exception is proposed for cases in which the importer  
does not respond to the notice that the goods may be confiscated and destroyed, whereby 
exceptions to the requirements could be made regarding wr itten, justified individual decisions , 
as well as the requirement of informing the party about the decision.    
 
Subsequent to the proposal for a new Section 41A Paragraph 4, the King may issue 
regulations concerning withholding, confiscation and destruction of illegally imported 
tobacco products etc. In such regulations, concrete deadlines for responding to the p rior notice 
may be established. According to the last paragraph of the provision, the King may issue 
exceptions from the right of appeal concerning decisions made pursuant to this provision. The 
legal basis may be utilised  in the event of a particularly hi gh volume of complaints. The 
detailed scope for the exception must be established based on the  inconvenience of a decision 
of confiscation and destruction to the private party.  
 
4. ARTICLE 5.3 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON 
TOBACCO CONTROL  
4.1 Background  
Norway i s a party to the World Health Organisation’s Framework Conv ention on Tobacco 
Control  (FCTC) . The C onvention is a knowledge -based, legally binding international 
agreement and currently has 180 State Parties. A fundamental provision of the FCTC  is 
Article 5.3, which states that parties must protect  tobacco policies from commercial and other 
vested interests of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is in an exceptional position, as 
no other industries are regulated in this manner.  
 
The basis for this e xceptional regulation is the vast documentation that shows that the tobacco 
industry has for years attempted – and often succeeded – in undermining  tobacco control 
efforts of both  national authorities and the WHO.  
 
In the preamble to the FCTC , the Parties  recognise “the need to be alert to any efforts by the 
tobacco industry to undermine or  subvert tobacco control efforts and the need to be informed 
of activities of the tobacco industry that have a negative impact on tobacco control efforts”.  
 
The political declaration of 1 6 September 2011 from the UN’s High -level Meeting on the 
Prevention and C ontrol of Non -communicable D iseases  recognises that there is a fundamental 
and irreconcilable conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public he alth.60 
 
                                                 
60 http://www.who.int/nmh/events/un_ncd_summit2011/political_declaration_en.pdf , see point 38  According to the WHO, the tobacco industry represents a serious threat to the achievement of 
the FCTC’s  goals and objectives, since the t obacco industry’s tactics and interference with 
public policy -making are aimed at increasing tobacco consumptio n and thus detrimental to 
public health.61  
4.2 Tobacco industry  tactics  
Knowledge of the industry’s methods has largely been uncovered through  lawsuits in the 
United States . The first lawsuits took place in the 1990s, whereby  American courts ordered 
tobacco companies in the United States  and England to publicise a large amount of  internal 
documentation .62 State lawsuits were grounded in  the discovery  that the tobacco companies 
had long had in -depth knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking, but kept this a 
secret from the public.  It was also documented that the companies had experimented with 
various additives to increase the nicotine’s addictive  effect. Access to the tobacco industry’s 
internal research archives indicated  that tobacco products were more dangerous than 
previously assumed and that the public health costs of treating tobacco -related illnesses were 
higher  than what had previou sly been  assumed .63 
 
In more recent cases , the industry has been ordered to hand over  various types of  documents. 
Moreover, there have been leaks of internal documents from the tobacco industry and their PR 
agencies. Examples of this will be discussed in mo re detail below.  
 
The WHO64 has surveyed the industry’s methods globally, and found that the same tactics are 
repeated in most countries and over time:  
 
1) Interference in political and legislative processes  
In the report “Tobacco Industry Interference with Tobacco Control” from 2008, the WHO 
writes that there are many examples of the tobacco industry ’s attempts to  influence 
legislative processes by “blocking, delaying and diluting evidence -based national tobacco 
legislation”.65  
 
This is done, inter alia , through  massive lobbying. According to the Tobacco Atlas, the 
tobacco company Phillip Morris is the second most active lobbying organisation in the 
USA. Between 1998 and 2004, they spent approximately NOK 770 million on lobbying 
the U.S. Congress. In 2010, 19  companies with tobacco interests spent NOK 126 million  
                                                 
61 WHO (2012),  Technical resource for country implementation of WHO framework convention on tobacco 
control article 5.3: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789241503730_eng.pdf?ua=1 , page 4  
62 NOU 2000:16 Tobakksindustriens erstatningsansvar, page 281  et seq : http://www.regjeringen.no/Rpub/NOU/
20002000/ 016/PDFA/NOU200020000016000DDDPDFA.pdf   
63 NOU 2000:16 Tobakksindustriens erstatningsansvar, page 276 et seq.  
64 WHO (2012),  Technical resource for country implementation of WHO framework convention on tobacco 
control article 5.3: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789241503730_eng.pdf?ua=1  
65 WHO (2008), Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control , http://whqlibdoc. who.int/publicati ons/2008
/9789241597340_eng.pdf?ua=1 , page 4 (hereinafter WHO 2008)  and used 168 lobbyists in an attempt to influence the political decision -making in the  
United States .66 
 
The tobacco industry also lobbied during  the revision of the EU Tobacco Products 
Directive  (TPD) . There were a  record number of submissions to the Commission’s 
consultation, mainly from the tobacco industry and their front groups (80 000 in total). 
Leaked documents from the tobacco industry indicate  that their strategy was pre cisely to 
delay and dilute the d irective .67 The leaked documents also contained detailed strategies 
for lobbying activities. Phillip Morris alone had 161 employees and consultants (not full -
time) who worked on lobbying against the directive, and in the first six months of 2012 , 
they had spent almost NOK 11 million on lobby activities . Furthermore, the strategy 
involved influencing sections  of the Commission other than DG Sanco (the EU’s health 
ministry), by arguing that the proposed directive would result in an increase of illi cit trade, 
in addition to establishing front groups consisting of small vendors and others with greater 
credibility than the industry itself.  
 
It was also uncovered that politicians and employees of the Commission held meetings 
with the tobacco industry , but did not disclose this. Nor did they disclose the  minutes from 
the meetings. Only DG Sanco has guidelines for such disclosure of meetings with the 
industry. The EU’s Ombudsman is now investigating the matter, due to  complaints that 
the Commission has not  fulfilled its  obligations under the FCTC A rt. 5.3. An article from 
February 2015, which has reviewed the tobacco industry’s lobbying activities against  the 
TPD , concludes that the tobacco industry’s influence probably resulted in the removal of 
two of the  original proposals (standardised packaging and points of sale  display ban) and 
repeated delays in the legislative process.68 Another finding in the article is that the 
tobacco industry is making increasing use of  third parties as their mouthpiece . The  
researchers identified 137 organisation s and 34 companies that supported the tobacco 
industry’s positions, and leaked documents have revealed that 12 of these were part of a 
third -party coalition with Phillip Morris.  
 
Another example is the implementation of plain  packaging in Australia. The tobacco 
industry initiated various measures to prevent the implementation of the measure. For 
instance , a front group was established that appeared to be  a grassroot organisation 
representing the retail industry. Leaked do cuments showed that the group received 
funding  from several tobacco companies.69 
 
                                                 
66 Eriksen et al (2012),  The Tobacco Atlas . Fourth Ed,  American Cancer Society , World Lung Foundation:   
http://tobaccoatlas.org/uploads/Files/pdfs/industry/influence/influence_pdf.pdf   
67 Various newspaper articles: http://www .theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/07/tobacco -philip -morris -
millions -delay -eu-legislation?view=mobile ; http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/zigarettenhersteller -
philip -morris -legt-liste-von-abgeordneten -an-a-924220.html ; http://corporateeurope.org/power -
lobbies/2014/05/looking -back-tobacco -lobbying -battle -philip -morris -allies -european -parliament  
68 Peeters  et al. Tob Control Published Online First: 24 February 2015, doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol -2014 -051919  
69 http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Alliance_of_Australian_Retailers   Several media campaign s against plain  packaging were run. A leaked memo showed that 
counter campaign s by the industry were to: 
- contain elements that lead t o concern among deci sion makers,  
- utilise trustworthy third parties to achi eve success in the media debate,  
- create a database of journalists who are broadly sympathetic either specifically to 
the cause of smokers, or who are pre -dispose d to anti nanny -state arguments,  
- argue th at the measure is ineffective and will result in an increase in illicit trade in 
tobacco products, increased costs to retail industry, and an increased number of 
violations of internatio nal trade agreements and attacks on individual freedom.70  
 
Several mass media campaigns with these arguments were run in various media.  
 
2) Exaggerations  of the economic importance of the industry  
The tobacco industry often claims that the implementation of effective tobacco control 
measures will result in serious ne gative financial consequences for various industries and 
workplaces. When plain  packaging was introduced in Australia, it was claimed that the 
measure would lead to a 30  % reduction in tobacco sales in the first year and a further 30  
% in the following yea r.71 This has  not happened, and the Ministry notes that no individual 
tobacco control measure has ever resulted in such an immediate reduction in tobacco 
sales. Based on experiences from other measures, this measure is expected to have a 
gradual effect in the long term.  
 
Simil ar statements have been made with regard to smoke -free legislation, when the 
tobacco industry claimed that such regulation would result in a 30  % reduction in 
income .72 Evaluations from s everal countries that introduced smoke -free legislation  
indicate  that the effect is neutral, as in Norway, or that the revenue  of the restaurant 
industry has increased. The tobacco industry’s estimations are often far higher than the 
numbers suggest, and t he Ministry points out  that tobacco use results in large  negative 
costs to society.  
 
3) Manipulating the public to create the impression that the industry is responsible and 
credible  
The tobacco industry conducts so -called socially responsible activities (Corporate Social 
Responsibility) to distance itself from the serious health damage caused by the products 
they manufacture, and to undermine development and implementation of  tobacco  control  
measures. Such activities often function as both advertising and  as PR strategy, and are 
covered by the FCTC ’s ban on advertising and sponsorship. CSR  activities is according to 
the WHO a contradiction, as the industry’s core  business activities directly contradict the 
objectives of  tobacco control policies .73 
                                                 
70 http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kte92i00/pdf   
71 Simon Chapman  (2014) , Removing the emperor’s clothes : http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/12257   
72 Alamar, Glantz  (2007) , Effect of Smo ke-Free Laws on Bar Value and Profits , Am J Public Health : 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1931474/  
73 WHO  (2004),  Tobacco industry and corporate social responsibility – an inherent contradiction   
In its report from 2008, the WHO notes that the industry increasingly promotes its 
companies through participation in, or support for, events and projects with socially 
responsible objectives .74 The companies thereby attempt to create a positive image of their 
business and present themselves as socially responsible actors, to restore the trust of the 
public. However, the report shows that the intention behind these measures is to block, 
delay and  dilute tobacco regulation.  
 
Another report shows that such socially responsible projects are describes by  the tobacco 
industry as “air cover from criticism” and “a degree of publicly endorsed amnesty” .75 
The same report documents that the industry contribu tes to health care system s, housing 
for homeless persons, arts and education, all of which are considered important 
investments in gaining  trust, distract ing from the industry’s core business activities and, 
over time, gain ing political influence.  
 
In its 2008 report, the WHO writes that tobacco companies are known to initiate so -called 
smoking prevention programmes  for youth . Here too, the intention is to delay and 
undermine further regulation, and give the impression that the industry is a responsible 
actor.76 In internal documents from Phillip Morris from 1993, the following is stated about 
the industry’s youth campaigns:   
 
“Taking into consideration the emerging adverse legislative climate in the [Latin 
American] region, we have an opportunity to create g ood will for the tobacco industry 
by going public with a campaign to discourage juvenile smoking. Our objective is to 
communicate that the tobacco industry is not interested in having young people smoke 
and to position the industry as ’a concerned corporat e citizen’ in an effort to ward off 
further attacks by the anti -tobacco movement.”77 
 
Another example is found in the minutes from an internal industry meeting in Hong Kong 
regarding tobacco advertising on TV and radio. Here it is stated:  
 
“This is one of the proposals that we shall initiate to show that we as an industry are 
doing something about discouraging young people to smoke. This of course is a phony 
way of showing sincerity as we all well know.”78 
 
                                                 
74 WHO (2008), Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control , http://whqlibdoc. who.int/publications/2008
/9789241597340_eng.pdf?ua=1 , page  15 med videre henvisninger  
75 Action on Smoking and Health, BAT in its own words : http://www.ash.org.uk/ files/documents/ ASH_ 371.pdf , 
page  13 
76 WHO 2008, page 14 med videre henvisninger  
77 Leiber C. Corporate (1993), Youth campaign for Latin America: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ehq19e00   
78 Philip Morris (1973), Corporate smoking and health meeting: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ owq24e00   It is well documented that the industry has conduct ed youth campaigns in many countries 
and that these are not effective in preventing youth smoking.79 Many of the campaigns do 
not focus on health damage caused by tobacco consumption. On the contrary, these 
campaigns  can contribute to increasing the attract iveness of tobacco amongst young 
people. We have also seen examples of such campaigns in Norway, the most recent  in 
2013, when Swedish Match conducted a campaign on the age limit for snus. The 
campaign was to be conducted at a number of festivals, and on s ocial media and the target 
group for the campaign was teenagers. It was also announced with full -page newspaper 
ads with text such as “You know you are #18 when you can go to the Hove Music Festival  
without asking for permission”, and the campaign encourag ed youth to share “their best 
and funniest tips on how vendors can tell if you are 18”. The Directorate of Health ordered 
the company to stop the campaign as they considered the campaign clearly in breach of 
the ban on tobacco advertising. Swedish Match st ated that the background for the 
campaign was the wish to  direct attention to the age limit and show that they are 
responsible. The Directorate of Health noted  that none of the campaign  element s were 
targeted towards the tobacco vendors  who are responsible  for enforcing the age limit. 
They fu rther concluded that it is well -documented that such campaigns serve as indirect 
advertisement for tobacco.  
 
Moreover, the tobacco industry has – contrary to its own claims – conducted widespread 
research related  to mar keting and product development which targets  children and youth. 
See the detailed discussion of this in point 3.2 above.  
 
4) Establishment of front groups to give the impression of substantial  support for the 
industry  
It is common for the tobacco industry to establish and finance  front group s, and to 
associate themselves with organisations and projects that are used to influence the public, 
politicians and other decision makers.80  
 
A front group is an organisation which appears to represent  a stated agenda, wh ile in 
reality it promotes and is sponsored by, most often, a clandestine interest. The tobacco 
industry is known for its use of front groups to promote its financial and political interest s, 
including undermining  the knowledge of the health risk s of tobac co use. The clandestine 
manner in which such groups operate often makes it difficult to known which  interests are 
actually being represented by the  organisation. The se front groups are often organised by 
PR agencies. The tobacco industry uses front groups to give the impression of broad 
support for their views on various matters, among seemingly independent third parties.  
 
                                                 
79 WHO 2008, page  13 et seq.  med videre henvisninger  
80 WHO 2008, page  5 et seq.  videre henvisninger  When plain  packaging was introduced in Australia, a front group was established, which 
seemingly only represented the retail industry.81 Internal  documentation about this group 
and other counter measures on the part of the industry  were leaked to the media , revealing 
that the group was receiving  support from several tobacco companies.  
 
When smoking bans became more prevalent , the tobacco i ndustry created and financed a 
number of organisations and groups that appeared to campaign  for the rights of smokers. 
The objective was to block, delay and dilute the smoking ban s that w ere to protect against 
second -hand smoke . A report prepared by the WH O EURO shows that 13 front groups 
were created in Europe, pretending to represent  smokers’ rights in the region.82 
 
In internal documents from the tobacco industry, it was s tated that “smoking groups have 
no commercial interest s and are a more credible voice than the tobacco industry.” The 
function of these groups was to feed the debate about health damage related to  second -
hand smoke, contribute to delays in legislation on smoking restrictions, and create doubts 
about the harmfu l effects of smoking.  
 
Another type of front group have a  sociological  aspect , such as Associates for Research 
into the Science of Enjoyment (ARISE), which was active in Europe from 1988 to 1999 . 
ARISE claimed that stress -reducing activities such as shopping, drinking tea, eating 
chocolate and smoking cigarettes (the latter was always grouped with less harmful 
activities) were key to maintaining good health.  
 
In a judgement from the USA against Ph illip Morris et al. the tobacco industry’s network 
of researchers and front groups were described as follows:  
 
“the intricate, interlocking, and overlapping web of national and international  
organizations, committees, affiliations, conferences, research la boratories, funding  
mechanisms, and repositories for smoking and health information which Defendants  
established, staffed, and funded in order to accomplish the following goals: counter 
the growing scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer and other i llnesses, avoid 
liability verdicts in the growing number of plaintiffs’ personal injury lawsuits against 
Defendants, and ensure the future economic viability of the industry.”83 
 
The WHO explains that the objective of such groups is purposefully to use scie nce or 
pseudoscience to defeat legitimate scientific enquiry into the harm caused by tobacco.84 
 
 
                                                 
81 https://www.australianretailers.com.au/ ; Chapman, Removing the emperor’s clothes , 2014:  
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/12257   
82 WHO (2012), Tobacco industry interference in the WHO European Region : http://www.euro.who.int /
__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/166748/Tobacco -Industry -Interference -In-the-WHO -European -Region.pdf  
83 Kessler G. Final opinion: United States of America verses Philip Morri s. Civil action No 99 –2496 (GK), 2006. 
https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/content/what_we_do/industry_watch/doj/FinalOpinion.pdf   
84 WHO 2008, page 11 med further references  5) Undermining scientific documentation  
In addition to the fact that the tobacco industry has kept research results with negative 
implications to themselves, they  have played an active role in disseminating studies  that 
are favourable to the industry  – often studies they have financed. The tobacco   
industry ’s strategy is to sow seeds of doubt about research that documents the health 
damage and/or the beneficial effect of tobacco control measures. Paid researchers often 
attack the methodology and basis of such reports, something we also experienced in 
Norway  in connection with Phillip Morris’ lawsuit against the display ban in 2010.  
 
There have been several examples of industry -financed research being  used to delay and 
attack the implementation of effective tobacco  control  measures. With regard to the  
implementation of plain  packaging in Australia, several tobacco industry -financed reports 
concerning  the measures’ alleged effect on illicit tr ade have been published (approx . 10 
reports from KPMG, Deloitte and PWC, respectively) .85 So far, no increase in illicit trade 
in Australia has been proven and Australian researchers, health and customs authorities  
and international researchers have refuted several of the reports.86 When the proposal for 
standardised tobacco packaging was publicly announced in Norway, the tobacco industry 
also claimed  that the measure would lead to a rise in illicit trade, with refer ence to, inter 
alia, the industry financed reports from Australia.  
 
For decades, the tobacco industry has attempted to undermine scientific documentation of 
the health damages related to  first and second -hand smoking. The industry has also 
created and fina nced biomedical research groups for the purpose of publicising scientific 
articles about tobacco  which either question or refute  the harmful effects of passive or 
second -hand  smoking.87  
 
In 1999,  the U.S. Department of Justice sued Phillip Morris and other  tobacco companies 
with claims of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (a 
law concerning fraud and organised crime). In 2006 Phillip Morris et al. (and upon appeal 
in 2009) was found guilty of fraud. Inter alia , the court found that Phillip Morris et al. 
had: 
- conspired to minimise, distort and confuse the public about the harmful effects of 
smoking,  
- publically denied, but internally recognised, that second -hand smoking is harmful, 
and 
- destroyed relevant document s tied to the lawsuit.88 
 
                                                 
85 Chapman (2014), Removing the Emperor’s Clothes , page 70 et seq: 
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/12257   
86 http://www.cancervic.org.au/plainfacts/browse.asp?ContainerID=illicittobacco   
87 WHO 2012, page 8  
88 http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/doj -final-opinion.pdf  The C ourt further found that the tobacco companies had systematically worked  to 
undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that smoking causes diseases , particularly  
by referring to research results by paid consultants.  The companies were later ordered to 
disclose information in various media, on the company’s websites and on cigarette 
packages, stating that they had disseminated  misleading information and defrauded the  
public  with regard to tobacco use and adverse health eff ects, addiction , adverse health 
effects associated with “lig ht” cigarettes, manipulation of cigarette design to ensure 
maximum nicotine intake, as well as  adverse health effects related  to second -hand 
smoking.89 Parts of the case are still ongoing in the le gal system.  
 
Such revelations are one of the reasons wh y a series of research publications have 
introduced a policy of no longer pu blishing studies that are in whole or in part financed by 
the tobacco industry. The editors of the respected British Medical Journal have justified  
this with the following statement:  
 
“The tobacco industry, far from advancing knowledge, has used research to 
deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly 
products while shoring up its damaged  legitimacy. We now know, from extensive 
research drawing on the tobacco industry’s own internal documents, that for decades 
the industry sought to create both scientific and popular ignorance or “doubt.” At first 
this doubt related to the fact that smokin g caused lung cancer; later, it related to the 
harmful effects of secondhand smoke on non -smokers and the true effects of using so 
called light or reduced tar cigarettes on smokers’ health. (…)  
 
Back in 2003, the editor of the BMJ defended publication of a  study with tobacco 
industry funding saying “The BMJ is passionately antitobacco, but we are also  
passionately prodebate and proscience. A ban would be antiscience.” But it is time to 
cease supporting the now discredited notion that tobacco industry funded  research is 
just like any other research. Refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco 
industry affirms our fundamental commitment not to allow our journals to be used in 
the service of an industry that continues to perpetuate the most deadly diseas e 
epidemic of our times.” 90 
 
6) Threats of lawsuits against governments  
The tobacco industry’s use of lawsuits or threats of lawsuits has been a growing trend in 
recent years, to which Norway has also been exposed. In 2010, Norwegian authorities 
were sued by Phillip Morris with a claim that the points of sale tobacco display ban was in 
violation of the EEA  Trade  Agreement . The government  won the ca se. The intention of 
such lawsuits is  to delay the introduction of effective tobacco control measure s. 
 
                                                 
89 http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/what_we_do/industry_watch/doj_lawsuit/corrective_statements  
90 Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry, B MJ 2013;347:f5193  In 2010, Phillip Morris sued Uruguay based on a bilateral investment agreement from 
1991, between Uruguay and Switzerland. The reason was that Uruguay h ad adopted the 
use of larger  health warnings  (from 50  % to 80  % in size)  on cigarette packets , as well as  a 
requirement that only one type of cigarette could  be sold per label, to prevent  tobacco 
producers from circumvented  the ban on “light” cigarettes with the use of colour codes.  
 
The tobacco industry’s use of legal action is especially clear when looking at their various 
lawsuits against Australia for introducing plain packaging  in 2012, cf. point  
3.3.1 above. In the noted cases against Australia in the WTO system, it is known that 
Phillip Morris covers legal costs of the Dominican Republic and that British American 
Tobacco does the same for the Ukraine and Honduras.  
 
It is important to remember that the tobacco indust ry has enormous financial resources. In 
2013, the five largest global tobacco companies controlled 83  % of the world’s tobacco 
production91 and in 2010, the six largest had a turnover of approx. NOK 2630 b illion and 
a profit of approx. 267  billion, which is  the equivalent of the combined profits of Coca -
Cola, Microsoft and McDonalds in the same year.92  
 
The value of the global tobacco production is currently estimated at between NOK 4500 
and 5300  billion. The world’s leading tobacco company is Phillip Morris  International, 
which in 2012 generated revenue of NOK 235  billion .93  
4.3 Applicable laws  
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states in Articel 5.3 : 
 
“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco 
control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested 
interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law”  
 
This provision is by many described as the most important and most fundamental provision in 
the entire FCTC , as lacking  implementation thereof can prevent the introducti on of, and 
compliance with the C onvention’s other provisions on various effective tobacco control 
measures. The provision is a legally binding obligation, and parties are obligated  to 
implement it domestica lly. 
 
The obligation s of Article 5.3 must also be seen in relation to FCTC Article 12 regarding  the 
right of the public to information about  health risks associated with tobacco use, and 
regarding the tobacco industry and its methods, in addition to FCTC Article 13 regarding  a 
ban on tobacco advertising.  
 
                                                 
91 Euromonitor International 2013,  http://global.tobaccofreekids.org/files/pdfs/en/Global_Cigarette_ Industry_
pdf.pdf  
92 Tobacco Atlas: http://www.tobaccoatlas.org/industry/tobacco_companies/profits/   
93 Statista: http://www.statista.com/topics/1593/tobacco/  FCTC Article 5.3 , with guidelines , are not directly regulated in the Tobacco Control Act . 
However, the Act has a general legal basis for requiring information about the Norwegian 
tobacco market, cf. Section 38. The provision also provides a legal basis for requiring 
companies to report  the contents of tobacco products. This duty to report  is pursuant to the EU 
Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EF. The Tobacco Control Act  Section 38 is formulated 
as follows:  
 
“Duty of disclosure etc.  
All persons shall, when ordered to do so by the Directorate, provide such information 
as is necessary to preven t damage to health entailed by the use of tobacco or to carry 
out tasks under this Act.  
The Directorate may require a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to 
provide information about the content of the products. The Ministry may lay down 
regulatio ns detailing the information requirement in the first sentence.  
The Directorate may require a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to 
produce a representative sample of a product or to perform such tests as are necessary 
to assess the product’s cha racteristics or effects. The costs of such tests shall be borne 
by the manufacturer or importer in question. The Directorate may decide that the costs 
shall entirely or in part be covered by the government.  
The Directorate may initiate such tests itself, and may order the manufacturer or 
importer to cover the costs of the tests. The costs may be recovered by execution 
proceedings.”  
4.4 FCTC  Article 5.3  Guidelines  
Guidelines have been adopted under  Article  5.3. The guidelines were adopted by consensus 
by the Conference of the Parties to the FCTC  and are instrumental  to the interpretation of the 
provision. The guidelines provide recommendations for how the Parties can fulfil their 
obligations in accordance w ith the provision. Below, the Ministry will review the guidelines 
with a special emphasis on the measures that may be relevant for consideration in Norway.  
4.4.1 Purpose and scope  
The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure that efforts to protect tobacco control  from 
commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry are both comprehensive and 
effective . The measures should be implemented in all branches of government that may have 
an interest in, or the capacity to, affect public health policies with respect to tobacco control. 
The aim of the guidelines is to assist Parties in meeting their legal obligations under FCTC 
Article 5.3. The guidelines draw on the best available scientific evidence and the experience 
of Parties in addressing tobacco industry  interference.  
 
The guidelines apply to setting and implementing of policies with respect to tobacco control. 
They also apply to persons, bodies or entities that contribute to, or might  contribute to, the 
formulation, implementation, administration or enfo rcement of those policies.  
 The guidelines apply  to government officials, representatives and employees, and to any 
person s acting on their behalf. Any government branch responsible for setting and 
implementing tobacco control policies and for protecting those policies against tobacco 
industry interests should, according to the guidelines, be held accountable.  
 
The broad array of strategies and tactics used by the tobacco industry to interfere with the 
setting and implementing of tobacco control measures, such as those that Parties to the 
Convention are required to implement, is documented by a vast body of evidence. The  
measures recommended in these guidelines are aimed  at protecting against interference not 
only by the tobacco industry itself but also by organisations and individuals that are working  
to further the interests of the tobacco industry . 
4.4.2 Overarching  principles  
The guidelines list four overarching  principles:  
 
1) There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the  tobacc o 
industry  and public health policy interests.  
The tobacco industry produces and promotes a product that is scientifically  proven  to be 
addictive, to cause disease and death and to lead to a  variety of social ills, including 
increased poverty. Therefore, Parties should protect the formulation and implementation 
of public health policies for tobacco control from the tobacco industry to the greatest 
extent possible.  
2) Parties, when dealing with the tobacco industry or those working to further its  interests, 
should be accountable and transparent.  
3) Parties shall  require the tobacco industry and those working to further its interests to 
operate and act in a manner that is accountable and transparent.   
The tobacco industry should be required to provide Parties with information necessary for 
the effective implementation of these guidelines.  
4) Because their products are lethal , the tobacco industry should not be granted incentives to 
establish or run their businesses.  
Any preferential treatment of the tobacco industry will be in conf lict with tobacco control 
policies.  
 
4.4.3 Primary recommendations of the guidelines  
The guidelines list eight primary recommendations to address tobacco industry interference in  
public health policies. Parties are explicitly encouraged to go beyond the recommendations 
provided by the guidelines.  
 
1) Raise awareness in all branches of government and the public about the addictive 
and harmful nature of tobacco products, the need to protect public health policies 
for tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco 
industry and the strategies and tactics used to undermine tobacco control  Parties should, in addition, raise awareness about the tobacco industry’s  practice of using 
individuals, front groups and affiliated organisations to act, openly or covertly, on their 
behalf or to take action to further the interests of the tobacco industry.  
 
2) Establish measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry an d ensure the 
transparency of the interactions that take place  
Interaction with the tobacco industry should only occur in the extent that it is strictly 
necessary for the effective regulation of  the tobacco industry and tobacco products . There 
must be  full transparency about the meetings and the content thereof. Several institutions 
and politicians in other countries have on this basis introduced a procedure of publicising 
the reason for, and minutes from, such meetings, online.  
 
3) Reject partnerships and agre ements with the tobacco industry  
The tobacco industry should not be a partner in any initiative linked to setting or 
implementing public health policies, given that its interests are in direct conflict with the 
goals of public health.  
 
4) Avoid conflicts of i nterest  
 Parties should mandate a policy on the disclosure and management of conflicts of 
interest that applies to all persons involved in setting and implementing public health 
policies with respect to tobacco control, including government officials, employees, 
consultants and other relevant parties  
 Parties should formulate, adopt and implement a code of conduct for public officials, 
prescribing the standards with which they should comply in their dealings with the 
tobacco industry  
 Parties should not award contracts for assignments related to tobacco control measures 
to anyone who has a conflict of interests with established tobacco control policies.  
 Parties should develop clear guidelines on quarantine periods for public office hold ers, 
who have or have had a role in setting and implementing public health policies with 
respect to tobacco control.  
 Parties should develop clear policies that require applicants for public office positions 
which have a role in setting and implementing pub lic health policies with respect to 
tobacco control to declare any current or previous activity with any tobacco industry.  
 Parties should require government officials to declare and divest themselves of direct 
interests in the tobacco industry.  
 Government institutions and their bodies should not have any financial interest in the 
tobacco industry.  
 Parties should not allow any person employed by the tobacco industry or any entity 
working to further its interests to hold public offices or positions that set o r implement 
tobacco control or public health policy . 
 Persons employed by the tobacco industry or any entity working to further its interests 
should not participate in the meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the FCTC . 
 Parties should not allow any o fficial or employee of government to accept payments, 
gifts or services from the tobacco industry.   Taking into account national law and constitutional principles, Parties should have 
effective measures to prohibit contributions from the tobacco industry or  any entity 
working to further its interests to political parties, candidates or campaigns, or to 
require full disclosure of such contributions.  
 
5) Require that information provided by the tobacco industry is transparent and 
accurate  
 Parties should introduce  and apply measures to ensure that all operations and activities 
of the tobacco industry are transparent.  
 Parties should require the tobacco industry and those working to further its interests to 
periodically submit information on tobacco production, manuf acture, market share, 
marketing expenditures, revenues and any other activity, including lobbying, 
philanthropy, political contributions and all other activities not prohibited or not yet 
prohibited under the ban on advertising/sponsorship.  
 Parties should require rules for the disclosure or registration of the tobacco indus try 
entities, affiliated organis ations and individuals acting on their behalf, including 
lobbyists.  
 Parties should impose mandatory penalties on the tobacco industry in case of the 
provision of false or misleading information.  
 Parties should adopt and implement effective measures to ensure public access to a 
wide range of information on tobacco industry activities.  
 
6) Denormalis e and, to the extent possible, regulate activities descr ibed as “socially 
responsible”  by the tobacco industry  
 Parties should ensure that all branches of government and the public are informed and 
made aware of the true purpose and scope of CSR activities conducted  by the tobacco 
industry.  
 Parties should not endo rse, support or form partnerships  with the  CSR activities of the 
tobacco industry.  
 Parties should not allow public disclosure by the tobacco industry or any other person 
acting on its behalf of CSR activities or of the expenditures made for these activitie s, 
except when legally required to report on such expenditures.  
 Parties should not allow any branch of government or the public sector  to accept  
political, social, financial, educational, or other contributions from the tobacco 
industry or from those worki ng to further its interests, except for compensations due to 
legal settlements or mandated by law or legally binding and enforceable agreements.  
 
7) Do not give preferential treatment to the tobacco industry  
 Parties should not grant incentives, privileges or benefits to the tobacco industry to 
establish or run their businesses, e.g. subsidies, investments or facilitation for the 
tobacco industry.   Parties that do not have a State -owned tobacco industry should not invest in the 
tobacco industry and related ventures. Parties should not provide any preferential tax 
exemption to the tobacco industry  
 
8) Treat State -owned tobacco industry in the same manner  as any other tobacco 
industry  
4.4.4 Enforcement and monitoring  
According to the guidelines, Parties should put in p lace enforcement mechanisms in order to 
fulfil  their obligations under FCTC Article 5.3 and its guidelines. Monitoring implementation 
of Article 5.3 and of these guidelines is considered essential for ensuring the introduction and 
implementation of efficie nt tobacco control policies. This includes  monitoring of the tobacco 
industry. According to the guidelines, non -governmental organisations and other members of 
civil society play an essential role in monitoring the activities of the tobacco industry. It is  
further recommended that codes of conduct or staff regulations for all branches of 
governments should include a “whistleblower function”, with adequate protection of 
whistleblowers. In addition, the Parties should establish an enforcement mechanism to ens ure 
compliance, offering the opportunity to bring  an action to court, and to use complaint 
procedures such as an ombudsman system.  
4.5 The WHO’s assessment of Norwegian tobacco control  work  
The WHO’s assessment of Norwegian tobacco control efforts in 2010 concluded that the 
tobacco industry’s  marketing strategies are not well -known in Norway. Despite the fact that 
the industry sued Norwegian authorities for the display ban, the general  impression was that 
the tobacco industry was inactive and did not requir e monitoring . Although  there has been no 
tobacco manufacturing in Norway since 2008, major  international actors have  nonetheless 
established offices in Norway (British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, Imperial Tobacco 
and Swedish Match), in addition to major importers such as Langgaard , owned by Thon . 
 
The WHO report94 emphasises that monitoring of the tobacco industry is necessary in order to 
effectively implement the FCTC , and that Norway should introduce additional measures to 
implement Article 5.3. They made the following key findings:  
 
“Tobacco industry marketing tactics and strategies in Norway are barely  known  
                                                 
94 https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/hod/dokumenter -fha/tobakk/who_rapport_norsk.pdf   Despite an ongoing legal action contesting tobacco control measures filed against the 
government by the tobacco industry, there is a wide impression in both governmental 
and nongovernmental circles that the tobacco industry is inactive and that there is no 
need to monitor it. However, global experience has shown that, while the industry’s 
work may not be obvious, it is omnipresent, monitorin g what health authorities are 
doing and finding opportunities to influence policy and activities that are to its 
advantage. The tobacco market and the tobacco industry’s marketing strategies in 
Norway are not well known and there is no mechanism for monito ring the industry's 
activities at either national or international level. In this regard, the WHO FCTC 
Article 5.3 which protects against undue interference from the tobacco industry and 
the Article 13 guidelines on tobacco advertising, promotion and spons orship are not 
being appropriately implemented unless there is monitoring to prevent the activities of 
the tobacco industry from undermining tobacco control.”  
 
Based on these findings, the WHO made the following recommendations in its report:  
 
“The activities of the tobacco industry that influence the internal market should 
be monitored nationally and internationally . 
The tobacco industry – importers, distributors and front groups in Norway and 
producers and exporters internationally – must not be underestimated. Keeping up to 
date with the changes in the country's tobacco market, and knowing existing products, 
brands a nd the tobacco industry's presence are crucial in anticipating opposition to 
new tobacco control policies. Understanding the tobacco industry’s marketing 
strategies nationally and internationally can be an invaluable help in guiding tobacco 
control policie s and protecting the government proactively against attacks. This 
includes price promotions, new publicity tactics, packaging and product 
manipulations, and placement strategies to increase profits and reach new customers. 
Furthermore, studies on the files  of tobacco industry documents released as part of the 
US Master Settlement Agreement can be an important source of information for the 
country.  
 
In this regard, the mission recommends the establishment of a tobacco industry 
monitoring system. This can be undertaken either by a research body in the 
government or by a civil society organization, or by both to ensure complementarity. 
Such a system would also allow Norway to comply with WHO FCTC Article 5.3 
guidelines .” 
 
4.6 Status of implementation of Article 5.3  in Norway  
The Norwegian Pension Fund (SPU) withdrew from the tobacco industry in 2009, and the 
FCTC  was then used as an argument for amendments to the ethical guidelines. Beyond this, 
there have been no special measures for the implementation of Article 5 .3 in Norway, as the 
WHO points out. There exist no national guidelines for how authorities, government 
employees or politicians are to deal with  the tobacco industry.   
The Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Directorate of Health on principle do not 
interact with the tobacco industry beyond recorded communications. However, there is no 
defined policy on this matter. There is currently no reporting on the part of the tobacco 
industry concerning production, market shares, income, lobbying activities , CSR activities, 
organising, use of third parties etc.  
 
In the Directorate of Health’s report “Norwegian Implementation of the Framework 
Convention on Tobacco Control” of December 2013, the following status update for the 
implementation of Art. 5.3 is provided:  
 
“As far as the Directorate of Health is aware, no extraordinary measures have been 
taken, such as conveying special information to all relevant branches of government 
about  the need to protect tobacco control from commercial interests or informa tion 
about the tobacco industry’s tactics to interfere  in the policies.  
 
The Directorate has, and has had very limited interaction with the tobacco industry 
beyond recorded communications. The tobacco industry is a consulted party in matters  
that concern t hem (e.g. amendments to the Tobacco Control Act ). There are no 
settlements or voluntary/self -policing arrangements in tobacco control policy. We are 
not aware of any defined policy that prevents persons with ties to the tobacco industry 
from working for go vernment bodies, committees, advisory groups and the like, 
concerning tobacco control or public health. (…) At this point, we are also not aware 
of any established measures to limit interaction between branches of government and 
the tobacco industry beyond  what is necessary to ensure proper regulation of tobacco 
products and the tobacco industry. There are no guidelines for how government 
employees should  deal with  the tobacco industry, nor is there any specific system for 
declaring potential conflicts of i nterest. However, several general rules for government 
employees are applicable. (…)  
 
No reporting from the tobacco industry is required with respect to  production, market 
shares, income, lobbying activities, contributions to political parties, socially 
responsibl e activities, organising, actors, etc. (…) 
 
Influence from the tobacco industry has probably been an underestimated topic in 
Norwegian tobacco control, but there has been a conscious decision to focus more  
attention  on the public than on the industr y. There was a gradual decline in  production 
in Norwegian  soil, and the last factory finally moved out of the  country in 2008 . The  
tobacco industry has in this sense become less visible and flown under the radar.”  
 
4.7 Proposal by the Norwegian Directorate of Health  
In its 2013 report, the Directorate of Health made the following recommendations for how 
obligations under Article  5.3 can be implemented in Norway:   
“WHO’s assessment from 2010 noted a certain degree of naivety towards the tobacco 
industry’s presence and influence in Norway. The Directorate frequently comes up 
short with regard to  of knowledge of the Norwegian tobacco market, whether in terms 
of report ing or regulation of the market. In addition to snus and smoking 
tobacco/cigarettes, e-cigarettes are now  included in this selection of products , and this 
development must be followed closely.  
 Gain  a better overview of Norwegian actors by:  
o compiling alread y available information (web search queries, newspaper 
searches, registers and the like)  
o expand the duty of disclosure for ingredients to include an overview of the 
labels, sales figures, revenue, market shares, marketing budgets, income, 
CSR/social respon sibility and other activities  
o introduce licensing systems for actors that produce, import, distribute or 
sell tobacco products, to assist in eliminating  illegal trade in tobacco 
products and to achieve a better overview of the Norwegian market  
 
 A review of  article 5.3 and assessment of the need for an advisor on the 
relationship between Norwegian authorities and the tobacco industry  
 
 Consider measures  to involve the voluntary sector  in the monitoring of the tobacco 
industry and actors working to promote its  interests  
 
Even if separate rules for politicians, government employees etc. are not necessarily  
developed in terms of potential relations with actors in the tobacco industry, information 
regarding the methods used by the tobacco industry, knowledge of lo bbying activities 
and PR work etc. would contribute to becoming more  cautious and critical in matters 
where  potential exertion of influence are attempted. The WHO has guidelines for how 
the WHO is to respond to requests for meetings from the tobacco indust ry, and the 
manner in which  such potential meetings should be conducted. The tobacco strategy 
proposes a review of Article 5.3 and an assessment of the need for an advisor on the 
relationship between Norwegian authorities and the tobacco industry.  
 We currently  have little information about the actors and products on the Norwegian 
tobacco market. Some countries practice registration of actors and products in order to 
obtain permits to sell goods. This should also be considered in Norway . It would ensure  
a continually updated overview of the products existing on the Norwegian market. In 
the protocol to the FTCT article 15 concerning illicit trade, the parties are asked to 
introduce a licensing system for actors that manufacture, import, distribute or sell  
tobacco products, in order to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products. In proposition 
Prp 55 L (p. 88), reference is made to further consideration of a separate duty of 
registration for importers and manufacturers. Tobacco man ufacturers, suppliers, 
importers, etc., are already obligated to disclose information about the contents of the 
products. New legal and regulatory amendments should assess whether the duty of 
disclosure should be extended to apply to all labels, including revenue, market shares 
etc. (…)  
 
An assessment should be made of whether it is appropriate to allocate time for a report 
or the like, based at least on the information available by way of open web search 
queries, newspaper searches, media events, registers and the like, and therea fter keep it 
regularly updated. Based on experience, these are tasks which are outside of what the 
Directorate of Health considers core tasks in the area of tobacco control. This is  
mechanisms to strengthen civil society tobacco -control efforts should be c onsidered. 
Such mechanisms may include cooperation, partnership, or grants.”  
 
4.8 The Ministry ’s proposals and assessments  
The National Strategy for Tobacco C ontrol 2013 -2016 states that the Ministry will review the 
guidelines for Article 5.3 and assess the manner in which  Norway can fulfil its obligations 
under the provision. The Ministry has determined  that there is a need for various types of 
measures, which are discussed below.  
 
To make it clear  that Article 5.3 is a cross -sectorial obligation, one option  may be to include a 
provision in the Tobacco Control Act  concerning the government branches ’ contact with and 
handling of  the tobacco industry. Legislation would  raise awareness of the  tobacco industry’s 
interference and their methods  in all branches of g overnment. A legal provision could be 
worded similarly to the FCTC  Article 5.3:  
 
“In setting and implementing public health policies with respect to tobacco control, all 
branches of government shall act to protect these policies from the commercial and 
other vested interests of the tobacco industry.”  
 
For the time being, the Ministry does not suggest detailed regulations on protective measures, 
but is instead requesting input on what measures would be appropriate  in a Norwegian 
context. Examples of measures  that have been  implemented in other countries include  
guidelines for public authorities, guidelines for contact between public employees and the 
industry, as well as a  lobby registry  to ensure transparency about contact between the  industry 
and various br anches of the public sector.  
 The Ministry has also noted  that authorities are in need of a better overview of the tobacco 
market and of the industry’s  activities . Tobacco manufacturers and importers already have an 
obligation to annually submit informatio n about ingredients to the Directorate of Health. This 
reporting obligation has been  expanded in the new Tobacco Products Directive.  
 
The Ministry is of the opinion that the duty of disclosure should be expanded to include not 
only the duty to report  ingre dients , but also an overview of the industry’s revenue and market 
shares, marketing budgets, expenses and other information linked with  lobbying activity, total 
income, research activities etc. Such reporting obligations have been introduced  inter alia in 
Canada. However, the Ministry has determined  that such a proposal should be coordinated 
with the necessary legal amendments related to the  implementation of the new Tobacco 
Products Directive, and will therefore return to this question in a later consultat ion. 
 
Certain countries have introduced a mandatory registration of actors and products for the 
permission to sell tobacco products. This would contribute to an improved  overview of the 
market. Several large tobacco manufacturers are entering the e -cigarette market and the 
authorities also need to track this development. In accordance with the FCTC’s P rotocol on 
illicit trade, the Parties shall introduce a  licensing syste m for actors that manufacture, import 
and distribute tobacco products. The Ministry will consider  this in relation to a possible 
ratification of the P rotocol.   
 
The Ministry is requesting input on the need for measures such as the examples provided 
above,  and whether some of the noted measures may be relevant in a Norwegian context.  
 
5. FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSEQUENCES  
 
The Directorate of Health has estimated that smoking costs approximately NOK 80  billion  a 
year, if we consider  the costs to society as a whole.95 The costs of health services  alone  
amount to NOK 8  billion  a year. Th is estimate is based on the scale of smoking over the past 
10 to 30 years. It is the financial valuation of welfare benefit s in the form of lost years o f life 
that has the greatest impact on the calculation of the socioeconomic costs.   
 
The Directorate of Health have further estimated that the potential socioeconomic benefit s of 
the decline in the number  of daily smokers over the last 20 years amounts to  NOK 26  billion  
per year, and the potential benefit s of a further decline in the number  of daily smokers may 
have an annual social value of approx. NOK 2 -3 billion  per percentage point. However, it is 
important to remember  that it may take time before we s ee the effects of measures aimed at  
the smoking population , and that the most widespread  smoking -related diseases generally do 
not appear until several  decades  later. The time factor and problems with isolating effects also 
                                                 
95 Directorate of Health  (2010), Samfunnsøkonomiske kostnader av røyking – En vurdering av metodikk og 
kostnadenes størrelsesorden , IS-1825: http://www.helsedirektoratet.no/vp/multimedia/archive/00312/I S-
1825_Samfunns_ko_312409a.pdf     complicate the evaluation of ind ividual measures.  Moreover, implementation of several 
measure produce synergies  that are difficult to measure.  
5.1 Standardised tobacco packaging  
 
Consequences for the tobacco industry  
Mandatory standardisation of tobacco packaging will in the long term  result in reduced sales 
for the tobacco industry. This is precisely the purpose of the measure.  
 
No substantial decline in the sale of tobacco products can be  expected in the short term. In the 
long term, however, the percentage of children and young peop le who begin to smoke and use 
snus is likely to  decline. Lost revenue must be  weighed against the health benefit s this 
measure will  entail, both for individuals and for society as a whole.  
 
The tobacco manufacturers will have to expect one -time costs associated with new labelling 
regulations. The Ministry emphasises that the industry already has considerable costs in this 
respect, since  the packaging is frequently being altered . The Commissio n’s impact assessment 
notes that the tobacco industry’s costs related to the  labelling of packaging will be reduced  
significantly over time, since  regulations on standardised packaging will remove the need for  
frequent new designs on the packages .96 Moreove r, reference is made to the fact that 
standardised packaging is less expensive and uses far fewer  colours.  
 
Consequences for retailers  
It is not expected that the introduction of standardised packaging will have financial 
consequences for retailers. Most adult smokers are addicted to tobacco, have established a  
preferred tobacco product and will continue to purchase it. However, changes i n revenue are 
expected in the long term as the percentage  of children and young people  who begin  using 
tobacco will decline . 
 
The Ministry submits  that the proposal will not have significant administrative consequences 
for the retailers. The industry has c laimed  (inter alia in Australia and England) that the 
introduction of standardised tobacco packaging will increase  costs for the retail industry, as it 
presumably takes longer to serve customers who purchase tobacco because the packages have 
identical desi gns. Experience from other countries has shown that costs related  to the sales 
situation have been  manageable for retailers. Potential consequences are considered to be 
short term. Studies from Australia indicated that retailers quickly became  accustomed t o the 
new packaging design, and that after a short period of time, i t no longer took longer to serve 
customers than before.  
 
                                                 
96 http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/com_2012_788_ia_en.pdf , see page 92  The Ministry is of the opinion that it is important that the proposed regulations apply equally 
to all tobacco retailers. Tobacco sold in special ty shops  shall therefore also be sold in  
standardised packaging. An exemption for specialised shops  would lead to a growth in such 
establishments and thereby undermine the intention and effect of the proposal.  
 
Consequences for supervisory a uthorities  
The proposal could entail the need for increased resources for supervisory authorities in the 
first period following  the introduction of the new provisions. The Ministry will return to this 
in a consultation document with proposals for implement ation of the general provisions of the 
new Tobacco Products  Directive.  
 
Consequences for illicit trade in tobacco products  
The Ministry is aware that several industry -financed reports claim that standardised tobacco 
packaging will result in an increase in  illicit trade in tobacco goods , inter alia because the 
packaging will be easier to forge. It is already very easy to forge tobacco packaging, meaning 
that forgery of standardised tobacco packing will be neither easier nor more difficult than 
forgery of ordinary packaging. Tobacco companies have previously stated that complicated 
tax stamps with holograms, special ink and complication design elements can be quickly and 
easily be copied.97 The Ministry is of the opinion that the proposed regulations will no t result 
in a rise in  illicit  tobacco products.  
 
In Australia, the measure does not appear to have  led to an increase in illicit trade. Industry -
financed reports claiming anything to the contrary have been thoroughly analysed and refuted 
by Australian researchers.  
 
The Ministry refers to the Chantler report from the UK, which has specifically investiga ted 
whether  standardised packaging will lead to increased tobacco consumption due to lower  
tobacco prices  (due to  competition), or to an increase in  use of  cheap and illicit tobacco. The 
report  states : 
 
“It is my view that the risks of price effects undermining the objectives of a 
standardised packaging policy are small and that the impacts could be readily 
mitigated through taxation if, nevertheless, they were to materialise. I am not 
convinced by the tobacco industry’s argument that standardised pac kaging would 
increase the illicit market, especially in counterfeit cigarettes. It seems to me that the 
solution to illicit use is instead, to have an effective enforcement regime, and the 
enforcement agencies in the UK have already demonstrated that an ef fective 
enforcement regime and appropriate sanctions can keep illicit [tobacco products] to 
low levels, even in a relatively high tax jurisdiction.”  
                                                 
97 Smuggling – the Tobacco Industry and Plain Packs, 2012; http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ prod_consump/
groups/cr_common/@nre/@pol/documents/generalcontent/smuggling_fullreport. pdf, page  6.  This issue  has also been considered by the Commission in their impact assessment. They are 
of the opinion t hat there is no documentation to suggest that standardised tobacco packaging 
will lead to increased sales of counterfeit tobacco products. Furthermore, they write that the 
argument is counterintuitive as manufacturers of counterfeit tobacco products try to  exploit 
the reputation and recognition tied to the tobacco manufacturers’ brand names. This is 
currently possible, but will not be possible with standardised packaging.  
 
Either way, the most important measure to counter illicit trade is good control routi nes and 
regional and international cooperation. T he Ministry notes that the new Tobbaco Products 
Directive contains rules designed to improve  such control and will discuss this in more detail 
in the upcoming consultation on implementation of the directive. Moreover, Norway has 
signed a protocol against illicit trade in tobacco under the FCTC . 
 
6. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE TOBACCO CONTROL ACT  
 
The followin g amendments are made to the Act of 9 March 1973, no. 14 relating to 
Prevention of the Harmful Effects of Tobacco (amendments in italics):  
 
Section first Paragraph shall read:  
 
This Act shall apply to the import, export, sale, design and use of tobacco pro ducts and 
tobacco packaging,  smoking accessories, tobacco substitutes and imitation tobacco products.  
 
The heading for Section 30 shall read:  
 
Requirements concerning design and  labelling of packaging,  tobacco products and smoking 
accessories  
 
Section 30 new first Paragraph shall read:  
       It is unlawful import to Norway, sell or distribute tobacco packaging and tobacco 
products that are not of standardised design in accordance with detailed provisions 
established by the Ministry in regulations. The sta ndardisation may apply to shape, size, 
appearance, colour, material and texture, labelling, including a ban on misleading labelling, 
opening mechanisms and other design elements, including use of brand names, logos and 
other elements tied to branding in ad dition to other functions used to distinguish tobacco 
brands from one another. The Ministry can issue regulations with respect to similar 
standardisation of labelling and design of packaging for smoking accessories and tobacco 
substitutes.  
 
The current fir st Paragraph will be the new second Paragraph.  
 
The current second and third Paragraphs are repealed.   
Section 30 new third Paragraph shall read:  
The requirements in the first and second Paragraphs do not apply to the legal duty -free 
goods quota for trave llers entering Norway, or lesser quantities that are purchased abroad 
brought into the country for personal use or as gifts.  
 
Section 31 shall read:  
 
It is prohibited to import, sell or distribute boxes, cases, covers and any other product that 
is intended  to fully or partially conceal or disguise tobacco packaging or  the health warnings 
in Section 30 second paragraph .  
 
The heading for Section 33 shall read:  
 
Regulation of minimum size and weight of tobacco products  
 
Section 33 shall read:  
 
The Ministry may issue regulations regarding the minimum number of units and weight 
of tobacco products per package that may be sold in retail trade.  
 
New Section 41A shall read:  
 
Seizure and destruction of illegally imported tobacco products, tobacco substitutes and 
smoking accessories  
Tobacco products, tobacco substitutes and smoking accessories that are imported in 
violation of Sections 30 and 31 with regulations may be withheld , seized and destroyed.  
In the event of withholding, the recipient shall be notified that the product will be 
considered for seizure and destruction. The recipient shall be given the opportunity to make a 
statement in the case within a specified deadline.  
If the recipient does not provide a statement within the deadline, the product may be 
seized and destroyed. The Public Administration Act Sections 23, 24, 25 and 27 are not 
applicable when the recipient has not provided a statement within the deadline.  
The King may issue regulations concerning implementation of this provision, including 
establishing deadlines for submitting a response to a notice issued in accordance with the 
second paragraph.  
The King may by regulations issue exceptions from the right of a ppeal of the decision 
made in accordance with this provision.  
 
  7. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE LABELLING REGULATIONS  
 
The following amendments shall be made to regulations no. 141 of 6 February 2003 on the 
contents and labelling of tobacco products:  
  
The title of the regulations shall read:  
 
Regulations no. 141 of 6 February 2003 on the contents and standardisation of  labelling and 
design  of tobacco products  
 
Section 1 shall read:  
 
The object of these regulations is to limit the damage to health caused by the use of 
tobacco by reducing the consumption of tobacco products. The regulations also have the 
objective of preventing consumption of tobacco products by regulating them so that they do 
not appeal to children and youth, by the increased attention to and impact of health warnings, 
and by minimising the risk that the design is misleading with regard to the harmful effects to 
health of tobacco use.  
 
Section 3 new no. 5 to 15 shall re ad: 
 
 5. “insert” refers to any element that is placed in a tobacco packaging with the exception 
of the lining.  
6. “trademark” refers to characteristics of products or services in business activities in 
accordance with the Trademarks Act.  
7. “brand name” r efers to the primary name of tobacco products belonging to the same 
brand family.  
8. “variant name” refers to any name by which the product is distinguished from other 
tobacco products under the same brand name.   
9. “pouch” refers to a unit packet of hand -rolling tobacco, either in the form of a 
rectangular pocket with a flap that covers the opening or in the form of a standing 
pouch;  
10. “unit packet” refers to the smallest individual packaging of a tobacco or related 
product intended for retail sale;  
11. “external packaging” refers to any packaging containing tobacco products or 
tobacco substitutes intended for retail sale.  
12. “wrapping” refers to cellophane or plastic wrapper, or other transparent material 
used to contain an individual packet or externa l packaging of tobacco products or 
tobacco substitutes.  
13. “outer surfaces” refers to:  
- any surface that is visible before the packaging is opened to reveal unit packets and 
outside packaging of tobacco products, with the exception of tobacco products in 
pouch packaging  - any surface that is visible before the packaging is opened, in addition to the surface 
that is covered by the flap before it is opened for tobacco products in pouch 
packaging  
14. “inner surfaces” refers to the part of the tobacco packet that is not encompassed by 
outer surfaces.  
15. “inside  lip” of a cigarette pack means the part of the outer surfaces of the pack that 
is obscured when the flip -top lid is closed.  
  
The current Section 17 is repealed.  
 
New chapter IV shall read:  
 
Chapter IV: Standardisation of colour and other packaging elements for tobacco 
packaging  
 
Section 17 . Colour and finish for tobacco packaging  
The colour of all outer surfaces of external packaging and unit packets shall be Pantone 
448 C with a matt finish, unless otherwise stipulated by act or regulation.  
All inner surfaces of external packaging and unit packets for cigarettes shall be white or  
Pantone 448 C, with a matt finish.  
All inner surfaces of external packaging and unit packets for packaging other than 
cigarettes shall be:  
a) white or  
b) the natural colour of the respective material  
 
Section 18. Surfaces  
All outer and inner surfaces of extern al packaging and unit packets shall:  
a) be flat and smooth, and  
b) not contain irregular elements such as embossing, ridges etc. in shape or texture  
The first paragraph does not apply to pouch and bag packaging if certain elements are 
necessary to close the pouc h or bag. The first paragraph also does not apply to hand -rolled 
tobacco in cylindrical packaging, which has elements that are necessary for fastening the 
base of the package or in opening and closing the lid.  
The first paragraph also does not apply to bat ch number, cf. Section 16. This cannot be 
placed on the front of unit packets.  
 
Section 19.  Inserts and tab and seal  
Inserts in or additional elements to a unit packet or an outside packaging.  
The first paragraph does not prohibit the sale of hand -rolled t obacco with filters and 
cigarette paper provided these are not  visible before the packaging is opened.  
Tab and seal for pouch and bag packaging shall be transparent and without colours.  
 
Section 20. Lining  The lining for unit packets for tobacco products shall be uniform silver foil with white 
paper on the back.  
If it is necessary with regard to manufacturing or packaging, the lining may contain 
small dots or squares in the texture, in which case these shall be placed an equal distance 
apart, have  a uniform size and shall not form an image or symbol, etc.  
 
Section 21. Wrapping material  
Unit packets and external packaging may be covered by wrapping material if this is 
transparent and colourless. Furthermore, the wrapping material must be flat and sm ooth, and 
not contain labelling or texture that is unnecessary to the manufacturing process. No elements 
may be fastened to the wrapping material.  
The wrapping material may be labelled with black squares to cover the barcode if this is 
necessary.  
Tear stri ps shall be either transparent or black. They may not be wider than 3 millimetres 
and must be parallel with the upper edge of the packaging. Furthermore, the strip may have a 
long black line which is no more than 15 millimetres in length to indicate where the strip 
begins.  
 
Section 22 . Barcode  
The wrapping material, external packaging and unit packets may be marked with a 
barcode if:  
a) it is used for sales purposes, distribution or warehouse management,  
b) it is either black or white, or Pantone 448 C and white , and  
c) it does not constitute an image, pattern or symbol that imitates anything other than a 
barcode.  
The barcode may only be printed once, and cannot be printed on the front of the unit 
packet or the external packaging.  
The barcode may be a self -adhesive label.  
 
Section 23. Calibration mark  
The outer surface of a unit packet and outer surface of external packaging may contain a 
calibration mark if this is necessary for the manufacturing. The mark shall be as 
inconspicuous as possible without limiting its function.  
 
Section 24. Product presen tation   
Unit packets and external packaging shall not contain elements that:  
a) promote a tobacco product or encourage its use by giving a misleading impression of 
the product’s characteristics, its effect on health, risks or emmissions,  
b) create the impression that a specific tobacco product is less harmful than another  
c) create the impression that a tobacco product is associated with energy and vitality, 
that it has rejuvenating and healing qualities, or that it contains natural or organic 
ingredients or that it has other positive effects on health and lifestyle  
d) create the impression that its purpose is to reduce the effect of certain harmful 
elements in the tobacco smoke  e) refer to taste, smell or any flavourings or other , additives, or the absence of  any such 
thing make the tobacco product resemble a food product or cosmetic product  
f) create the impression that a certain tobacco product has improved biodegradability or 
other environmental advantages  
Elements that are prohibited in accordance with the f irst paragraph can include, but not 
be limited to, text, symbols, names, trademarks, shapes or other signs.  
 
Section 25. Ban on packaging elements which change after sale  
Packaging elements which change in some form after purchase are prohibited. These 
include:  
a) heat-activated inks  
b) ink or embellishments designed to appear gradually over time  
c) ink that appears fluorescent in certain light  
d) panels designed to be scratched off or rubbed to reveal an image or text  
e) removable tabs or  
f) fold-out panels  
 
The new Chap ter V shall read:  
 
Chapter V. Regulations regarding material, size, shape and opening mechanisms for 
tobacco packets  
 
Section 26. Regulations regarding material, size, shape and opening mechanisms for 
cigarette packets   
Unit packets for cigarettes shall be: 
a) made of either cardboard or a soft material  
b) have a cuboid shape  
Unit packets of cigarettes must not have an opening that can be re -closed or re -sealed 
after being opened, with the exception of a foldable lid (flip -tip), and shoulder boxes with 
hinged l ids, which must be hinged on the back of the packet.   
For shoulder boxes with hinged lids, the height of box’s side, measured between the front 
and the back of the packet, must be at least 16 millimetres.    
 
Section 27. Regulations regarding shape and size of packets for hand -rolling tobacco  
Unit packets of hand -rolling tobacco packets must be cuboid, cylindrical or in the form of 
a pouch.  
For shoulder boxes with hinged lids, the height of box’s side, measured between t he front 
and the back of the packet, must be at least 16 millimetres.  
 
Section 28. Regulations on shape and material for snus packs   
Unit packets of snus must be shaped as cylindrical cans or tins, with uniform lids and 
uniformly flat bases.    
Snus packs may be made from either hard plastic, cardboard or metal.   
 The new Chapter VI shall read:  
 
Chapter VI. Marking of tobacco packets with brand and variant names, and 
manufacturer information  
 
Section 29. General provisions regarding brand and variant names on tobacco packaging  
External packaging and unit packets of tobacco products may have text printed on it 
which states the brand name and variant name, but only if the following requirements are 
met:  
a) the text cannot contain any characters which are not alphabetical, numerical or an 
ampersand  
b) the first letter of any word is in uppercase type or lowercase type, but the rest of the 
word must be in lowercase type  
c) the text is printed in Helvetica typeface  
d) the colour of the text is Pantone Cool Gray 2 C with a matt finish  
e) the text is in a normal, weighted, regular typeface  
f) the brand name does not take up more than one line, and is no larger than 14 point  
g) the variant name appears immediately below the brand  name, does not take up more 
than one line, and its size is no larger than 10 point  
 
Section 30. Labelling of brand and variant names on cigarette packets  
On cigarette packets, brand and variant names may be printed in the following manner: 
Brand and var iant names may appear only once on the front surface of the unit packet, or  
external packaging, and once on each of the two smallest surfaces of the packet.  
The brand and variant name must be located at the centre of any such surface outside the  
 designat ed area for health warnings, and must be orientated in accordance with the warning.  
 
Section 31. Labelling of brand and variant names on other tobacco packaging  
On the following types of packaging, the brand and variant names must be printed in the 
following manner:   
a) For cuboid or other non -cylindrical packet shapes: the brand and variant name can 
be printed only once on the front surface of the unit packet or ex ternal packaging, and 
only once on each of the two smallest surfaces of the packet. On packages that do not 
have room for text, the brand and variant name can be printed only once on the front 
surface of the packet and only once on the back surface.  
b) For c ylindrical packaging: The brand and variant name can be printed only once on 
the side of the unit packet or external packaging, and only once on the lid.   
c) For packet in the form of a pouch: The brand and variant name can be printed only 
once on the front surface of the unit packet or externall packaging and only once on 
the back surface. If the pouch has a pocket with a rectangular flap that covers the 
opening, the brand and variant name may be printed on the surface covered by the 
flap.   
d) Cigar tubes: The  brand and variant name can be printed only once, just below the 
health warning, and must be orientated in the same direction as the warning.  The brand and variant name must be located on the centre of the surface outside the 
designated area for health war nings, and must be oriented in accordance with the 
warning.  
 
Section 32. Labelling with information about the manufacturer  
Unit packets or external packaging for tobacco products may only be marked only once,  
 either on outer or inner surfaces with the f ollowing information:  
a) the name of the manufacturer  
b) the address of the manufacturer  
c) the e -mail address of the manufacturer  
d) the telephone number of the manufacturer  
These markings must:  
a) include characters which are alphabetical, numerical or ampersands. E-mail 
addresses may include the sign “@”  
b) be printed such that the first letter of any word is in uppercase type or lowercase type, 
while the rest of the word is in lowercase type  
c) be printed with typeface Helvetica  
d) use the colour Pantone Cool Gray 2 C or  black, with a matt finish, on all text on inner 
surfaces of external packaging, and on unit packets.  
e) use normal, weighted, regular typeface no larger than 10 point for text  
f) not be printed on the front surface of unit packets or external packaging   
 
The new Chapter VII shall read:  
 
Chapter VII. Minimum size and marking of content and weight  
 
Section 33. Minimum size and weight for tobacco products   
Unit packets sold to the consumer must contain no less than 20 cigarettes. These are not  
 permitted to contain smaller packets, or to enable the product to be divided into smaller 
packets.   
Only unit packets with hand rolling tobacco which contains at least 30 grams of tobacco  
 may be sold to the consumer.   
Cigars which are to be sold indivi dually must be sold in a cigar tube.   
 
 Section 34. Marking of the number of units in packages for cigarettes, cigarillos and cigars  
External packaging and unit packets may be marked with the words: “Cigarettes”,  
 “Cigarillos”, or “Cigars”, as well as the number of units in the packet, if the following 
conditions are met:   
a) The number of units must be provided numerically  
b)  The surface of the external packaging is marked with either the total number of units 
in the  unit packets, or the number of unit packets multiplied by the number of units in 
each unit packet, using the sign “x”  
c) The text must be printed in Helvetica typeface  
d) The colour of the text must be Pantone Cool Gray 2 C with a matt finish  e) The text must be a normal, weighted typeface  
f) The text on unit packets must not be larger than 10 point  
g) The text on external packaging must not be larger than 14 point   
h) The text may only be printed once  
i) Markings must be printed in the same direction as th e health warning  
 
Section 35. Marking of weight and contents in hand rolling tobacco, snus, chewing tobacco 
and pipe tobacco  
External packaging and unit packets may be marked with the words “Rolling tobacco”, 
“Snus”, “Chewing tobacco” or “Pipe tobacco”, a nd may specify weight, if the following  
 conditions are met:   
a) Weight is specified numerically, following by the letter “g”  
b) External packaging may be marked with either the total weight of all unit packets, or 
the total number of unit packets multiplied b y the weight of the tobacco in each unit 
packet, by using the sign “x”   
c) The text is printed in Helvetica typeface  
d) The colour of the text is Pantone Cool Gray 2 C with a matt finish  
e) The text is a normal, weighted typeface  
f) The text on unit packets must no t be larger than 10 point  
g) The text on external packaging is not larger than 14 point   
h) The text is only printed once  
i) Markings is printed in the same direction as the health warning.  
 
The new Chapter VIII shall read:  
 
Chapter VIII. Regulations regarding the design of tobacco products  
 
Section 36. Prohibition of misleading labelling and elements that may change after sale  
 
Prohibitions listed under regulations in Section 24 and 25 regarding misleading  
labelling and el ements that may change after sale also apply to the labelling of the tobacco 
products themselves.  
 
Section 37.  Regulations regarding cigarette design  
Cigarettes shall be designed in the following manner:  
All papers, filters, casings on the outside of the filters, as well as other material used in 
the cigarettes, with the exception of tobacco, must be white with a matt finish. The casing at 
the end of the cigarette may be coloured in such a way as to resemble cork.  
Cigarettes may be marked with text that i dentifies the brand name and variant name if the 
following conditions are met:  
a) the text is parallel to, and no more than 38 millimetres from, the end which will not be 
lit 
b) the text does not contain any character which is not alphabetic, numeric or an 
ampersand   c) the first letter of any word is in uppercase or lowercase type, and the rest of any word 
is in lowercase type  
d) the text is printed in Helvetica typeface  
e) the colour o f the text is black  
f) the text is in a normal, weighted typeface  
g) the size of the text is no larger than 8 point  
 
Section 38. Regulations on the design of cigars   
Cigars may have a single cigar band using the colour Pantone Cool Gray 2 C .  
The cigar band may  be self -adhesive.  
The cigar band may be marked with the brand name and variant name, and the 
manufacturer name. These must be placed horizontally along the length of the band. 
Furthermore, the band can be marked with the country of origin and alphanumeric  code.  
Marking according to the second paragraph must meet the following conditions:  
a) the text can only be written once on the band  
b) the text is printed in Helvetica typeface  
c) the text is no larger than 10 point  
d) the text is in a normal, weighted typeface  
e) the colour of the text is Pantone Cool Gray 2 C.  
 
Section 39. Regulations regarding papers, filters and sheaths for hand rolling tobacco  
Papers, filters and sheaths for use with hand rolling tobacco must be white  
 
Section 40. Regulations regarding the desig n of snus portions  
The material used for wrapping individual snus portions must be white  
 
The existing Chapter IV will become Chapter IX.  
 
Section 20 is repealed.  
 
The existing Sections 18 through 24 will become Sections 41 through 46.