Mary Poppins’ attack by Big Tobacco should backfire

In the print ads and websites, they ask “Do you like living in an nanny-state?” and explain that “the government doesn’t think you can make your decisions.” The government tells us more and more what to do and not to do.

The tobacco industry is concerned about the new legislation because it will result in the loss of its branding, which was one of the few remaining ways to market cigarettes to the public.

It’s motive? It’s motive?

To date, Big Tobacco’s fight against plain packaging has been based on a arsenal of contradictory messaging.

We were first told that there was no proof that plain packaging would work. We were then told that plain packaging would lead to more smoking. Most recently, it was said that would increase terrorism and allow organised criminality to flourish .

Plain packaging was said to be a waste of taxpayers’ money. The tobacco companies would sue government, and this would increase the cost to taxpayers.

History of nannies

Iain Macleod, a British politician from 1965, coined the term “nanny-state”. He was a health Minister at one time, but smoked ferociously. At 57, he died of a heartattack.

Auberon Waaugh, a British journalist and author, gave the metaphor a new dimension. Waugh was a heavy smoker who opposed any smoking-related action. He died at the age of 61 from heart disease.

In our own backyard, the government has been accused of nanny-stateism for implementing many of our most important public health reforms.

In 1950, 75% Australian men smoked. With the ban on tobacco advertising and smoke-free laws, as well as increased tobacco taxes, we have reduced this rate to less than 17%. We now have the lowest rates of smoking among teenagers ever.

Other outstanding achievements in public health have been achieved through government interventions.

Seat belts, speeding limits, and alcohol and drugs buses have all been used to help reduce road trauma, saving the lives of over 45,000 Australians in the last 40 years.

There is no doubt that the government can positively influence public behavior.

Consumer Nannies

The government is often accused of nanny-statism by the tobacco, alcohol, and food industries. What about their enormous influence on our behavior?

How did we end up in this mess of public health with alcohol, tobacco or obesity?

We need rules in a healthy society to maintain and promote good health. They are especially important to control industries which can promote unhealthy products in a massive and long-term manner.

A 2007 study found that Australian children aged between 5 and 12 were exposed to more than 100 food ads every week, of which 60% were advertisements for products high in sugar/fat.

The food industry’s commercial success is a major factor in the obesity epidemic.

The marketing budgets for junk food and beverages are much higher than those of healthy foods or drinks. Compare a Big Mac with a zucchini.

The advertising budgets for cars, videogames, television, videos, computers, and video, will also never be able compete with those of active transport (walking, cycling, and playing physical games like bats and balls).

These private nannies are still very present, even though they use a softer and more convincing carrot to influence us.