The problem with Tobacco Control
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 14:40 Yesterday Politics Home published an article by tobacco control campaigner Lord Faulkner.
It was headlined Smoke out tobacco companies influence and argued that:
“Smokers’ rights groups” and retailer front groups will continue to claim they have a right to be heard. Perhaps so, but they should no longer have the right to hide from Parliament the payments and briefings they receive from tobacco corporations.
Today Angela Harbutt, who is now working for Forest (see previous post), responded with Tobacco Control – the real smokescreen:
If there is a need for transparency – it is a need for government to come clean on just how much public money is being spent on Tobacco Control and just how far the tentacles of Tobacco Control have reached into government health policy. It might not be a bad idea to also get a truly independent body to evaluate how effectively this money has been spent. In August 2010 Eric Pickles MP announced that the government was going to stop "government lobbying government". This must surely apply to Tobacco Control.
Curiously, Politics Home have allowed Lord Faulkner to add this comment to Angela's article:
For Angela Harbutt to compare "Big Tobacco" to organisations devoted to improving public health is laughable, but hardly surprising from someone who admits to being funded by Forest, an organisation set up by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to promote the interests of the tobacco industry.
I have now written to Politics Home as follows:
I would be grateful if you could remove the totally false allegation by Lord Faulkner that Forest was "set up by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to promote the interests of the tobacco industry".
If you allow the comment to remain, perhaps you could ask Lord Faulkner to produce evidence to support the claim. For the record, the TMA didn't even exist when Forest was founded by Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, a pipesmoker and former Battle of Britain fighter pilot, in 1979. The tobacco trade association at the time was called the Tobacco Advisory Council but there is no evidence the Forest was set up by the TAC or anyone else connected to the tobacco industry.
I'm afraid this sort of misinformation is typical of the anti-smoking industry and it supports Angela's argument that one of the problems facing Britain today is not Big Tobacco but Tobacco Control.
Watch this space.
Reader Comments (18)
"......and I am sure they will be used again to argue against plain, standardised packaging of tobacco packs, due to be consulted on shortly by the government."
Stephen Williams MP only revealed the word 'standardised' when questioned about the word 'size' (of packets) in his article on his blog. Now the word 'standardised' has been slipped out. They want there to be no more 'slims' to tempt females - note, even grown-up females. No more small fags, no more '19s' or '25s', no fat fags. All must be exactly the same.
Can you see why they are bringing out all their big guns? 'Glitzy colours' was a con from the start.
And another thing.
When they have their 'standardised' packaging, will they instruct Customs to confiscate any tobacco products which do not conform?
Ah, this is a familiar cry:
"The stringent regulation imposed on tobacco will not spread to "a swathe of other products" as she suggests, because tobacco is not a product like any other. No other legal consumer product kills when used as intended."
Quite how he has the gall to say that when the MSM is currently full of scare stories about alcohol, minimum pricing, fat tax, restricting sales of salt / sugar enhanced products, pressure on food manufacturers and fast-food outlets to "voluntarily change their recipes, or else legislation will follow..." - I could go on.
He is either very stupid or disingenuous in the extreme.
@ nisakiman.
I suspect he is neither - he is a control freak power-monger who knows exactly what he is doing. Considering ASH actually has meetings with Alcohol Concern, CASH and the rest on how to apply the Tobacco Control template to other products he must be fully aware of what he, and they, are up to.
Still, this is Tobacco Control we are talking about, so such mind-bogglingly astounding levels of stupidity shouldn't be discounted.
"There is good reason for this, as this is the only industry that sells products which kill when used as intended...."
He must not be aware of the Armaments Industry.
I'm pleased Simon that you have written to Politics Home and asked them to remove Lord Faulkner's comment. This is the hallmark of Tobacco Control - making statements that aren't true.
If they refuse to take this comment down then perhaps a solicitor's letter, because this comment is damaging to the reputation of Forest.
If it is taken down, then perhaps Politics Home would also be kind enough to say why it has been removed - alongside an apology.
Perhaps a letter to Lord Faullkner's office might be in order too. I thought a man of his stature (rather large) would have done a little better than this.
Once again - its about politicians jumping on this Tobacco Control inflated band-wagon.
Does this remind anyone else of the Spanish inquisition ?
I remember some years ago there was major debate going on on Paul Flynn's blog. Flynn, like Kerry McCarthy and now Stephen Williams, were 'knocked for six' by their resposes growing from the usual handful of fan mail to hundreds of comments, the majority of which were educated, polite and accompanied with links to confirm their authenticity.
As is always the case, they could not believe that such passion and research came from Mr or Misses everyday person.
I still remember Flynn saying that Freedon2Choose got their briefings from Forest.
I believe the offending comment has been removed Simon - am I right?
I see they have allowed his comment to remain but have removed any reference to Forest.
Talking of vested interests and lobbying etc, I see that while he still lists the fact that he is a Patron of the Roy Castle charity, he doesn't mention that he was a Trustee of the largely Big Pharma-funded ASH between 2007-2009.
Hypocrite.
John and Mr A, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, they have removed the reference to Forest which was the first paragraph of Lord Faulkner's response. Fair play to them.
Mr A, ASH (London) has denied receiving money directly from Big Pharma. Without hard evidence, I think we should be careful not make allegations otherwise we are no better than the likes of Lord Faulkner and Tobacco Control.
@ Simon.
True, but as with all things Tobacco Control you just have to assume they're lying and scratch the surface to find the truth. Looking at ASH's accounts it can be seen that they get a lot of money from ASH International. A bit of poking around ASH International reveals funding from.... Pfizer.
It's much like when they say they "only" get a certain amount of funding from Government. This doesn't include the cash they get from BHF and CRUK which are, in turn largely funded by the State....
Sorry - forgot to cite source (just to differentiate ourselves from TC).
http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/global_health/global_health_partnerships.jsp
"...ASH (London) has denied receiving money directly from Big Pharma..."
There are more ways than one to skin a cat. They may not receive direct funding from Big Pharma, but it would be interesting to follow the funding paper-trail back to source. I'm sure they've been careful to make the trail as obscure as possible.
Mr A, that's a fair point. I just wanted to say that we must stick to the facts, or try and find out the facts, otherwise we are no better than them.
The anti tobacco conferences attended by ASH UK and their ilk are generously sponsored by the large drug companies.
ASH UK's accounts for 2011 are now available and last year received £152,657 from ASH International in the USA down from £168,283.
ASH Int do not state who gave them money but as Mr. A stated "Pfizer's Commitment: In 2007, the Pfizer Foundation, together with the Pfizer country offices, committed $47 million over four years (2008-2011)."
Recipients include: "Developing Tobacco Control Capacity: Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) International/Framework Convention Alliance (FCA) (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Costa Rica; Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Lebanon), and Mexican Council on Tobacco"
I personally feel ASH England receive Big Pharma money.
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_762.pdf
http://ash.org/FS_2010.pdf (ASH USA)
http://www.pfizer.com/responsibility/global_health/global_health_partnerships.jsp