Scottish Grocers' Federation attacks ASH Scotland on transparency

A letter in the press comments critically on ASH Scotland's opinion piece on transparency. John Drummond of the Scottish Grocers' Federation points out that there is openness around the relations of grocers with all their suppliers, and believes (reasonably) that grocers have a place in national public health activities.

As chief executive of SGF, I am well aware of my obligations to declare our members legally and responsibly sell tobacco products and that we have links with some tobacco companies in the same way as we do with producers of milk, bread or confectionery. 

I do not, however, share the view of Ms Duffy that this, therefore, precludes SGF or retailers from playing a role in determining public health policies. A point, I would suggest, with which the Scottish Government would agree given our close working relationship through its Alcohol Industry Partnership and the SGF Healthy Living Programme, to support public health objectives and promote wellbeing.

It has also been ASH's faith that shops are capable only of representing the interests of tobacco companies, when in fact they have their own interests to defend as low-margin operations in a huge and aggressive market. Even if they wanted to put tobacco interests before their own (a most unlikely scenario) it would not necessarily benefit them to do so. Action on Health's shamelessly aggressive list of people whose views simply cannot be taken seriously in relation to plain packaging betray a lack of respect for participative democracy. You simply cannot exclude people from public debate on the assumption that their links with tobacco will dictate everything they contribute.

Drummond points out that 'retailers do not have the luxury of organisations like Ms Duffy’s to derive most of their income from public purse', and concludes:

In summary, a desire for transparency should cut both ways. Just as SGF has to declare its interests Ms Duffy’s organisation – paid for by government to tell it what it wants to hear – should be open to the same scrutiny.

The more the tobacco company stooge list circulates, the more people's awareness will grow that a publicly funded organisation wants to limit the voice of ordinary people on public health issues, just because their lives might have a tangential, or even tenuous link at some level with Big Tobacco.

And don't forget: there is a slippery slope: see interview:

More on the blatantly one-sided plain packaging consultation

Over the last two days, even more reasons to feel this whole consultation arrangement falls far short of a transparent and all-inclusive consultation.

1. The study commissioned as an 'independent academic review' is not only authored entirely by tobacco control professionals, but as DP points out, it relies on a collection of studies that are not only specifically tobacco control studies and funded as such but nearly half of them are authored by the authors of the so-called independent review.

2. (h/tip Xopher, from his own consultation response)

Previous consultations have been criticised as quoted below :

 “The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer.”  

“…….. said the disclosures summed up Labour's "cavalier" approach to consulting the public.” 

…… said: "It will come as no surprise to us if the Department of Health has funded organisations that provide the responses to consultations that the Government is looking for.” 

"The public are understandably cynical about the way Labour consults the public - it's time we had a Government that treats the public and their views with the respect they deserve." 

Can we be assured that this consultation will be impartial and free of the above criticism? I hope so since these are the words of Andrew Lansley MP who in his current Government role has a full oversight of Health Department activity and as an elected Member of Parliament is duty bound to uphold democracy in this Country. 

What's the difference between being in Opposition and being in Government? Quite a lot, it would seem.

Of course Action and Smoking on Health (and now ASH Scotland) both know that there are reasons the public cannot be trusted with fully open consultations. Action on Smoking and Health recently published its tobacco company stooge list, which included the CBI, major trade unions and everything in between. Sheila Duffy today publishes an opinion piece in the Scotsman, explaining why Scottish ministers should fully implement Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Article 5.3 of the FCTC recognises the “irreconcilable conflict” between public health and tobacco industry interests and requires governments to engage with the industry only so far as is absolutely necessary to organise effective regulation. 

If Scottish ministers were fully to implement Article 5.3 that would mean agreeing to transparency in all contacts with the industry. 

It would involve a policy of disinvestment of public money from tobacco shares. It should require a special declaration of any tobacco interests from any individuals and organisations engaged in public health policy discussions.

In the real world where the rest of us live, the world is full of interests that can endanger health if left unchecked. It is not only bad products but corrupt practices that contribute to poor public health outcomes. For example from the US (just to illustrate) an executive from Monsanto has undue power in the FDA. This is of no concern to the Sheila Duffys of this world because they are still in the nursery where food is good for you and tobacco is bad for you.

Sheila also has a go at defending the current consultation process but does not begin to address the issues. One suspects that she does not really understand them.

Over the last month a joint UK and Scottish Government consultation on requiring tobacco to be sold in plain packaging has been met with industry-funded opposition, scaremongering stories and misleading information.

There is nothing misleading in what Dick Puddlecote, the Hands off our Packs Campaign, I or anyone has said in pointing out that the Department of Health wants to listen only to tobacco control and they attempt to make a virtue of this one-sidedness by invoking article 5.3 of the FCTC.

Professional insight into plain packaging

Campaign against plain packaging Hands off our Packs reports opposition to the Plain Packs proposal from former head of the Patent Office Peter Lawrence, and from the chief of the British Brands Group.

But of course these are tobacco industry lackeys so no need to even read them! (actually, the Patents Office is not listed, but that's a forgiveable oversight, don't you think?)

ASH's tobacco company stooge list is an own goal

That crazy list again: Chris Snowdon, who was named personally as a closet friend of tobacco, unwraps some of this.

The main mistake that ASH makes is that those on this huge list ... (h/tip Simon Clark)

Adam Smith Institute
Alcan Packaging
Alliance against IP Theft
American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union
Anti-Counterfeiting Group
Association of Convenience Stores
Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers
Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP)
British Brands Group
British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium
British Retail Consortium
Cato Institute
Confederation of British Industry
Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers
Deloitte
Democracy Institute
European Cigar Manufacturers’ Association
European Communities Trademark Association
European Policy Centre
European Policy Forum
European Rolling Papers Association
European Roundtable of Industrialists
European Risk Forum
European Smoking Tobacco Association
European Smokeless Tobacco Council
European Travel Retail Council
Federation of Small Businesses
FORCES
FOREST
Fraser Institute
Freedom to Choose (F2C)
Global Intellectual Property Centre
Independent Retail News
Institute of Economic Affairs
Interbrand
International Chamber of Commerce
International Trademark Association
ISBA (Incorporated Society of British Advertisers)
Leicester Asian Business Association (LABA)
Liberal Vision
London Economics
Markenverband
National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators
National Federation of Retail Newsagents
Nude Brand Consulting
Privacy International
Progressive Vision
Responsible Retailers
Rural Shops Alliance
Save Our Pubs and Clubs
Scottish Grocers Federation
Sinclair Collis
Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue
Transatlantic Public Affairs
The Free Society
TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition)
Tobacco Industry Platform
Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA)
Tobacco Retailers Alliance (TRA)
Tobacco Workers Alliance
Union ales Fabricants (Unifab)
Unite

.. all have their own interests to look after. If this means following the same line as tobacco, it does not make them tobacco company stooges. The plain fact is that a wide range of actors in society will find themselves in opposition to the interests of the narrow, purist tobacco control dogma.  The wider ASH casts its net to condemn people who oppose its demands, the less reasonable it will seem to the ordinary person in the street.

Incidentally I did learn something interesting from the ASH tobacco company stooge list:

British American Tobacco’s public relations in the UK are handled by Weber Shandwick, which also counts the Japanese Whaling Association and the Chinese Government as clients.

Did Weber Shandwick lose this contract then? Shame. But the Scottish Government still uses them anyway.