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.

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.

Philip Morris withdraws claim to see Stirling University research

Only the Independent has run with this story so far – written by Steve Connor, whose story that Philip Morris was demanding sensitive research information from Stirling University caused a furore in September.

They haven't announced that they are dropping their demand to see the information; but they have missed a deadline specified by the Scottish Information Commissioner, meaning that the only way to proceed with getting the information is to start all over again.

I'm not sure why they dropped it: it doesn't help that we have only one version of the story. According to Steve Connor the university declined to accept reimbursement from Philip Morris for costs incurred. I can't see how the Scottish Information Commissioner would accept such a refusal from the university, but I don't know all the rules (maybe there are laws against money changing hands in these circumstances, in the interests of equality).

Perhaps, having decided to sue the Australian government, they have bigger fish to fry.

Freedom of Information is a tool of aggression, says President of the Royal Society

Ten weeks after the furore caused by freedom of information requests by Philip Morris, The Independent, through the voice of Sir Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society), attacks the use of Freedom of Information as a so-called 'tool of aggression'.

Philip Morris caused consternation by requesting details about research concerning childhood smoking undertaken at Stirling University. The Scottish Information Commissioner demanded that Stirling University should issue a substantive response – as far as I know, this is still pending (but you can hear an interview with the Information Commissioner (and with Gerard Hastings of Stirling University, including a statement from Philip Morris) at the link here).

I'm not familiar with the disruption that such FOI requests can produce. But like many readers, I find it hard to see why publicly funded research should not be put at the disposal of the public. Given that tobacco companies are systematically excluded from any public health discussions involving smoking, there is some justice in allowing them to see the fruits of publicly funded research involving their own product. I don't believe that tobacco companies should dictate public health policy, but nor should they be barred from making any contributions.

Since I don't respect the exclusion of tobacco companies from public health debates, it is unsurprising that I should feel that Stirling University should comply with the FOI request. But there is also the practical point of limiting Freedom of Information. Where would you draw the lines? How would you guarantee that the people who are granted access to the information they seek are not actually related by their third cousin's marriage to someone on the Philip Morris's board of directors?

The point of principles such as Freedom of Information is to provide transparency, and limiting it destroys the concept. There is no point in enshrining a point of principle around sharing information with people that you would happily share the information with if the principle were not in place. Like the principle of habeus corpus, it must apply to anyone if it is to have any meaning at all. There's no point in agreeing not to imprison people without charge 'unless they're terrorists').

Stirling University ran a poll on Facebook which led to a lively discussion. They won the poll, and then withdrew the page because they lost most of the points in the discussion (why remove it otherwise?) I wrote to the University to ask them where the page was: answer here.

Professors Jill Pell and Linda Bauld to speak at smoking cessation event, Edinburgh

Might as well call it a trade fair, but it's a smoking cessation conference. Jill Pell and Linda Bauld are both tobacco control advocates, as is the Minister for Public Health Michael Matheson who is also addressing the conference.

More on Jill Pell and her groundbreaking research on asthma and heart attack admissions can be found here. Not for the first time, Pell's conclusions on the health impacts of the smoking ban have been found to clash with the evidence of somebody else's data.

Linda Bauld who this year left Bath University for Stirling, is best known for her contributions to the Evidence Review of the English smoking ban, and for speaking of harassment following the disagreement with Philip Morris.

Both academics, and the Health Minister, should be wary of involving themselves too closely with smoking cessation interests. This particular conference doesn't seem to be sponsored by Pfizer or similar, though. It's hard to know what exciting things will happen there, apart from talks by Pell, Bauld and Mr Matheson – perhaps not much as it's free to get in! (check here).

(If you can't make the conference you can still train as a stop smoking support worker. Academically accredited with Glasgow Caledonian University.)

Where did our Facebook page go? The answer!

The question: 

Dear Professor Hastings

I was disappointed to see that the Facebook page discussing Philip Morris's FOI request to your University has been withdrawn.

It is very rare to get any discussion on tobacco control with key figures in the movement such as yourself and Simon Chapman. I would hope to see the page restored, and that similar opportunities will occur in the future.

The answer (after an automatic email announcing that Professor Hastings was on study leave):

Dear Belinda,

Thanks for your comments. We agree that the site provided a valuable opportunity for people to express their opinions and discuss this matter. The page was designed as a poll to provide a quick snapshot of public opinion. And in two weeks served that purpose very well indeed. 412 people voted: 352 were 'Against' handing over the data. 51 were 'For' and 9 maybes.

Our intention is to re-launch with a mandate for longer term engagement and discussion about this important issue.

Will keep you posted.

Best wishes,

Mark

Did they actually read the comments? Or just look at the poll?

Networking: tobacco control, social marketing and real friendship on Facebook

From Dick Puddlecote and CAGE Canada, reporting the disappearance of Stirling University's Freedom of Information Request page yesterday.

As if to demonstrate further the Ivory Towers mentality of tobacco control comes this letter from tobacco control advocates Simon Chapman and Becky Freeman, down under ... leading to this Facebook group. You get in only if you have the right attitude and probably the right friends.

Social marketing in, commercial marketing out ... fair enough to a point, but what's with all the secrecy? For the record, ' We don’t welcome anyone with tobacco industry ties and those who are regularly offensive.' I don't have any ties to the tobacco industry, but I won't waste their time by applying.

Stirling University takes down Facebook page on Philip Morris issue

Please correct me if I'm wrong but it looks as if this highly entertaining page – Stirling University Freedom of Information Request – has gone. Has been spirited off the face of Facebook. The link takes me to my home page, as if the Stirling University page had never existed.

Surely that was a bit drastic. They were ahead on the vote (last time I looked), most voters expressing support for the University's position. Must have been the arguments that scunnered them! from Bill Gibson, Dave Atherton, Iro Cyr, Cage Canada and others.

Background links here.

Canadian radio broadcast starring Gerard Hastings and the Information Commissioner

Via Bishop Hill comes this link to an interview with Gerard Hastings from Stirling University, defending his case against Philip Morris, and Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

Edit: A permanent link to the interview is available here:

Professor Hastings makes the point that the studies in question are paid for, not publicly, but by 'a cancer charity', a somewhat cunning disguise for Cancer Research UK. One only needs to read CRUK's research preferences to understand that Philip Morris has clear grounds to assume that Cancer Research is prejudiced against its corporate interests. Professor Hastings may correct in thinking that charity-funded research should not have to comply with Freedom of Information requests – but charities that fund research should not announce their intentions to influence government policy prejudicially against the interests of specific industries. If Government chooses to outsource research to the third sector or universities it shouldn't expect to escape accountability.

After listening to Professor Hastings, listening to the Information Commissioner brings one down to earth. He is clear that the University has not understood the implications of FOI, because of Hastings' insistence that assuring his subjects of confidentiality would automatically exempt him from complying with the requirements of the law. He reiterated that he had ordered the University to provide a substantive response to the FOI request – not necessarily to provide the information requested, but otherwise to give adequate reasons for not supplying it.

Any result will be subject to appeal and could take several months.

Further comment on Stirling University and the FOI

In support of the University complying with the FOI request from Philip Morris we have this.

The second comment sets out the problem clearly:

The purpose of FOI's is enable policy making and the information and decisions leading to it, to become fully transparent. Anybody refusing to comply evidently has something they'd rather the rest of us tax paying mugs didn't see.

For Stirling read the rest of tobacco control.

A rather less reverential piece on Stirling University from Leg-Iron can be found here. I have to confess that I went to Stirling University in the 1980s and completed my degree several years later with Open University – sadly a close ally with Stirling University in Tobacco Control. My memories of Stirling University are hazy at best.

Background posts #1, #2, #3.

Stirling University research on plain packaging

Is this study what all the fuss was about? Dear oh dear.

'Nearly 50 young adult smokers used non branded cigarette packets in everyday situations for two weeks.' The smokers were less keen than those in a control group to hand out cigarettes or have the packets on show. The researchers didn't take into account that if plain packaging were everywhere, people would be less self conscious about using tobacco in public places – bearing in mind that there is nowhere comfortable to do it publicly anyway. Admittedly this is only a report of the study (available in full to subscribers of the British Medical Journal) but no attempt is made to explain whether the subjects' smoking behaviour changed in private.

The research is also reported in the Scotsman here. This report focuses on 950 children interviewed during the study. Again with the proviso that we are looking only at a report of the study, some findings are quite breathtaking – for example:

It claimed 27 per cent of the 950 people questioned were susceptible to taking up smoking in the future because they failed to express a definite desire never to smoke. 

The people conducting this study seem a little out of their depth. Many people drastically change their expectations and preferences quite drastically between their teens and adulthood, often to their own surprise.

Dr Crawford Moodie's assertion that 'the study confirms the lack of appeal of plain packs, with the enjoyment and consumption of cigarettes being reduced' can be described as wishful thinking, based on the fanciful idea that smokers enjoy smoking because of the attractive packaging. 

This is the current line-up on the BMJ's Tobacco Control periodical. In addition to Crawford Moodie's piece there is an editorial on plain packaging.