Tobacco control and the Big Brother state
Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 10:15 This is moderately interesting.
In March 2017, in collaboration with the Convention Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group ran a successful tobacco industry monitoring course for delegates from low and middle income countries.
Building on this success, the Group is offering a week-long training course in June 2018 aimed at professionals from all over the world who wish to improve their skills in and knowledge of tobacco industry monitoring and research.
The course will examine in detail how to monitor and conduct research into the activities of tobacco companies and their allies, and how to synthesise and publish your research for use by key stakeholders, including policy makers and health advocates.
Early bird applications (before January 31) will be charged £1,250, after that it's £1,500. Food, accommodation and (I assume) travel cost extra so that's quite a lot of money for delegates from "low and middle income countries".
My guess (I could be wrong) is that UK taxpayers will ultimately pick up the tab because readers may recall that £15 million of OUR money has been given to the WHO to 'combat tobacco use in developing countries' including Cambodia, Colombia, Egypt, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Zambia.
It seems logical to conclude that public money will also be spent subsidising or paying for overseas delegates to attend an anti-tobacco industry programme in the UK, possibly from the same pot.
The University of Bath's Tobacco Control Research Group is of course responsible for the execrable Tobacco Tactics website that I – and others – have written about several times over the years. (See, for example, 'Tobacco Tactics - what do you think of it so far?'.)
Tobacco Tactics was launched in 2012 and a few weeks later I was contacted by a research fellow at the University of Bath whose name I shall withhold. Instead I will give him the initials 'AB' (not his real initials):
Here's an edited version of our previously unpublished correspondence:
AB: I wonder if you might be able to help? I'm doing some work on the memberships of British based lobby groups and was wondering whether you might be able to provide me with the number of Forest members.
SC: Forest is not a membership organisation so we don't have members. We are a lobby group, pure and simple, and our focus is on representing the significant number of consumers who enjoy smoking tobacco and don't wish to give up, and those non-smokers who are tolerant of other people smoking. It is of course very difficult to put an exact figure to those groups so I won't even try! Out of interest, the University of Bath website mentions two presentations that you gave in Singapore in March ... I would be very interested to see them. Would you be able to send me copies?
AB: Yes, I can provide you with the slides. Before I send them to you, though, will you agree to accept them on a confidential basis (in the first instance at least?). I'd be interested to know your views on my analysis of tobacco companies' efforts to expand the conflict of tobacco control (which you should be able to divine from the slides). However, if there is to be a correspondence/exchange between us, can I ask that formal debate over our analysis is suspended until publication of the papers on which these slides are based? I'm quite happy to give you advance notice of their publication (assuming that they're accepted of course). More generally, I suspect there are considerable political differences between us on the issues of economic regulation, private taxation and the nature of (and how best to achieve) social justice, although we're probably much closer on the issue of state involvement in people's private lives. I'd ask you to approach the slides with this in mind.
SC: Yes, happy to agree to those conditions. When are you due to publish?
The following day the slides duly arrived:
AB: Some clarification of the fourth slide is probably necessary. I found some evidence of previous Forest directors being guided by the (perceived and real) threat of funding withdrawal, but not as much as might reasonably be expected considering the time period covered by industry documents. I suspect this is partly methodological (this is not likely to be something that will be written down and, of course, these are industry documents and not Forest documents).
The net graph towards the end which is designed to figuratively depict conflict expansion through established neoliberal think tanks and campaign organisations also requires some explanation. I've run two network analyses. One assumes (too conservatively on the basis of the historical evidence and the recent article in the FT) that the major tobacco manufacturers do not routinely fund any of the major neoliberal thinks tanks (such as the ASI and IEA) and the other assumes that they do (extrapolating from evidence in industry documents). Both analyses suggest that the industry has relatively "low centrality" (if you pardon the expression), hence I've developed the concept of Corporate Viral Political Activity to explain how industry finance produces (and expedites the propagation of) material in the public domain which broadly favours its interests without actively managing the process.
The papers (we have no publication date yet) contain a lot more data and, of course, analysis which is largely absent from the slides. Once again, I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views and whilst I can't supply you with electronic copies of the papers in advance of publication I'm quite happy to meet over a coffee in late summer and give you advance sight of hard copies.
SC: Always happy to visit Bath and I'm sometimes in the area anyway so, yes, happy to meet for a coffee and a chat sometime. On a slightly different subject, we are a bit goggle-eyed at the Tobacco Tactics website which is extraordinary! Our views may differ on this but I am genuinely amazed that any academic institution would lower itself to this level of inanity.
AB: Would be happy to meet up at some point. I'll drop you a note when/if the papers are accepted for publication ... You'll understand that collective responsibility means that I can't comment on the site.
You can download the slides here. The presentation ('supported by the National Cancer Institute', a US government agency) is entitled 'Smokers’ Rights Groups, Tobacco Industry Propaganda and Viral Political Activity'.
Interestingly, years before the Adam Smith Institute rebranded itself as 'neoliberal', it refers to the 'neoliberal political beliefs of Forest' and asks 'Has the “neoliberalisation” of Forest had any other significant effects?'
What really stands out however is the extent to which Forest (and anyone associated with us, directly or via our Free Society campaign, for example) had been subject to 'analysis'.
According to one slide, data had been kept on 'individuals’ links to Forest, organisational affiliations and interest in smoking related issues obtained through Google searches, searches of social networking sites (such as LinkedIn) and Companies House records.'
The same slide revealed that:
- individuals were included in the analysis if:
– they were a member of Forest in the period specified (2001-2011);
– a named contributor to the Free Society in the period specified (2001-2011) who has written in support of Forest’s messages on tobacco control;
– a member, member of staff, fellow, board member, advisory board member, or trustee of a neo-liberal organisation (campaign group, think tank, party, network, or online magazine) affiliated to a Forest or Free Society campaign (such as Save Our Pubs and Clubs) or initiative (change) (such as the Liberty League network) who has also written in support of Forest’s messages on tobacco control;
– a member, member of staff, board member, advisory board member or trustee of a neo-liberal organisation who counts an individual listed in c) as a member, who has also written in support of Forest’s messages on tobacco control.
Personally I'm fairly relaxed about all this surveillance (I consider it a compliment!) but it's worth noting that, according to the University of Bath, the Tobacco Control Research Group is funded by a number of organisations including 'Government bodies' (ie public money).
Yes, the Government is not only giving public money to 'charities' and other institutions that lobby government, taxpayers' money is also being given to bodies that monitor groups and individuals who oppose excessive regulations on tobacco and other products. How Big Brother is that?
Anyway, I received the slides on June 7, 2012, and heard nothing more so I never met AB for coffee in Bath or anywhere else but I believe some of his work did appear in subsequent papers.
He no longer works at the University of Bath but he continues to be involved in health policy and, to the best of my knowledge, is still active within the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS).
Who knows, perhaps he will give a presentation at the Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Research Skills course in June.
The week-long programme consists of 'presentations, case studies, discussion and group work' focussing on the following issues:
- who is Big Tobacco and how other industries have followed its tactics
- creating an industry monitoring model and identifying data sources
- investigative research techniques
- in-depth industry research
- potential difficulties of working in this area and how to work safely
- identifying stakeholders, information dissemination and securing impacts
- writing for a general audience using media wiki software
On completion of the course delegates will be able to:
- develop an industry monitoring model
- investigate industry third parties
- understand how to undertake effective industry research
- write for diverse audiences
- identify key stakeholders and effectively disseminate findings
And here's another interesting bit:
Although the focus is on tobacco, people with an interest in alcohol and food industries will find the course useful as the industries use similar tactics.
Inevitably the University of Bath will 'not accept any applications of people working for or funded by the tobacco industry', but what about the food and drink industries?
If I was in public affairs and had a client in either field I wouldn't think twice. Sign me up!
Reader Comments (2)
”Although the focus is on tobacco, people with an interest in alcohol and food industries will find the course useful as the industries use similar tactics.”
I always think that the phrase “Told you so!” is a rather smug one, but I wonder how many people in either of these fields have taken sufficient interest in this project to have noticed that little giveaway paragraph. Few if any, I'll wager. I doubt that many come on here, being as both industries still seem to think that they are magically immune from Tobacco Control-style tactics, simply because they’re not tobacco, which is a shame, because they could learn a lot about how these people work by studying the Tobacco Template, which is, of course, amply documented here and on the main Forest website (and elsewhere). Perhaps you should drop one or two of the larger ones a copy, just for their information. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say ......
Is it really okay in the UK for a public university to put on a program and restrict who can pay to attend? If this was a US program, I'd be speaking to a lawyer and asking for tobacco companies to send me checks for $1.00.