Pot kettle black - Lib Dem MP calls Forest a "fairly unsavoury organisation"!

H/T Tobacco Tacticss.

I was unaware of this until yesterday so full marks to that inveterate tweeter @TobaccoTacticss for posting this speech by Lib Dem MP Paul Burstow.

For those who don't know, Burstow replaced fellow Lib Dem Paul Williams as chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (run by ASH) when Williams became a junior minister last year.

Burstow was a minister himself – at the Department of Health – but was sacked in 2012 after reportedly falling out with Nick Clegg over health reforms.

Addressing a Department of Health and World Health Organisation meeting on Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in December, Burstow was in full shit-stirring mode, attacking Lynton Crosby, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute and Forest, as well as muddying the waters about the exact nature of Article 5.3.

The bit that tickled me most, of course, was his declaration about Forest. According to Burstow:

The activities of the self-styled "smokers' rights" group Forest are well known. [Why thank you!] If asked directly in a media interview spokespeople for Forest do not deny that it gets most of its money from the tobacco industry.

Perhaps less well known is the secondary campaign group Hands Off Our Packs, set up through Forest and again of course funded through the industry.

Forest is in my view a fairly unsavoury organisation, but its purpose and activities are widely understood. [I'll take that as a compliment.]

I'm not a great fisker of articles (largely because I can't be bothered) but let's address the implication that only if "asked directly" will Forest confess to receiving money from tobacco companies.

Visit the Forest website and on the home page you'll find this statement:

Forest is supported by British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Limited and Gallaher Limited (a member of the Japan Tobacco Group of Companies). The views expressed on this or any other Forest-affiliated website are those of Forest alone.

Visit the Forest Eireann website and on the home page it reads:

Forest Éireann is funded by Forest UK which receives donations from tobacco companies in Britain and Ireland. We do NOT represent the tobacco industry. We have a completely independent set of goals that are centred around the right to smoke a legal product without undue harrassment or discrimination.

Visit the Hands Off Our Packs website and you'll find this disclaimer:

This website is owned and managed by Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco). Forest is supported by British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Limited and Gallaher Limited (a member of the Japan Tobacco Group of Companies). The tobacco companies are proud to support this campaign. However the views expressed on this or any other Forest-affiliated website are those of Forest alone.

You'll find similar statements on all Forest websites. I can't think of any lobby group that is more transparent than we are. Perhaps it's our honesty that makes us "unsavoury".

Actually, I'd like to explore that "unsavoury" comment a little further. Coming from a politician, and a Lib Dem politician in particular, it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Google 'LibDems' and 'dirty tricks' and you'll see what I mean. Here's an example:

Prior to the 2010 General Election political commentator Peter Oborne wrote, 'Dirty tricks of the REAL nasty party' (Daily Mail).

See also, 'Lib Dem arrested in dirty tricks inquiry' (Daily Telegraph)

In 2005 Dr Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East and a man I once worked for (see how transparent I am!) wrote:

In the dead of night, a very large quantity of Liberal Democrat posters – many of them embellished with tactical voting stickers urging Labour supporters to vote Liberal – were illegally erected on telegraph poles and along public highway verges, in order to influence people going to vote on their way to work on polling day.

This disgraceful behaviour should finally disprove the myth that the Liberal Democrats are the Holier-than-Thou party where election tactics are concerned.

See: Liberal Democrat dirty tricks (JulianLewis.net)

I could go on and on but you get the picture. All political parties have their cranks and nut jobs but the Lib Dems are notorious for their "dirty tricks". Not for nothing was this website, NastyLibDems.org, created.

And Paul Burstow has the cheek to call Forest a "fairly unsavoury organisation"!

Click here to read his speech but note that it's an edited version.

I'd love to know what he said in the unedited version! We'll try and get a copy, via Freedom of Information if necessary.

Update on Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 14:04 by Simon Clark

Burstow made his speech at the DH and WHO meeting on Wednesday December 11, 2013.

It included this attack on the PM's advisor Lynton Crosby and his lobbying firm Crosby Textor who he called the "large antipodean elephant in the room":

Mr Crosby's firm signed what was alleged to be a multi-million pound contract with PMI, to oppose standardised packs, shortly after he started working for the Conservative Party. Not long after that it was reported that legislation on standardised packaging had been dropped.

He doesn't say it explicitly but the insinuation is very clear.

Compare this with Lynton Crosby's statement which was issued on July 23, almost five months earlier:

“The prime minister has repeatedly and clearly said that I have never lobbied him on anything, including on the issue of tobacco or plain packaging of cigarettes,” said Mr Crosby.

“What the PM said should be enough for any ordinary person but to avoid any doubt or speculation let me be clear. At no time have I had any conversation or discussion with or lobbied the prime minister, or indeed the health secretary or the health minister, on plain packaging or tobacco issues.

“Indeed, any claim that I have sought to improperly use my position as part-time campaign adviser to the Conservative party is simply false.”

See Lynton Crosby: I've never spoken to PM about tobacco (BBC News) and UK PM election strategist Lynton Crosby denies lobbying on cigarettes (Australian Times)

On the same day Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood sent this letter to Ed Miliband.

Is Burstow suggesting that Crosby and Sir Jeremy were lying about Crosby's involvement on plain packaging in the UK?

If he is I suggest he's being fairly unsavoury himself. What a hypocrite.

Mallon to Oireachtas Health Committee: "Engage with smokers" and use a "bit of common sense"

The transcript of the final Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children hearing on plain packaging is now online.

The background to the hearing was as follows:

Before Christmas the Irish parliamentary committee invited written submissions on standardised packaging. The closing date was mid January.

Subsequently a number of groups, organisations and companies were invited to give oral statements and answer questions. They included tobacco companies, retailers, medical experts, anti-tobacco NGOs – and Forest Eireann.

I wrote about the hearings here (How impartial is the Oireachtas Health Committee?) and here (Forest Eireann addresses Health and Children Committee in Irish Parliament) and now you can read the transcript of the fourth and final hearing for yourself.

Other witnesses that day were representatives of PJ Carrolls (BAT), John Player (Imperial) and JTI. Each organisation was invited to give a five-minute opening statement. Members of the Committee were then able to ask questions.

Well, that was the theory. In practice Senators on the Committee couldn't resist making a series of vain, grandstanding statements, most of them hostile to the tobacco companies.

One couldn't wait to issue a press release highlighting her anti-tobacco stance. Another talked of plain packaging being "payback time".

Eventually, towards the end of the two-hour session, John had the opportunity to add to his opening statement. It was entirely off the cuff and I reproduce it here because I think it's rather good. It's also as relevant to politicians in Britain as it is to those in Ireland:

Mr. John Mallon:
As usual, smokers are being passed over in this debate, even though we are the ones affected by the proposal. The conversation is going on over my head, so to speak. Like Deputy Catherine Byrne, I am a father - in my case, to two children. I have taken the view with my children that I would treat them as I was treated growing up.

I did not see the point in banning them from smoking or forbidding them to drink alcohol once they turned 18. At that point I gave them a free choice in the matter. I had alcohol and cigarettes at home and I allowed them to make up their own minds, but not before their mother and I talked to them about the dangers of both.

Having no first-hand experience of the illicit drug trade, including the drugs like heroin, cocaine and so on to which reference was made during the meeting, I was unable to advise my children in that regard expect to say that from everything I could see, they were mood-altering, mind-altering and immediately dangerous substances.

On the other hand, smoking takes quite a long time to have an effect. There will be people jumping around and saying even one cigarette is deadly, but the reality is that they take years to impact on health. Tobacco is not a mind-altering or mood-altering substance. Unlike alcohol, people who use tobacco will not miss days of work because they cannot get out bed.

Colm BurkeColm Burke (Fine Gael)
That is not true.

Mr. John Mallon
Let me continue. I am merely giving members the benefit of my experience and of the hundreds of discussions I have had with smokers. Reference was made earlier to the need to engage with smokers. The problem, as I see it, is that all of the restrictions, bans, penalties and impositions that smokers have endured, including high pricing and so on, do not amount to an engagement with smokers. It is always about talking at rather than to smokers. There is a huge chasm between the official line, as reflected in this committee, and the views of the many smokers I have met throughout the country.

A member observed today that it is difficult to be a politician. Perhaps there is a general cynicism about the place but I certainly do not get the impression that smokers feel engaged with by Government. In my view, this lack of engagement is part of the reason that the numbers of smokers are not falling as quickly as members would like.

From a personal perspective, plain packaging makes no difference to me one way or the other. I smoke rolled tobacco, which I keep in a tin. However, this particular proposal is another aspect of the attempt to denormalise smokers, to make an ordinary citizen like me somehow abnormal for doing something which, for all my life, it has been quite normal to do. I had the right to decide to take up smoking and I have the right to quit. I have the freedom to make those decisions, as I do in regard to alcohol and all other lifestyle issues.

There is far too much hysteria and drama around this topic. A bit of common sense is required and an emphasis on education for children. As it turned out, the education my wife and I gave our children was sufficient for both of them to decide against drinking and smoking. Moreover, I have seen no evidence, although I probably would not recognise it if I did, that either of them takes drugs. Applying some degree of common sense and intelligence to the discussion, rather than hysteria and name calling, would be far more beneficial. That is the view from the smokers' side.

Full transcript here.

Next week Ireland 'celebrates' the tenth anniversary of becoming the first country in the world to introduce a comprehensive smoking ban.

I'll have more to say on that over the weekend. As will John!

Garbage and spin leave campaigners depressed and exasperated

There are two fascinating 'discussions' taking place online.

On Tuesday Dr Michael Siegel, author of The Rest of the Story blog, published this post, Tobacco control science deteriorating to an all-time low.

Commenting on an article on Liberty Voice (Third-hand smoke poses real dangers), Siegel wrote:

The rest of the story is that this is complete garbage. It is truly depressing to me to watch this - day in and day out.

When the tobacco industry decided - sometime back around 2000 or so - to stop monitoring tobacco control science and to just let us say anything we wanted to - I thought they had made a poor decision. But in retrospect, I think it may have been brilliant. They apparently knew that before long, without the restraints of having to answer to Big Tobacco's public questioning, our science would deteriorate and we would just start saying anything we wanted to. Unrestrained, the tobacco control movement's scientific rigor would fall to such a low level that we would end up discrediting ourselves and undermining our own credibility.

Well, we're there. We're officially there. I'm sure I'll have more to say about this later. But for now, I'm just too damn depressed.

While I welcome Dr Siegel's admission that claims about third-hand smoke are "complete garbage", the revelation that this sort of thing leaves him "depressed" is, frankly, hard to stomach.

But read the comments. He seems to have struck a nerve because the 'dear Doc' (or 'poor Mik') is getting a bit of a roasting.

Meanwhile, over on Clive Bates' blog, there is an equally interesting discussion about e-cigarettes (Cease and desist: making false claims about the gateway effect).

Echoing Siegel, Clive begins, "I am totally exasperated by spin about the so-called gateway effect."

You should read the whole thing but if you haven't got time scroll down to the comments where someone called Stan Shatenstein intervenes (click here).

I've never heard of Shatenstein but Clive seems to know him so I guess he must be some sort of tobacco control campaigner.

The subsequent exchange of views is worth reading, not least for Shatenstein's extraordinary comment that "Taking a stick of anything, a cigarette or a vapestick, is a pathetic, juvenile act ..."

In response Clive wrote:

Can you see how you appear to seethe with contempt for the people who are supposed to be beneficiaries to the work done in public health? This sort of statement betrays a disturbing and intolerant world view. Is it really about health? Or is it a judgemental attitude to bodily purity, authority and control?

My problem with all this is very simple. The war on tobacco has evolved to the stage where two high profile tobacco control campaigners are either "depressed" or "exasperated" by the "garbage" and "spin" that spews forth from the industry for which they once worked.

Using different words, perhaps, Forest and others have been accusing tobacco controllers of garbage and spin for years, but did they listen? Of course not, and even to this day Siegel and Bates support public smoking bans in every workplace, including pubs and bars.

With this in mind, and in response to a tweet by Bates linking to the Siegel post, nisakiman tweeted:

Perhaps you should read the comments, Clive. They apply to you, too.

To which Clive replied:

@nisakiman can you point to something unscientific I have said? I'm not sure what you are referring to ...

Unable to resist, Forest tweeted:

@nisakiman is referring to the fact that you & Siegel helped create the monster that is Tobacco Control and look where we are.

Sadly, it's true. As much as I like Clive (I can't keep saying this!) he and Michael Siegel have to take some responsibility for the situation we're in.

In their day each played a small part in the development of the juggernaut we now call the tobacco control industry.

Three years ago I wrote a post entitled Michael Siegel: friend or foe?. Reading it again, the question still seems relevant.

Budget 2014: tobacco duty

Currently watching the Budget on TV and following it online.

Commentators seem to be agreed that the cost of cigarettes will rise by 28p for a packet of 20.

The good news is that's less than the 50p (or five per cent) increase ASH were seeking.

Should get confirmation shortly.

In the meantime Forest has three responses waiting to hit the media:

One, our reaction to a large (five per cent) increase.
Two, our reaction to the anticipated increase.
Three, our response to a freeze on tobacco duty.

I was going to draft our response to a £1 reduction in tobacco duty (our preferred option!) but what are the odds?

Update: Tobacco duty to rise by two per cent above inflation (ie as predicted).

NEWS RELEASE Wednesday 19 March 2014

Increase in tobacco duty will hit poor and elderly the hardest, say campaigners

Responding to the increase in tobacco duty (two per cent above inflation), Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said:

"Recent history shows that increasing tobacco duty above inflation fuels illicit trade and costs government money.

"The Treasury loses billions of pounds to illicit traders every year. A further increase in duty will merely encourage more people to take advantage of the huge savings available on the black market.

"Law-abiding consumers are being penalised while poor and elderly smokers will be hardest hit."

Update: Budget 2014: Response from Oxfam, CBI, TUC, TaxPayers Alliance and Forest (Politics.co.uk)

The Grocer also quotes Forest: Osborne scraps the alcohol duty escalator.

Update: George Osborne today announced that tobacco duty will continue to rise at two per cent above inflation until the end of the next parliament.

There is no health reason not to, he said.

Brian Monteith disagrees. See Osborne is wrong: there is a health case for abolishing tobacco duty escalator (The Free Society).

Update: Chris Snowdon has written a very good post for the IEA blog, Budget reaction: Drinking, gambling and smoking.

Are vapour-less e-cigs the answer to vaping in confined public spaces?

Here's one for vapers to chew on.

Following last week's decision by Irish Rail to ban the use of e-cigarettes on all train services my Forest Eireann colleague John Mallon wrote to the company and complained.

Today he received this reply:

Dear Mr Mallon

Thank you for your e-mail.

The smoking of cigarettes is prohibited on trains and at railway stations. Given their remarkable likeness the use of e-cigarettes can cause concern amongst other passengers, and they contain nicotine products known to be harmful.

In the same way as you would expect people to react if you were to smoke an e-cigarette in a restaurant, in the confined space of a railway carriage or platform, their use has led to complaints. In light of this, we have issued guidance to our staff and introduced a ban for the comfort and convenience of their fellow passengers.

Similarly to being asked to turn off a mobile phone if the conversation is causing irritation to others, most customers observe a form of social etiquette and do not deliberately undertake actions when they realise these could be annoying other people in their vicinity.

I note your unhappiness with this ban. If other guidance is issued by the Dept. of Health and/or via EU regulation, we will take these into consideration.

Now, two things strike me.

One, the claim that e-cigarettes "contain nicotine products known to be harmful". Er, what would they be? Nicotine can be addictive, that much we know, but harmful? Evidence, please.

Two, the mobile phone analogy doesn't work because mobile phones aren't banned on trains (apart from in the 'quiet coach'). Instead of banning e-cigs on trains good social etiquette would require vapers to ask fellow passengers in their immediate vicinity if they minded if they vaped on the train. Or if someone really didn't like it they could ask the vaper (politely) to stop.

This does however lead me to another aspect of vaping – the exhalation.

When I attended the E-Cig Summit in London last year I noticed at least one person exhaling large clouds of vapour. A similar thing happened at the launch of the IEA Lifestyle Unit. Several guests were vaping but one (there's always one) was being deliberately ostentatious, to make a point, perhaps.

It struck me then that some e-cigarettes (and their users) don't do themselves any favours because while I don't believe the vapour from an e-cigarette is harmful, I can understand why some people don't want to be stuck in a confined space while the person next to them exhales large clouds of vapour (no matter how quickly it disperses).

So last week, when I read that one e-cig manufacturer has developed a vapour-less product, I did think, "That sounds like a good idea."

I then watched Vapour Trails TV and discovered that for some people the exhalation is the best bit. (I understand this too because it's the exhalation of vapour, as much as anything, that mimics the act of smoking.)

So we've got a problem, Houston, and I'm not sure how we resolve it. Thoughts welcome.

Update: The stupidity of Irish Rail (Forest Eireann)

Poll provides more propaganda for the "power of packaging"

Cancer Research has released the results of its latest poll.

Conducted by YouGov, tobacco control's favourite pollsters, CRUK reports that:

The power of packaging is twice as likely as celebrities to influence children (40 per cent vs 20 per cent) when they think about buying a product, according to a new YouGov survey released today, boosting the argument for putting tobacco in plain, standardised packs to discourage children from smoking cigarettes.

While only a fifth (20 per cent) said seeing a celebrity using a product would make them more likely to buy it, double this number said bright, colourful or interesting packaging would.

They added:

The survey found that children aged eight to 15 are more likely to think that bright, colourful or interesting packaging would tempt them to buy something in a shop (40 per cent).

The survey also reveals that children view some of the brightly coloured tobacco packets on sale in shops today much more positively than the proposed plain, standardised packs.

Where to start?

Children may indeed find "bright, colourful or interesting packaging" more tempting than "standardised packs".

Likewise, they may "view some of the brightly coloured tobacco packets on sale in shops today more positively than the proposed plain, standardised packs".

Neither statement is surprising but the poll is based on a false scenario. In the real world there won't be choice between "brightly coloured tobacco packets" and "plain, standardised packs".

At present the choice is between different coloured packs with not a 'plain' pack in sight. If standardised packs are introduced, the 'choice' will be restricted to packs that look almost identical.

There's also a huge difference between temptation and actually consuming cigarettes. After all, unless I'm very much mistaken, it's illegal to sell cigarettes to children. Proxy purchasing is about to be outlawed as well and from next year tobacco will be hidden from view in all shops, large and small.

There's little or no evidence that packaging has ever been a factor in determining whether children start smoking so even if plain packaging is introduced the temptation to smoke will still exist.

Many children are prone to be inquisitive, rebellious or easily influenced by their friends or siblings. That's life.

Peer pressure will remain the number one reason why teenagers start smoking and price will remain the most significant factor when choosing which brand to buy.

So forget standardised packs. If government wants to stop children smoking it should use existing legislation to crack down on rogue retailers and adults (including illicit traders) who sell cigarettes to children.

They should also wait and analyse the impact of the display ban after it has been fully implemented in 2015.

Why has this poll been conducted now? Here's a clue:

These figures have been released as the charity awaits results of an independent review of public health evidence for standard packs chaired by paediatrician Sir Cyril Chantler.

Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s head of tobacco policy, said: “This survey is a timely reminder of the huge marketing power of packaging on young people. Attractive packaging is a key reason that young people are tempted into a lifetime of nicotine addiction, an addiction that ends in death for half of all long-term smokers.

“These findings add to a weight of existing evidence proving that clever design gimmicks distract from health warnings and portray smoking as something glamorous and harmless. By stripping cigarette packs of these attractive designs and bright colours, standardised packaging will give millions of children one less reason to smoke. It’s vital that we protect our kids by reducing the attractiveness of this deadly habit.

“After the results from the Chantler review are published, we urge the government to make standard packaging a reality as soon as possible.”

Fingers crossed Sir Cyril ignores CRUK's spin because closer inspection of the small print reveals that the poll's sample size was just 554 children aged 8-15, which is little more than half the number normally considered acceptable for a representative national poll.

It will be interesting to see which newspapers, broadcasters and politicians fall for this nonsense.

Meanwhile see this post from March 2013: What children think is not reliable evidence.

Update: It's shortly after one o'clock in the morning and I can't find any mention of the poll anywhere, not even on the CRUK website.

It was embargoed until one minute past midnight and I seem to be the only person writing about it!

I'll check again in the morning.

PS. Just spotted this report: Cigarette packaging impact studied (MSN News). Includes quote from JTI.

Update: An identical report appears in the London Evening Standard but as far as I can tell the only national newspaper that mentions the poll is the Sun where there's a tiny piece on page 26.

Not even the BBC wants to know. How embarrassing.

Update on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 12:11 by Simon Clark

Cancer Research don't seem to have much confidence in their own poll.

Twelve hours after the embargo was lifted they have finally tweeted a link to the press release:

Press release: Concern over tobacco packaging as kids say packs have more influence than celebrities http://bit.ly/1eb2UKl

I clicked on the link (which took me to the CRUK website) and lo and behold a message read:

Access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.

Bizarre.

As it happens I have a copy of the press release so you'll have to take my word that it's a load of BS - unless, of course, you're "authorised" and can access the relevant page.

Update: I can access the page now.

Interlude

Several things to comment on today,

They include Tony Benn and this letter in the Lancet which references Forest and the IEA:

BBC must ensure commentators' tobacco industry links are made public

I'm in meetings or travelling most of the day but if I can find a moment to write something I will.

Carl Phillips: wise words worth reading

Thoughtful article by Carl Phillips who is scientific director of CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association).

Carl spotted the little spat I had with a handful of vapers on Twitter and wrote:

The interests of smokers and smoke-free alternative users are about 95% aligned. It is about respect. It is about not using the power of the state to impose moral codes on people. It is about not criminalizing personal behavior, even if it is personally harmful. In other words, it is about truly believing in the philosophy of harm reduction, and not merely trying to support one’s personal interests, and others be damned.

And if not that, then it is just about understanding the reality of one’s self-interest, because a large portion of the restrictions on smoking is going to be applied to e-cigarettes for no reason other than the fact that they exist for smoking ...

Responding to my gripe that more vapers could be vocal on tobacco-related issues (just as Forest is vocal on proposed e-cig regulations), Carl says:

Anyone who is serious about protecting the rights of low-risk product users should pay some attention to Forest’s strategy of pushing back against existing restrictions as a way to keep it from being even easier to implement new ones. Give them an inch and they will take a mile; let them have the miles they have already claimed without continuing to fight, and they will just grab the next mile. The same applies across product categories. Accept their brutal treatment of smokers, and they will pour vapers right down that slope with them.

Full article: United we stand, because most restrictions on cigarettes will eventually apply to e-cigarettes

I met Carl at the Global Tobacco Network Forum in Cape Town last year. He struck me as someone Forest could do business with, as Margaret Thatcher might have said.

I particularly liked the fact that you could have a conversation with him and he didn't take a minor difference of opinion as a personal insult and become all defensive.

He was receptive to other people's views, even if he disagreed with them. (It was difficult to tell because he was unerringly polite.)

Like me though he drew a line and didn't take kindly to being lectured or browbeaten by people who, somewhat arrogantly, thought they knew better and weren't prepared to listen.

I wish more people were like Carl Phillips.