Martin Dockrell of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) looks at the Conservative party's links to the tobacco industry, and the tobacco industry's false claims.
By Martin Dockrell of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
When he was still leader of the opposition David Cameron said:
“I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics; it arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works.”
His government’s tobacco control plan (pdf), published in March, promises to protect health policy from tobacco industry lobbying. They even plan to make respondents to health consultations declare any links with the tobacco industry, financial or otherwise.
This makes sense when you consider that much of the pro-tobacco lobbying – ostensibly from retailers, publicans and smokers – has been bankrolled by tobacco manufacturers.
The problem with hidden lobbying is just that, it is hidden. On April 27th the Guardian ran the headline:
“BAT denies allegations that it funded anti-tobacco ban lobby.”
The very next day they ran the story:
“BAT admits bankrolling newsagents’ tobacco campaign”
And that only scratches the surface. Tobacconomics, a new report from ASH, shows how the industry generates dodgy data and then recycles it through a lobby laundry process to remove the whiff of Big Tobacco.
We have grown used to an industry that misleads politicians and the public but this is one that will even mislead its own shareholders. At their AGM in Bristol Imperial executives were asked what impact Ireland’s tobacco display ban had on tobacco duty revenue.
Three times they were asked; three times the answer came back “a fall of half a billion pounds”.
But this is a matter of public record. Figures from the Irish government show that in 2009 there was an increase in revenue of €50 million in the six months following the ban as in the six months before.
And have you heard the claim that 50 English pubs have closed every week since the smoking ban? Well there is no official definition of a pub but the number of licenses to sell alcohol both on and off the premises (so excluding restaurants and shops) increased 5% that year and has increased every year since.
In the word’s of the BBC’s Mark Easton:
“Pubs aren’t dying – they are evolving.”
Industry watcher, Professor Anna Gilmore explains how it works:
“Industry funded analysts produce unbalanced and misleading reports, these get recycled by lobbyists and front groups and in due course crop up in the speeches of industry friendly politicians.
“Thus essentially bogus claims become accepted as ‘fact’.”
Let’s look at Philip Davies’s claim that when Canada banned tobacco displays “there was a rise in teenage smoking as a result of the ban”. It all started when Japan Tobacco International (owners of the Silk Cut brand) commissioned consultants “Europe Economics” to provide “expert economic analysis”.
Their findings were quickly recycled by Patrick Basham and published by the Institute for Economic Affairs, thus obscuring the tobacco industry link (although Basham, is adjunct scholar at the tobacco funded Cato Institute). The “factoid” was peddled furiously by the National Federation of Retail Newsagents (the group at the centre of the Guardian’s exposé above).
And what does the data say? Well Canadian provinces introduced display bans over a period of several years and it is difficult to link cause and effect, but over all that time there was not a single year when Canadian teen smoking increased and indeed, over the period, it fell by more than a third.
Last year’s Australian election was marked by a $5 million television campaign attacking the Labour government’s plan to put cigarettes in plain packaging. Research shows plain packs would be less attractive to young people, less misleading to smokers and increase the impact of health warnings.
The ads purported to be from “tobacco retailers” fearing economic ruin, but turned out to be funded by the industry.
Andrew Lansley plans to consult on a similar law for the UK. Internal industry documents reveal manufactures do not “want to see plain packaging introduced anywhere regardless of the size and importance of the market however small”.
One thing is for sure, the industry will be lobbying more ferociously than ever before.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
30 Responses to “Is Big Tobacco blowing smoke in Cameron’s eyes?”
Jack Seale
Outstanding Big Tobacco facterama http://bit.ly/m1piDC by Martin Dockrell of http://www.ash.org.uk
Andrew Crory
Is Big Tobacco blowing smoke in Cameron’s eyes? http://bit.ly/m1piDC by Martin Dockrell of http://www.ash.org.uk/
Left Off
I wonder when the FOREST/FREEDOM2CHOOSE front groups will sink their fangs in to this?
Nick Cotter
Is Big Tobacco blowing smoke in Cameron’s eyes? http://j.mp/ilTwJr (via Instapaper)
Jonathan Bagley
I have two comments.
Firstly, an increase in tobacco duty revenue in the six months following the display ban surely means the display ban was not successful at reducing consumption – unless the ban coincided with a large increase in the amount of duty charged per pack? Are you arguing that display bans result in an increase in consumption ?
Second, I read the piece by Mark Easton. The data he presents shows increases in licenses for every category except on and off sales from clubs – I don’t know how they are defined, but I can’t see there being many to begin with. I’m not disputing these figures, but they don’t fit in with most people’s experience of large numbers of pub closures and no new pub openings. I always assumed that the claimed increase in licenses by anti tobacco campaigners was due to small bistros and cafes opening up – not the sort of places to drop in for a pint and a chat, but you are claiming the increase is in genuine pub licenses? Where then do the pub trade associations get their figure of 7000 pub closures from? These people are not in the pay of the tobacco companies. Many of them agree with the smoking ban and don’t attribute the 7000 closures to it, but are never-the-less exremely concerned about the decline of the pub trade. If the number of genuine pubs is actually increasing, they would surely have no such concern?
Finally, Anna Gilmore doesn’t work in business or finance. She is best known for publishing papers claiming that the smoking ban caused an instant fall in the rate of heart attacks.