Sheila Duffy falls back on academic study

Sheila Duffy's latest letter to the Scotsman. Without a hint of embarrassment, she puts forward the 'independent' academic study by Hastings et al. as clear evidence that plain packaging will reduce child smoking:

Alongside the consultation document launched last week, the UK and Scottish governments published an evidence review by Stirling University. This collated 37 academic studies and concluded there was “strong evidence… plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products”. In one study, 87 per cent of children rated plain packs as “uncool”. 

It seems, therefore, that the evidence is plain to see.

Magnificent: an open admission that a predetermined agenda, supported by a so-called academic review written by people who share that agenda, using sources that address only that agenda and none of the wider issues, is all the evidence that the government needs to pursue tobacco control. My comment:

The academic study referred to by Sheila Duffy acknowledged two weaknesses: one that it isn't possible yet to evaluate the policy in practice, and two that 'a number of types of literature were not covered by the review'. http:phrc.lshtm.ac.ukpapersPHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf 

IMO the study (described by Lansley as an 'independent' academic review) also fails as it doesn't include anyone outside the narrow confines of tobacco control among its list of authors. Nobody qualified to offer expert analysis in branding, marketing, communications or the international black market in tobacco was involved. The range of literature (Table 4.1) reflected this obsession with tobacco control and failed to reflect concerns from beyond the tobacco control community: 'barriers' to plain packaging were a nod to the idea that not everyone agrees with it. Considering we are awaiting judgement in a court case and Ukraine and Honduras have both risked the ire of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control by challenging the legislation, an independent review should have been authored by all, or at least more, of the interests at stake. 

If you support the policy, and your source material supports the policy, and you don't include anyone who doesn't support the policy, then hey presto, your study will also support the policy.

This letter was a response to this by Robert Dow, who also comments on Ms Duffy's letter.

Johnny Rotten supports review of smoking ban

Johnny Rotten has called on David Cameron to review the smoking ban, describing it as 'ludicrous'. His opposition to the ban was clear from very early in the ban's history.

Let's just do it! says Sheila

Just when I thought we'd finished this topic for the night, Sheila Duffy comes in with her first blog post of 2012.

First quote:

A systematic review of the proper, academic evidence on plain packaging was published alongside the consultation. Produced by Stirling University researchers, this review considered 37 published studies and concluded “that plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products; it would increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings and messages; and it would reduce the use of design techniques that may mislead consumers about the harmfulness of tobacco products.” [emphasis added]

Dick Puddlecote gives an example of proper academic evidence (illustrating how they showed that plain packaging would speed up transactions). The proper academic evidence is listed in this 'independent' review, carried out by professional tobacco control advocates, starting on page 91. All the studies featured in this review look at the issue of packaging from close range. No study attempts to take a different view, or even substantively addresses the wider legal problems of intellectual property. This is what passes for 'proper, academic evidence': select only studies that support the policy of the government that commissioned you to carry out the review (and select very carefully the authors of the review). Can she actually believe this is objective?

Second quote:

There is clear support for plain packaging from academic researchers, public health professionals and the Scottish public. We at ASH Scotland believe that the debate over the evidence for plain packaging has been settled and that plain packaging will make tobacco products less appealing to young people, resulting in a slow decline in smoking rates as fewer young people are recruited to replace those who quit or who die. The fact that the tobacco companies are so worried suggests that they think so too. [emphasis added]

The debate is over. She does believe it then.

Nonsense from ASH Scotland on plain packaging

Sheila Duffy writes in a press release today about overwhelming support for plain packaging measures for tobacco, found in a Yougov poll. In today's ASH Scotland bulletin she links to a briefing on 'what the tobacco industry says', as if the tobacco industry were the only significant opposition to the tobacco display ban. The Institute of Ideas article by Chris Snowdon discusses other issues, citing several other bodies all concerned enough about plain packaging to get together and issue a warning about it (original press release no longer available) – all dismissed by Ms Duffy as the ravings of a 'right wing think tank'. Just shoot the messenger, why don't you?

Responding to the slippery slope argument, that this will pave the way for plain packaging to be enforced on other product categories, she also declares:

Tobacco is a special case. It is the only legal consumer product which is lethal to its user when used exactly as the manufacturer intended. Tobacco is the single largest cause of preventable death, killing many more people than alcohol, road accidents, homicides and illegal drugs put together. White bread or crisps do not do this – and plain packs for tobacco will not set a precedent for other consumer products.

This 'special case' argument also appears in her letter to the Herald dated 21 February. Tobacco is a special case only because fighting it is what gives you a livelihood, Ms Duffy.

Only a month later (on the sixth anniversary of the Scottish smoking ban!) the Commons Select Committee on Health announced a public consultation on alcohol. This covers a multitude of issues including minimum pricing, raising the minimum age for drinking, and an advertising ban and plain packaging. There's always an exception, isn't there?

NZ Chest surgeon thinks banning tobacco would eliminate black market

This surgeon cites the black market as the reason that a $100 dollar pack will not stop people smoking. The only real option is to ban tobacco.

3

No tobacco-related deaths in Scotland, says FOI

H/tips to Bill Gibson for making the FOI request, and Pat Nurse for reporting it.

The question, how many tobacco-related deaths and deaths attributable to passive smoking have been recorded in Scotland.

The answer: none. Or to use (Head of Tobacco Control Division) Mary Cuthbert's words:

  "We hold no information about actual deaths due to passive smoking. It is not possible to give precise figures on deaths resulting from tobacco use." 

I'll give you an interesting correlation. Tobacco is the only industry that has a global health authority demanding that it should be kept out of talks on health: all governments are under unrelenting pressure to keep the industry away from policy affecting its product. It is also the one commonly held responsible for all ailments affecting central organs and functions of the human body – the heart, the lungs and the respiratory system are destroyed by 'tobacco-related diseases'. Legislation has been brought in throughout the world to protect bystanders from the effects of tobacco smoke. And yet the government cannot say with any certainty how many people it kills, or how many people are killed by exposure to secondary smoke.

Stirling is proud to present ...

... The 'independent' academic review on plain packaging. The Department of Health has so described this document in this statement: last paragraph on the first page.

The Stirling Observer finds its local university at the centre of the plain packaging campaign, and is justifiably proud. It quotes Professor Linda Bauld:

Professor Bauld added: “This systematic review forms the basis for the UK wide consultation on whether plain packaging should be introduced. The studies we identified and describe in the review were remarkably consistent in their findings

(well, there's a surprise)

and clearly set out what effect plain packaging could have. 

“The public consultation will take place from April to July and will help the government to decide whether the UK will follow Australia’s lead, where plain packaging will be introduced by 2013. 

“I’d encourage people to have a look at the evidence set out in our review, make up their own minds about the issue and respond to the consultation.”

Thanks for that, Linda. (In case anyone wishes to take up this invitation, this is worth reading, from Dick Puddlecote.)

Equally proud is the adorable Richard Simpson MSP:

*S4M-02667 Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Scottish Labour Party): Plain Packaging of Tobacco Review of Evidence—That the Parliament congratulates the academics from the University of Stirling Management School, who have conducted a systematic review of plain tobacco packaging, which it believes has led to the UK Government’s consultation on whether tobacco should be sold in standardised, or plain, packaging; notes that the study team included Professor Gerard Hastings and Professor Linda Bauld, both of whom are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies; notes that the review of evidence focuses on whether cigarettes should be sold in plain packs to reduce the attractiveness of the brand packaging and making the health warnings clear; further notes that the study claims that, in over three dozen other studies, it was shown that plain packaging can help smokers in three ways, by increasing the prominence and effectiveness of health warnings, by making the pack, and thereby smoking, less appealing and by removing the confusion about the relative harm that pack design can cause, and calls on all those who have concerns about the substantial number of new smokers each year in Scotland, who it understands are predominately young people, to respond to this consultation.

(Richard Simpson MSP is to be remembered for denying there was any need for a watertight case that the display ban would work. No doubt he feels the same about plain packaging.)

The 'independent' academic review in question is 'independent' only insofar as it is not officially part of the Department of Health. At least four of its six authors and at least two of their four institutions are set up to fight tobacco use and are funded for that purpose: to 'discover' (ad nauseum) the harms of tobacco and recommend restrictions on its use. Hardly objective or even a study, this is an attempt to assemble a brief in support of what government plans to do. Calling it an independent academic review is disgraceful and dishonest, and sadly what we have come to expect from the government in relation to tobacco control.

Just wouldn't it have been nice to have included the views of Ukraine, the US Chamber of Commerce, TransAtlantic Business Dialogue and other US business organisations that have protested, the International Chamber of Commerce, Brand Republic or even British American Tobacco? Perhaps an 'independent' academic review could have ensured representation of these views in the report, and even academics from relevant disciplines for assistance in compiling it.

But the wisdom of the health lobby trumps all of them.

Constituency list plug

The Bolton Smokers' Club has come up with an idea to create an effective force for lobbying MPs. The idea is to form a list of supporters and the constituency they live in, with the aim of covering the whole country.

The idea is that we need at least one person per constituency in England. I am a constituent of Bolton South East constituency. I can write to my MP. I can make an intelligent case against ‘plain packaging’. I can pull the so-called evidence for plain packaging apart. I can ask my MP to accept personal responsibility for decisions. If we had at least one constituent per constituency able and willing to demand responsibility from our MPs, then we could start to make them act in a responsible manner.  

One willing person per constituency in England equals about 500 persons. This blog is too small to achieve such numbers, but blogs like Frank Davis and Dick Puddlecote, to name but two, could certainly identify a spread of people throughout England. FOREST and FREEDOM TO CHOSE especially should be able to produce sufficient numbers. Damn it! We are talking only about only some 500 people!

We could think about taking one study about SIDS apart in detail and showing that any correlation between smoking and SIDS is ephemeral. We could also do that with a study about meningitis. These things are not difficult. The objective would be to remove from the equation the ‘sheeple’. Thus, by the intelligent use of logical argument, 15,000 postcards from ASH ET AL could be rendered ineffectual.

For the 'fringes', Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the idea might have less mileage because of the West Lothian Question. MPs in those regions may not be receptive to constituents writing to them on issues where the vote doesn't affect them directly. But I have put my name on this list because the MPs still vote on these issues. (A substantial list from 'the regions' could, of course, correspond with their own local Members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly Members in the same way.)

Junican, who owns this blog, stresses that he doesn't need people's real names if they usually post under a pseudonym. This is the latest blog post addressing the Constituency List ... please join in!

One rule for tobacco

In a bizarre piece of reporting, The Age suggests that the adage 'smoking kills' implies that considerations of intellectual property do not apply to tobacco products.

As far as I understand the argument, the government denies that there is any issue that requires compensating tobacco companies, as the government is not seeking to acquire intellectual property belonging to tobacco companies, but to do away with it. There must be some reason that the argument is about acquiring intellectual property rather than depriving somebody of it. Why should the government be able to deprive anyone of assets, material or intellectual, for whatever reason, without proving that such a person or company has forfeited their goods by lawbreaking?

The government's legal team says 'it would be "incongruous" for the government to compensate a company for requiring a measure that had as its purpose the prevention of harm to the public'. Hm. (Let's not dwell on the absence of any evidence that the legislation will stop children smoking.) It then goes into absurdities: 

To liken it to the aim of the plain packaging measures, Mr Gageler said it would be inconceivable for rat poison companies to be paid compensation if they were prohibited from making the product package appealing to children. [emphasis added].

The scenario is absurd. Rat poison is not a product aimed at the general consumer. It has a very specific application. I am sure that anyone who had it in for rat poison manufacturers would be able to convince a judge that they had gone out of their way to make the packaging attractive to children.

  

(Okay, some of the tobacco packs are red, blue or green.) I still find it hard to believe that most people in the tobacco industry actively wish to entice children to smoke. All industries have unscrupulous mavericks who care only for corporate balance sheets. I see nothing in most tobacco packaging that is designed to entice children. The things are designed to entice people, and people start out by being children and grow to adulthood, trying things out as they go. Blaming tobacco companies for the curiosity of children is as ridiculous as it gets. Expecting them to create stuff that is unattractive to people is a fool's errand.


However the central point is the question put by Justice French to the prosecuting counsel:

Justice French put it to leading counsel Bret Walker, SC, who had referred to cases dating back to the 1870s in the United States, that none related to a product on the market that carried the risk of serious or fatal disease to all who used it.

Surely this is not relevant. Laws affecting branding and intellectual property apply to anything in the consumer market, and it is not for the courts to allow a new law to override such matters simply by flinging up its hands and declaring a product to be too dangerous. That's like saying that free speech shouldn't apply to dangerous people. The principle of free speech wouldn't be needed if we didn't have dangerous people. It wasn't invented because nobody was dangerous, it was invented in order to manage conflicts of interest.


We await the verdict in Australia with great interest.

Plain packaging moves across the world

In Australia the case opens in court as the tobacco companies defend their intellectual property against the plain packaging laws. The Australian government is confident of victory, arguing that it will not gain directly by confiscating tobacco brand markings.

The Commonwealth argues that even if big tobacco could prove the government was acquiring their property rights the manufacturers still wouldn't win in court.   

That's because the purpose of the plain packaging legislation - namely to improve public health - is within the scope of the Commonwealth's legislative power under the constitution's commerce, trade and external affairs powers.

This sounds like a blank cheque book: claim health grounds and you have a legal basis for any action. Even if the result were certain to be as the government claim, would this over-ride the legitimate requirements of traders to be able to legally brand their goods?

The legal arguments are beyond me but this link shows that opposition to the plain packaging proposals is shared with many bodies such as the US Chamber of Commerce. The Express has also opposed the policy. This link from Brand Republic gives a number of views including one from its own industry – not heard enough:

"Just focusing on the connection between branding and smoking behaviour may be a distorted way of looking at the way of branding. 

"Branding on pack is about differentiating product and competition on the basis of quality, reputation and price but if all the packs look the same you move very quickly towards a generic commoditised market place and that is typified by price competition. 

"It means there is a loss of incentive for companies to invest in quality and reputations because they have no way to communicate that to consumers. While I’m sure the familiar brands will continue, if you were to launch a new product into the market it can only be a price fighting product and if that is a means of reducing prices to consumers then actually it may result in more people smoking rather than less because it becomes a very price sensitive market.

Here the government consultation on plain packaging has opened: coordinated by the Department of Health to cover all the legislative assemblies as well as England. (It's worth responding: the EC had to publish responses to its Consultation on revising the Tobacco Products 2001 Directive. The public didn't like its proposals and this showed up in the consultation responses. It also showed that the tobacco company was not alone in opposing an extension to tobacco control. The more embarrassment they get the better.)

Simon Clark says in his blog that Andrew Lansley promised an independent review* of the evidence on plain packaging. I haven't read this review yet, but since it is co-authored by a team including Gerard Hastings, Linda Bauld and Crawfood Moodie (refer to front page of the report for their affiliations), it cannot be described as independent. As Simon says, 'there is not a single marketing, communications or branding expert on the panel'. Perhaps they would have been considered vested interests?

*yes he really did! Jesus, they surpass themselves. 'The Department of Health has ... commissioned an independent academic review of the existing evidence on the effects of plain packaging'. Said independent review is authored by a team of ten people, affiliated with the University of Nottingham, the Cancer Research UK Centre for Tobacco Control Research at the Institute of Social Marketing at Stirling University, and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies. I've said this before: Cancer Research includes in its funding conditions for tobacco-related research the provision that research 'support current UK policy priorities', including plain packaging. How the {censored} does he get off with calling this an independent academic review?

h/tip Simon Clark for the link

More on the Michigan pigs

Mike Adams from Natural News continues this report. Imagine being told by a government officer that your farm livestock (or your pet cat, dog, horse or whatever) is illegal using the excuse that they are vermin, feral or whatever trumped up excuse that you can think of. Not only are you obliged to destroy them, but you are also to be charged with crimes against the state if you fail to do so. This has happened in the state of Michigan since the beginning of April, with a farmer shooting his entire stock of pigs in order to avoid a felony charge.

A local attorney comments:

I think this is an unconstitutional order, these actions of the DNR are way out of bounds,” attorney Joseph O’Leary told NaturalNews in an interview today. He is representing one of the farmers who was targeted in these raids. “To take what was six months ago an entirely legal activity, and suddenly people are felons over it. They’re not growing drugs, running guns or killing anybody, they’re raising animals pursuant to USDA regulations and state of Michigan regulations. They haven’t done anything wrong here, and the DNR is treating them like they are hardened criminals.”

These are entirely legitimate objections to the DNR's cruel activities. Apart from wondering what kind of animal will be next on the hit list of the local Department of Natural Resources (which has a very public-friendly Facebook page), Mike Adams has called for armed citizens' arrest of DNR officers involved in armed raids against legal pig farms. He says:

While I do not espouse the use of violence to resolve issues with government, when innocent farmers are faced with being raided by criminal gangs of rogue government operatives who are forcing them to destroy their entire livestock herds, there is little choice but to bring out the rifles and arrest these criminals at gunpoint and bring them to justice in the court system where they must face charges of conspiracy, destruction of private property, the violation of the civil rights of private citizens, illegal trespassing and much more. 

He goes on to defend the Second Amendment. This is not a discussion of gun ownership by the way. I'm not particularly in favour of gun ownership, but I have to admit if I lived in Michigan under this kind of regime I would be very suspicious if the government called in weapons legally held by private citizens.

In this case I would hope that the Invasive Species Order comes swiftly under review – the ruling (not a law, it was made by bureaucrats) is ostensibly about protecting the environment and community against feral pigs. But farmed pigs are by definition not feral. Discussion here among people who know about pig breeds: some pointing out that wild hogs cause enormous problems to the public and farmers and others saying that's no excuse to kill farm animals.

It may be that plain packaging will stop kids smoking

This is what the Scotsman says, and it could be true. It may be the case that plain packaging will defy the expectations of everyone with any common sense.

Arguably this is also true, if you make certain allowances:

“The comprehensive review of evidence which accompanies the consultation makes it clear that a large body of academic tests and research consistently show plain packaging makes tobacco products less appealing to young people." [Sheila Duffy, ASH Scotland]

If you allow for the fact there is no way to test results empirically, yes, it is easy to believe that the only way to get a study in plain packaging published is to find that it would help reduce child smoking.

But no study can show such a result as there are no empirical data. There is no plain packaging in the shops yet. Studies can only speculate. Even if they find that plain packaging  reduces the appeal of tobacco in a controlled experiment, this has no bearing on what children will experience in the real world and young people have no way to predict their future wants and needs as their awareness increases in their progress to adulthood.

Not normally glamorous but still deadly?

A continuing bid to promote the cause of plain packaging gives Cancer Research UK cause to publish lung cancer figures. The graph published in the CRUK report is not new (appearing also here): it gives data to 2007.

The Telegraph quotes CRUK director Jean King:

“It’s vital that the UK closes one of the last remaining loopholes that portrays smoking as something glamorous and normal, rather than the lethal product it truly is."

Glamorous and normal? What does she want?

As a non-scientist the graph gives me immediate problems because the trajectories for male and female lung cancers do not even begin to resemble each other. The Telegraph tells us that the incubation period is 25 to 30 years. The male smoking rate appears to follow the same trajectory as the male lung cancer rate with about 18 years' difference between the two. The female rise from 1975 does reflect the rise in the female smoking rate from 1950 to 1975, but fails to start falling 25 years after female smoking peaked.

Another pair of graphs here (blue for men, pink for women, split into age groups) shows lung cancer for men at 1960 at less than half the 1975 level, but for women the contrast is less stark with the rate in women in 1960 closer to the 1975 level. The same clear difference shows: while men's lung cancer declines, the women's rate continues to climb. There are no smoking rates plotted against the earlier figures before 1975, but the huge disparity between the two correlations prompts questions about other factors that might affect lung cancers.

As far as lung cancer is concerned, smoking is the only suspect in the frame. Huge amounts of evidence will not help to eradicate the problem of lung cancer if they have the wrong suspect. Cancer Research doesn't seem to want to know who the other suspects might be, because its tobacco research agenda has its own specific goals.

Freedom to grow food in New Zealand

My introduction to this issue in New Zealand was 17:28 minutes into the latest edition of UK Column News:

More detail is available here, a NZ site that urges opposition to both the Food Bill and the Natural Health Products Bill (which seems to echo the European version). Ostensibly on the grounds of food safety it purports to reserve to the state the right to define what is healthy and natural.

Opponents of this bill link it to Codex Alimentarius, and predict that all governments will attempt to implement it, unless they are resisted. Readers are free to google the actual terms of Codex, everything is in plain view. A critical analysis of Codex is here. The agreements regulates food and nutrients and can be enforced by the World Trade Organisation. Everything that people eat must meet the specifications of the authorities. The New Zealand Bill codifies this into a national law, and it seems natural to assume that other governments will want to follow.

The US has seen raids on farms in recent times, in federal actions that seem anything but even-handed. More here.

There seem to be numerous parallels between restrictions on freedom to grow food and restrictions on smoking. Both are done ostensibly in the of safety, both seek to undermine if not actually people's own views about what constitutes safe consumption. Under both food safety and non-smoking regimes the wrongs perpetrated by relevant mega-corporations are ignored while the small farmer/smoker comes under intense scrutiny without being adequate means to oppose the government's arguments. In each case the mega corporation bravely takes on the small trader.

That said, this area is new to me. I'm reserving further comment until I have read more on this.

Smoking still a part of life in France

Funny how life can be so different in two countries separated only by the English Channel. In Andrew Lansley's England smoking is no longer a part of life. In France, defiance of the smoking ban has been reported widely in Paris. The French non-smoking organisation Droits des Non-fumeurs describes the volume of complaints about smoking violations as 'colossal'.

Some more reasons that smoking is not likely to disappear any time soon are discussed here.

The philanthropy of Gates

The Gates Foundation is known for philanthropy, even in respect of a Cinderella cause like eradicating smoking.

It has achieved (with the help of other agencies including Unicef, Rotary, and the World Health Organisation) the eradication of polio in India.

Or has it? It depends who you read. So far unreported by the BBC,

... the real story is that while polio has statistically disappeared from India, there has been a huge spike in cases of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)– the very types of crippling problems it was hoped would disappear with polio but which have instead flourished from a new cause. 

There were 47,500 cases of non-polio paralysis reported in 2011, the same year India was declared “polio-free,” according to Dr. Vashisht and Dr. Puliyel. Further, the available data shows that the incidents tracked back to areas were doses of the polio vaccine were frequently administered. The national rate of NPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis] in India is 25–35 times the international average.

India is a large country whose population exceeds one billion, but 47,500 is a considerable number of casualties, especially when there is a clear correlation with the vaccination.

The Gates Foundation and WHO have come under criticism for their claim that polio has been eradicated. The polio virus has been synthesized in a test tube and now the wide incidence of non-polio paralysis make the eradication of polio impossible for the foreseeable future. They are also rebuked for persuading India to invest in a vaccination programme costing $2.5 billion: donor support amounted to just $2 million.

Readers must decide for themselves. But it appears to me that Gates and the WHO have a mission to govern the globe under the guise of philanthropic intervention. Under this guise they can undermine local governance systems, divert local priorities, and cost communities dear in both health and cash terms. From where I am sitting it appears that a spike of 25 to 35 times the expected incidence of non-polio paralysis is too high a correlation to put down to chance, and points to a vaccine that is positively harmful and not fit for use.

To read official news reports, you would think polio eradication was a complete success story. But  not only does this episode not inspire confidence – it should be a public relations disaster, since it is expensive, worse than useless and undermines local decision making and priorities. Indignation is widespread: this piece   – Third World duped on polio eradication – is worth a look. The original study: 'Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on' by Drs Vashisht and Puliyel of St Stephens Hospital, Delhi, is here.

(And if I were a smoker who wanted to quit smoking I wouldn't go to Bill Gates for help either.)

Honduras joins Ukraine in WTO protest against plain packaging

So far only two countries have decided to challenge Australia's plain packaging law.

"Australia's plain packaging requirements would defeat the basic function of a trademark, which is to allow consumers to distinguish between products of different companies," Castillo [Honduras WTO ambassador] said in a statement.

May the movement grow. Trademarks and brand design are essential to regulated trade. If authorities can make one excuse to ban them, they can come up with further excuses.

Indonesia resists smoking ban

Indonesia is used for shock value: anyone can buy tobacco there. It has failed to ratify the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, although I find it hard to believe that countries that have ratified the treaty don't have child smokers in their population. (The first (and youngest ever) child smoker I saw was a boy of about 12 working in a restaurant in central Turkey. Admittedly this was several years before Turkey signed the FCTC. But I suspect that it happens in many, many places.)

The tobacco lobby appears stronger in Indonesia than it is here. Indonesia has tobacco farmers. A group supporting them have publicly demonstrated about threatened smoking legislation and complained about the strength of pharmaceutical lobbyists:  

[...] the 100 Percent Love Indonesia Coalition, which claims support from tobacco farmers and plantation owners across the country, said the decree was issued to support the marketing of products such as nicotine gum, inhalers, patches and other nicotine substitution products. 

Authorities in Indonesia remain reluctant to pass laws on smoking, allegedly because of potential harm to the tobacco operations in Indonesia. There is (of course) dispute about whether legislation would damage tobacco interests or only protect people from secondary smoke exposure. A tobacco control advocate claims that other countries with tobacco plantations have successfully passed tobacco control legislation with hurting farmers, but this may be similar to claims over here that the Irish smoking ban didn't hurt pubs.

The current bill against smoking, says Chairman of the Legislative Body Ignatius Mulyono, is biased towards the anti-tobacco lobby.

Ignatius was adamant that the risk to farmers and workers was not negligible. 

“All the parties have looked at the bill together and they believe it will threaten farmers,” he said. “If other countries have applied such regulations, that doesn’t mean we should too.” 

He said he fully supported protecting the public from the dangers of smoking through advertising bans and designating smoke-free areas, but said those policies should be developed with due consideration for the welfare of farmers and workers.

Doesn't that read like a normal politician? one who considers that his role is to serve the public? He will consider a bill that will give due consideration to the livelihoods of those whose livelihoods depends on tobacco.

BBC News 24 interview, Friday 6 April

We haven't managed to see it but Michael has written down what he could remember.

INTERVIEWER: In Edinburgh we have Michael Davidson, Chairman of Freedom to Choose (Scotland), pro-smoking group.
MICHAEL: Can I just put one thing straight before we start? We're not pro-smoking, we're pro-choice.
INTERVIEWER: I take it you're against the display ban?
MICHAEL: Yes. We believe this is just another step in the denormalisation and stigmatisation of smokers, we feel that smokers should be allowed to make our own choices in life.
INTERVIEWER: But it's not about adults, is it? It's to discourage children from smoking.
MICHAEL: Well, that's how they dress it up but if you think about it, the more you hide something from children the more intriguing it becomes to them. And anyhow, when children walk down the street they see smokers outside. That's advertising smoking, and it's a consequence of the smoking ban in pubs.
INTERVIEWER: But the government claims at provinces in Canada where they have display bans have seen a drop in smoking.
MICHAEL: Yes I'm familiar with some of these studies, but what the government isn't saying is that in other provinces, where there's no display ban, they have also seen a drop in youth smoking.
INTERVIEWER: So are you saying the evidence is inconclusive?
MICHAEL: Yes, the evidence is inconclusive.
INTERVIEWER: Swimming against the tide?
MICHAEL: Yes, because we're fighting against the state, but we have a great deal of support from people we speak to on the street.

Smoking not part of Lansley's life

We're all in it together, remember?

But Andrew Lansley wish to persuade us that 'smoking is no longer part of life'. He used it to justify the tobacco display ban, which we have been reliably told he voted against when in opposition.

All this means is that there is an official policy to denormalise tobacco: not that most of its users recognise that smoking is no longer part of life.

Display ban enters England: Freedom to Choose (Scotland) interviewed on BBC News 24

Yes it's true. Michael Davidson (Chairman, Freedom to Choose (Scotland)) was interviewed yesterday evening on BBC News 24. This is a rolling news service and unfortunately doesn't do i-player. So I haven't even seen it and I was out of the house working yesterday when he got the call and still there when the broadcast went out.

The display ban, introduced on Good Friday in England, seems to involve sliding doors in front of the cigarette racking, behind the tills at the supermarket checkout (small shops don't have to apply it until 2015). Checkout staff must queue up to access cigarettes and close the sliding door after each one. Nothing sensible like leaving the doors open for the next cashier. How long is such madness sustainable?

Privatising the World Health Organisation

As expected, the Tobacco Control Blog ended last week's World Conference on Tobacco and Health in Singapore with a glowing appraisal of Director General's leadership of the conference, and spiritual leadership of the whole tobacco control movement.

Before the conference the Framework Convention Alliance was less optimistic that headway could be made against the tobacco industry's many empires. They are now excited about a huge donation promised by Michael Bloomberg ($220 million), which will enable them to focus efforts to implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in less developed countries.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is the only international treaty under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. Quite why tobacco control came to be the only health topic worthy of a global treaty is no doubt a matter of historical record.

A report in last month's Third World Resurgence by Tom Fawthrop discusses whether the WHO is 'under siege from the private sector', in part because of the high costs of its activities. It opens by pointing out that Bill Gates addressed the last meeting of member states, describing this as 'symbolic of the crisis facing the United Nations' World Health Organization'. I would add that Bloomberg's donation to the tobacco control cause last week was also symbolic. Gates represents the ultra-wealthy 'globalists', who seek to influence global health policy.

Fawthrop discusses whether Margaret Chan is sufficiently aware of potential conflicts of interest arising from big shots in the corporate world seeking involvement in this field. He lists the wide range of private interests attending the NCD summit last September, noting the concern from professional groups and NGOs at the level of private interest present. He also goes into the recent history, claiming that the World Health Organisation was sidelined in the 1980s by the World Bank, which imposed drastic health cuts as part of its Structural Adjustment Programmes (conditions for financial help), and privatised what was left.

WHO is still sidelined today, as the architects of global governance, the World Economic Forum, seeks 'a new governance paradigm': a complete rethink, in their words:

The model of development characterised by donors and recipients is dead ... In place we need to think about collective responsibility. A world where an increasing number of stakeholders should have a role in shaping and making policy is a given. Governance does not equal governments alone.

Doesn't it sound lovely? We're all in it together! But Fawthrop points out that the WEF does not include medical personnel, patients or the general public among its stakeholders.

It recommends the use of public–private partnerships to meet the provision of health needs. In my book that means that the public will have to pay for projects that will maximise benefit to the shareholders of private companies, and if that means public borrowing, then the general public pays interest, as well as paying for any services that are not free at the point of use. The private corporations win, the banks win and the public benefits only if it can afford to. Countries are quite capable of running a system like that without being supervised by a global 'health authority'.

I used to be starry eyed about the World Health Organisation, before I became aware of its role in tobacco control. But any global authority will become prey to corporations, because they represent business opportunities, and this is what health issues offer them. Without adequate checks to ensure that global health rather than shareholder profits will be the bottom line we might as well not have a global health authority at all.

European tobacco policy risks increasing illicit tobacco trade, says Transcrime

The story is here.

Full report downloadable from here and executive summary here.

The general public also opposed the proposals presented last year in the consultation to the Revision of Tobacco Products Directive 2001.

Several bloggers yesterday noted the levels of public funding going to promote plain packaging in the south-west region: Dick Puddlecote, Simon Clark, Patsy Nurse and Anna Raccoon for starters – and of course the Hands off our Packs campaign.

The conclusions of Transcrime were summarised in the Executive Summary as follows:

There is no reliable information which which to assess the introduction of maximum limits on ingredients.  The crime risks may vary from marginal to extremely significant depending on the extent and type of the limitations imposed. No [extended crime risk assessment] is currently possible. 

There is a high risk that generic packaging may favour the increased counterfeiting of tobacco products.

There is a medium risk that the implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle may cause the [illicit trade in tobacco products] to grow as a consequence of significant increases in the prices of tobacco products. 

There is a high risk that banning the display of products at points of sale may increase the [illicit trade in tobacco products] to grow because of difficulties in identifying legitimate products and retailers.

 I think that's fairly clear.

Freedom to choose pig breeds in Michigan

This video shows a Michigan farmer explaining the impact of a new order banning what county officers call 'feral' pigs. As of 1 April certain pig breeds have become illegal and farmers keeping them can be charged for harbouring invasive species.

Read more here about the peculiar distinguishing characteristics of the banned livestock. Information about the farmer's legal defence fund is here.

This seems a bizarre situation, but if the facts are being reported accurately it is another instance of people's livelihoods being bulldozed by government with corporate support, ostensibly on health grounds.

The assault on parents continues

Yesterday another advertisement appeared on the television on secondary smoke exposure in the home. The BBC also interviewed the Chief Medical Officer beside a parent whose son's asthma recovery was put down to her success in giving up smoking.

The CMO declares that 80 per cent of smoke is invisible (yes, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapour are invisible). She also scoffs at the idea that other pollutants are a significant problem, claiming that the UK meets European standards and that tobacco smoke adds 'dramatically' to pollution levels.

There has never been a satisfactory answer to why governments have waited six years after the smoking ban in public places to remind us how vulnerable children are and to mount sustained campaigns regarding smoking in the home. Rather than an authentic health campaign, this resembles more an attempt to extend the bounds of what kinds of intervention are politically acceptable, starting with 'public' and progressing to domestic.

Dave Atherton has written an open letter to Dame Sally Davies (CMO) and Professor Terence Stephenson, Head of Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. This spells out more of the fallacies behind the current campaign.