It's official: food really is the new tobacco

Don't say you weren't warned.

A decade ago I was invited to give a speech at ISOS - the Independent Seminar on the Open Society - a one-day conference for sixth-form students organised three times a year by the Adam Smith Institute.

I was asked to not talk exclusively about smoking (can't imagine why!) so I took a broader view and demonstrated how the arguments and tactics used against tobacco were slowly but surely being used to target alcohol and food.

In April 2008 an edited version of that speech was published by The Free Society. It began:

More than 30,000 lives are being lost each year because of weight-related diseases … children as young as three are showing signs of obesity which will condemn them to a life of ill health … researchers claim that Britain is ‘heading for an epidemic of obesity’ because of poor diets and sedentary lifestyles … it has been estimated the cost of obesity to the National Health Service at £500 million a year.

Sound familiar? It should do. For years we have been told that 120,000 Brits die each year from ‘smoking-related diseases’; in England alone, 1,000 people a day are admitted to hospital with a smoking-related disease; smoking costs the NHS £1.75 billion a year; smokers should ‘quit or die’, blah, blah, blah.

Few would deny there are health risks associated with smoking. However, to suggest that smoking automatically leads to an early grave is absurd. It’s just one reason why the health police appear increasingly foolish on this and other issues.

Nevertheless, the same exaggerated tactics that have been used to tackle smoking are now being used to target our eating habits. Incredibly, we are told that one fifth of Britain’s population will be clinically obese within the next ten to 15 years and by 2040 half the population will be ‘superfat’ and in danger of dying early.

The problem with these outlandish claims is that they are being used as an excuse for restricting freedom of choice through social engineering and censorship.

See The politics of health: is food the new tobacco?

Today it's reported that 'Food should be regulated like tobacco, say campaigners' (BBC News).

It includes comments by Luke Upchurch of something called Consumers International.

I don't know about you but until today I'd never heard of Luke but a simple search on Google reveals the following:

Luke holds overall responsibility for CI's stakeholder relations, networking initiatives, digital media and publishing. He also oversees CI Member and Supporter value, and is leading plans for CI's next World Congress in Montreal, 2015, which will explore the future of consumer justice and protection.

Luke has been working in the field of consumer rights for nearly 10 years and previously worked in corporate communications and as a journalist in Africa and Europe.

His interests include sustainability, CSR, access to knowledge and consumer rights in the digital age. Luke has also written and produced several documentary films for the consumer rights movement, available on the CI YouTube channel.

What fascinates me about Consumers International, and Luke's potted biography, are the repeated references to "consumer rights".

I'm not against some degree of regulation and I think most of us would agree consumers should be educated about the health risks of tobacco, alcohol and certain types of food.

Likewise we should be given as much information as possible so we can make informed decisions about what we eat, drink and inhale.

But these proposals go far beyond protecting the consumer.

Clearly, when Luke Upchurch and Consumers International talk about "consumer rights", they have no interest in freedom of choice or personal responsibility. Yet those concepts are fundamental to a free society.

Apparently there's a "consumer rights movement" and Luke is one of its champions. Well, I'm a consumer and Luke – who is based in London – doesn't speak for me or, I'm prepared to guess, millions of other consumers.

That's why, later this year, Forest will launch a new campaign, Action On Consumer Choice.

In the meantime, if you haven't already done so, you can follow us on Twitter. Click here.

The final hurdle

This may be my only post today.

I'm in Glasgow for this afternoon's Scottish Cup final. The match is between Dundee United and St Johnstone and it's at Parkhead, home of Celtic, because Hampden is being prepared for the Commonwealth Games.

United have sold over 28,000 tickets so there will be more United fans in one stadium than ever before in the club's history.

I know most of you don't care about any of this, and why should you. Nevertheless it's been a good cup run and I've been to every match bar one.

There was the 5-2 win over Kilmarnock before Christmas; the 5-0 win at Inverness (which I travelled to via overnight sleeper) and the 3-1 semi-final win over Rangers at Ibrox. So how could I miss the final?

We were promised good weather and the hottest day of the year but it's raining here in Glasgow and I'm dressed for Henley (jacket and tie - long story).

Kick off is at 3.00pm but I'm meeting friends at the ground at noon. (My ticket has arrived via Dublin but that's another story too.)

The Final Hurdle, btw, was the name of a United fanzine, so named because the club kept falling at the final hurdle.

United lost six Scottish Cup finals before winning in 1994 at the seventh attempt.

They won it again in 2010 and I was there on both occasions. Fingers crossed, we'll do it again today.

PS. I believe there's a match on at Wembley - after the main event at Parkhead.

Update: Lost 2-0. Hit post and bar but didn't play well. Disappointing.

Question for Cameron: how much do you want to lead a Conservative government?

Well, we always said plain packaging had more to do with politics than public health.

According to the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator Peter Oborne, the issue is currently a topic of hot debate behind the scenes in Westminster:

See: Plain cigarette packaging is the coming issue that could split the Coalition (Telegraph)

Personally I find it remarkable that Oborne should have to ask that question. Perhaps, in the first year or two of the Coalition, the politics of the situation may have forced the PM to bend on issues like this.

But now?

With a year to go before the General Election, why should Cameron give the Lib Dems anything, especially if it means upsetting a substantial number of Tory backbenchers and creating unnecessary division within the party?

A firm refusal to implement plain packaging is such an obvious opportunity to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and the more nanny state minded parties I can't believe Cameron won't grab it with both hands.

This is no longer about keeping the Coalition together – a perfectly honourable ambition in 2010 – it's about winning the next General Election.

The question I would put to Cameron is this: it's all very well being the leader of a Coalition government, but how much do you want to be the leader of a Conservative government?

Plain packaging may not seem a big deal to many people but what it represents speaks volumes about the politicians who support it.

Special event: Why government should leave smokers alone

Another date for your diary.

I am delighted to announce that on Wednesday June 11 Forest and Buckingham University Press will host a drinks reception and a talk by John Staddon, author of Unlucky Strike, Private Health and the Science, Law and Politics of Smoking.

John is Professor Emeritus at Duke University in America. He's also an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of York and has published more than 200 research papers and six books.

Here's a synopsis of Unlucky Strike:

Smoking has been controversial ever since tobacco came to Europe in the 16th century. Fifty years ago almost everyone smoked. Fifty years before that smokers were in the doghouse – cigarettes were illegal in several US states early in the 20th century.

Smoking has always been a ready source of revenue. It has also been a source of health problems, real and imagined. The mixture of pleasure, money and health risk means that smoking is rarely treated fairly by politicians, health professionals or the public.

Now, tough anti-smoking laws are almost universal. Yet smoking has no public cost. It puts individual smokers at risk. It does not put the public purse at risk.

Prompted by this surprising discovery John Staddon looked further into the facts. The more he looked the weaker the case against smoking as a public health issue became. The case against environmental tobacco smoke, in particular, is exceedingly weak.

So if smoking has no public cost and the medical case for third party harm is weak, why are smokers victimised in so many ways? Unlucky Strike tries to find out – and the answer is not pretty.

As an added bonus Unlucky Strike features original illustrations by David Hockney.

Venue for 'Why government should leave smokers alone' is the Institute of Economic Affairs in Westminster.

The event will feature drinks, a talk, and an opportunity to buy signed copies of the book.

To attend RSVP events@forestonline.org or call Nicky on 01223 370156.

Click here to download the flyer (above).

Big Pharma worried about plain packaging

Well, this is interesting.

The International Trademark Association is currently holding its Annual Meeting in Hong Kong and speaker after speaker has expressed concern about plain packaging.

One of the speakers was Myrtha Hurtado Rivas, global head of trademarks, domain names and copyright at Novartis in Switzerland. (That's right, Big Pharma.)

The pharmaceutical industry, as well as food and alcoholic drink manufacturers, could be under pressure from the spread of plain and standardised packaging, delegates at INTA's annual meeting in Hong Kong were told today, May 12.

“Going too far will make things more difficult in the fight against counterfeit drugs. There are other things that can be done,” said Myrtha Hurtado Rivas, global head of trademarks, domain names and copyright at Novartis in Switzerland.

She was one of a series of speakers who warned that after the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes in Australia, other jurisdictions were likely to follow and other industries would be hit by similar measures.

The pharmaceutical industry supports regulation, said Hurtado Rivas, “but major doubts persist whether standardisation and plain packaging will achieve these objectives”, she said.

That's not all:

Trevor Stevens, a lawyer and trademark attorney at Davies Collison Cave in Australia, said there is no evidence that plain packaging has reduced or is likely to reduce smoking rates in Australia.

However, he said, following the government's successful implementation of the legislation, alcohol and food could both have packaging restrictions imposed.

Ronald van Tuijl, IP trademarks director at the JT International subsidiary of Japan Tobacco in Switzerland, agreed. “History has shown that what happens to tobacco first will happen to others,” he said.

Are you listening, David Cameron?

See INTA 2014: Pharma concerned about plain packaging's advance (WIPR)

Smoke On The Water: win, lose or draw, smokers (and vapers) welcome!

Don't miss Smoke On The Water, the annual and extremely popular Forest boat party.

This year's event is on Tuesday June 24, the same day as England's final group match in the World Cup.

The game against Costa Rica kicks off at 5.00pm so you watch that, then join the party.

Guests can board The Elizabethan from 7.15 at Westminster Pier where it will be static for an hour before we set off on a two-hour cruise, returning to Festival Pier on the South Bank at 10.15.

Win, lose or draw, we hope everyone will be in party mood. To alleviate any potential gloom, we've booked a live samba band to create a carnival atmosphere.

Smoking is permitted on the external walkways and rear open deck. The good news for vapers is that electronic cigarettes are permitted inside as well as out.

The Elizabethan can accommodate 235 guests but its best feature is a unique sliding roof that gives passengers a fantastic view of the London skyline as the Mississippi style paddle steamer cruises along the Thames.

Tickets are FREE but you MUST register in advance because places are limited.

To register email events@forestonline.org or telephone Nicky on 01223 370156.

PS. It's 24 hours since we began promoting this year's event and 75 tickets (a third of the total) have been snapped up already.

Don't delay, book today – as they say.

Update on plain packaging

I've been asked what's happening on plain packaging. Good question.

As you know, the Chantler Review was published on April 3. Commissioned by the Government in November 2013 – at the instigation, we believe, of Number Ten – it duly recommended the introduction of standardised packaging even though the 'evidence' was less than robust.

The same day public health minister Jane Ellison gave an oral statement to the House of Commons that included this passage:

In light of this report and the responses to the previous consultation in 2012 I am ... currently minded to proceed with introducing regulations to provide for standardised packaging.

However, before reaching a final decision and in order to ensure that that decision is properly and fully informed, I intend to publish the draft regulations, so that it is crystal clear what is intended, alongside a final, short consultation, in which I will ask, in particular, for views on anything new since the last full public consultation that is relevant to a final decision on this policy.

I will announce the details about the content and timing of that very shortly but would invite those with an interest to start considering any responses they might wish to make now. The House will understand that I want to move forward as swiftly as possible.

Since then there has been lots of speculation but no formal announcement about regulations or consultation. It's clear that drafting regulations on standardised packaging is proving a whole lot harder than officials anticipated.

Two weeks ago, in an effort to chivvy or even bully the Government to do their bidding, Labour's Alex Cunningham demanded of the prime minister:

When will the prime minister publish the regulations to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products and ban smoking in cars when children are present?

Cameron's response:

I cannot pre-judge the Queen's Speech but we have said that we want to take action on this front and we will.

Interpret that how you like (and many have), that's how things stand right now.

Draft regulations are being prepared. When they're published (date unknown) there will be a short (six-week) consultation.

In the meantime standardised packaging may, or may not, be in the Queen's Speech on June 4.

If it is it will be entirely cosmetic because the legislation already exists. It just has to be enabled and that will depend on several factors including the outcome of the consultation and a number of political considerations, not least opposition from Conservative MPs and the general public in the run up to the General Election.

None of these factors should be sniffed at, which is why we are quietly confident plain packaging is not yet the done deal some people seem to think it is.

If you are in any doubt I strongly recommend you read Brian Monteith's article on plain packaging, published by Conservative Home last week.

The Government has got itself in to an almighty mess, wrote the former Forest spokesman and MSP who now edits our Free Society website:

Last year, out of the blue, David Cameron surprised even the Department of Health by announcing a new review of the evidence on plain packaging. Many Conservative supporters were stunned. There was no public demand for it. The public had already made their views known through their responses to the consultation: over 425,000 people had opposed plain packaging, 238,000 were in favour – a resounding majority against. Why would the Government ignore the result of its own consultation?

The Prime Minister’s decision to reignite the debate was strategic. The Government had been outsmarted by Labour in the Lords, when the Opposition threatened to add an enabling amendment on plain packaging to the unrelated Children and Families Bill. In Scotland, meanwhile, the SNP Government was threatening to go it alone on plain packaging. In an attempt to reassert its authority in Westminster and the country as a whole, Cameron responded by effectively adopting Labour/SNP policy.

Having highlighted serious problems with the Chantler Review – the publication of which prompted the Government to announce it "is minded" to introduce plain packaging – Monteith noted this "time bomb":

Later this year the World Trade Organisation will consider whether the Australian plain packaging law is contrary to international agreements that would force it to be withdrawn or cost huge amounts of compensation. Imagine the egg on the face of the Prime Minister if he presses ahead with a policy that is rejected by the WTO in the run up to the general election.

Having further noted the lack of support for plain packaging among grassroots Conservatives – a point supported by many of the comments on Conservative Home – he concluded:

Standardised packaging of tobacco is an idea that was neither conceived in Conservative Party gatherings nor demanded by ordinary Conservative voters. It’s a classic example of a government – or, more accurately, a section of government – that has been captured by its officials, agencies and quangos, not to mention the campaign groups that it funds to lobby it to introduce more legislation. That this has happened should come as no surprise because the Department of Health has been funding groups to campaign for more government intervention since the Blair years. It is exactly the sort of abomination Conservatives should be dismantling rather than falling victim to.

If the Prime Minister truly believes in Conservative values, including strong government, he must reject Labour’s attempt to bully him into submission on plain packaging. Common sense alone suggests it would be irresponsible for any government to rush to regulation on such a controversial issue. Before it enforces legislation, the Government must wait and assess the longer-term impact of plain packs Down Under. At the very least, it should wait for the WTO to pass judgement on Australia’s plain packaging law.

The threat of more nanny state legislation coming from this government could easily contribute to a Conservative defeat in 2015. Conservatives cannot defeat Labour by adopting Labour policies. Instead of backing the party, people stay at home, or find new parties to vote for. Standing firm against plain packaging would signal Cameron’s intention to put clear blue water between the parties at the general election. It’s an opportunity he must grasp with both hands.

See: How Ministers got tangled up over tobacco packaging (Conservative Home)

See also: Government keeps tight-lipped about plain packaging delay (Convenience Store)

E-cigarette company "never intended to cause any bad feeling"

Further to yesterday's post, reader Mark Butcher comments:

You may be interested in this. A month or so ago, the e-cigarette maker Go-Lites issued a press release regarding lost time with smoking breaks.

I sent an email to them registering my objection to them jumping on the anti-smoking bandwagon. This is what I sent:

Hi,

I've just read your press release regarding lost time through smoking breaks.

As a heavy e-cig user and now occasional normal smoker, I am very concerned that Go Lites has turned on smokers.

I can assure you that I will make sure never to use your products - and I am sharing your press release and my views with my vaping friends.

Go-Lites responded as follows:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your reply. I assure you that was never the intention from me or anyone at Go-Lites – we never intended to cause any bad feeling in the smoking or vaping community. The piece you’re referring to is simply trying to alert smokers and employers to a potential alternative to smoking, which I’m sure you’ll agree as an e-cig user yourself, has plenty of benefits.

The team at Go-Lites are not anti-smoking, and alienating the community of smokers is not something that was ever aimed for. I am currently coordinating with Go-Lites to ensure that all future releases are better thought out, and will focus on uniting vapers and smokers rather than isolating one of the two.

Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any more views you’d like to air.

I am so pleased to read Mark's comment.

As it happens he wasn't the only potential customer offended by their email. See The second front against smokers (Oh What Now!).

Mind you, I'm equally impressed by Go-Lites' response. Actions have to speak louder than words, of course, but hats off to them for taking Mark's complaint seriously.

If vapers were to write to Vapestick – which wants employers to ban smoking breaks – that company might reassess its marketing as well.

After all, knowing what you now know, and given a choice between Go-Lites and Vapestick, which brand would you choose?

Update: Founder of Vapestick responds in the comments ...