2

A brief history about the »w

hite label project«

3

P R O J E C T : W H I T E L A B E L

2003–2013

As early as 1977, a bil l was proposed in Sweden suggesting a requi-site for marking tobacco products with warning labels. The proposalarousedstrongreactions inboth theSwedishandinternationalsmokingcommunitiesandamongtobaccolobbyists. Asaresult ofthecontentionregarding the proposed labeling requirements, the proposit ion did notgain momentum until 1993 when an EU directive was passed. A newtobacco law (1993:581)was introduced that sameyear specifying: »The packaging of tobacco products which are intended for con-

sumer use within the country shall , in accordance with the policies set

for th by the government, be marked with text and i l lustrations that warn

of the health r isks associated with the use of tobacco and smoking ces-

sation«.

Thereaf ter, the National Insti tute of Public Health selected,in total , 14 var iations of warning text that would appear on tobaccopackaging, of which the most commonly pr inted text would be »Smok-ing kil ls«. These warnings were then pr inted on one-third of cigarettepackets in all EU countr ies. In addition, i l lustrations depicting lungsdamaged by smoke ingestion and other jar r ing images intended to dis-courage consumers from purchasing tobacco products were pr inted innumerousEU-countr ies. In 2000, an EU commissioned study reviewing the effects of the1993 directive concluded that the package warnings had not had a sig-nif icant effect on tobaccouse. That sameyear an additional restr ictionwasenforcedprohibit ingtobaccocompaniesfromusingtheword»ligh«in context with tobacco consumption. However, most tobacco compa-nies circumvented the ban by replacing the word »light« to »white«,quite ironicconsider ingwhatwas tocome. Three years on, in February 2003, representatives from EU pub-lic health insti tutes, convened with chief poli t icians in Brussels andstar ted »Project: White Label« A 125-page proposal focusing on cre-ating a smoke-free Europe by 2050 and proponing anti-design in ordercombattobaccousewasformulated. Just twoyearslater, inearly2005,90% of cigarette packaging was covered with warnings and the follow-ing year logos and graphic design on packaging was prohibited. TheEUHealthCommissionhadsucceeded,all tobaccopackaginginEuropewasnowcompletelywhitesoasnot toattract consumerswithmessagesor appealinggraphics.

The most common text on the cigarette be-tween the years 1993 – 2000: »Smoking Kills«.

T h e c o m m e n c e m e n t d a te o f t h e » P ro -j e c t : W h i t e L a -b e l « i n B r u s s e l s , 2 0 0 3 w i t h G e r m a n C h a n c e l l o r A n ge l a M e rk e l t o t h e r i g h t .

From 2006, all tobac-co packages in the EU, according to the law of »White Label«, had to be pure white. Al-though tobacco lobby-ists’ protests.

4

A brief history about the »w

hite label project«

5

M A N I F E S T O

2 0 0 6

»Project: White Label« was a tr iumph, within ayear statist ics showed that the number of adolescentswho star ted smokinghaddroppedby10%. Dur ing2006,anti-designadvocatessecretlyworkedon fur ther governmental ethic projects. The anti-designproponentswouldsubsequentlytargettheoil industry. Aconf idential manifesto, composed by a st i l l anonymouscommission of EU parliamentar ians, Amer ican demo-crats, and graphic designers, was wr it ten down in twoweeks inBrusselsoutl ining the followingkeypoints:

Companies that do not meet up to the new moral standards

that have been set (2006:100 158) shall be punished with a graph-

ic anonymization. This anonymization and anti-design aims to

prevent the deception of consumers and seeks to avert consumers

from making decisions which are contrary to the new moral and

ethical code. decisions which might result in the harming the con-

sumer and/or the earth’s natural environment.

* Only the colors black and white are allowed.

* All photographs and i l lustrations are prohibited.

* The font used is “Anonymous Sans”, specially developed for the

project.

Det omtalade mani-festet ifrån 2006 (offen-tliggjort under 2007) med Angela Merkels och Barack Obamas signaturer på.

6

A brief history about the »w

hite label project«

7

A N O N Y M I Z A T I O N

2007–2008

In2007and2008,thecommissionheavilyattackedU.S.and European oil companies which were forced to complywiththenewgraphicmanifesto.Additionally,otherlargecor-porations such as Coca Cola, McDonalds, Volvo and H & Mwere forced to apply anonymization after state investigationsrevealedthatthesecompanies’operations,inpar t,arerespon-sibleforthedestructionofthenaturalworld, theexploitationof the thirdworld, sexismand»generalmoraldecay«. Notuntil the respectivecompanieswereable todemon-strate a change that lived up to the defined moral and healthcr iter ia, were the companies able to resume marketing withtheiror iginalgraphicprofiles.

American gas station, unknown company in 2007. The oil industry was after the tobacco industry the hardest »hit« by »White La-bels’« anonymization punishment.

C o c a C o l a b o t t l e , 2 0 0 8 . B e c a u s e o f t h e h e a l t h r i s k s a n d c o s t s a t t i t u d e o f t h e e m p l oye e s , e ve n C o c a C o l a wa s p u n -i s h e d b y t h e »W h i t e L a b e l « . H e re we s e e t h e w h i t e l a b e l a n d t h e fo n t »A n o ny -m o u s S a n s ” .

H&M store in Stock-holm, 2008. Even the garment industry was punished hard by the new laws and standards, especially on the points that violated sexism, pollution and working conditions in the Third World.

8

A brief history about the »w

hite label project«

9

P R O T E S T S & R E S U L T S

2008–2013

Worldwide, market l iberals were outraged and onesuch l iberal claimed that the project resembled a »Sta-linist playhouse.« The most extreme and widespread re-actions came from in the U.S., where President Obamalost the president election due to »Project: White La-bel«. Even representatives of the adver tising industry,which was hard hit by cuts, took the streets in Europeand the U.S. in protest displaying large, over-designedplacards cr i t icizing the project. The companies them-selves again attempted to skir t the new rules. In 2008and 2009, police seized tens of thousands of signs anddecals, onwhich companieshad addeddrop shadowsonfonts, usedgradientsandser ifs, ormadeuseofall caps.Thesecompanieswerepunishedwithharshpenaltiesandwere advised instead to follow the new guidelines setup as an incentive for regaining permission to use theiror iginalprof iles. AcompanythatcompliedwasH&Mwhichin2010regainedi ts visualidentity, includingi ts stylized‘hand-writ ten’ red logo, as a result of increasing wages andthus improving l ife quali ty for i ts employees in Asia,renouncing the use of sexist marketing, and star t ing touse fair-trade cotton and other texti les. Thanks to thesereforms,H&Mthenhasstuckoutamongstthecrowdofotherwhite-markedcompetitorsinthegarmentindustry.Thecompany showed recordprof its in2012.

Protests in New York, 2009. The streets were outraged unemployed advertising agencies and graphic designers to protest against the project.

L o n d o n Po l i c e i n a c ra ck d ow n o n p u b s t h a t u s e d t h e b e e r b ra n d C a rl s b e rg i l l e ga l , wa r p a d e s i g n s .

Picture from the police archives, seized L’Oréal bottle which added a drop shadow to the font.