Novartis support for smoking bans spelled out

Hat tip to Dave Atherton for this link to Novartis's statement on public policy and advocacy.

Claiming an ethical basis for their activities they give the following on their involvement in smoking:

It is sometimes claimed that pharmaceutical companies exercise undue influence on governments and pursue commercial objectives without taking into consideration society's interests. We consider it our responsibility to provide decision-makers in government with the objective and fact-based information needed to formulate sound health policies. 

Our lobbying and advocacy efforts focus on increasing access to the best medicines and to health information globally, while preserving incentives for research and innovation through competitive pricing. In addition, we believe that it is in the interest of companies striving for a leadership role in corporate citizenship to campaign for policies and regulations which favor ethical business conduct. [emphasis added]

[...] 

An example of how Novartis is contributing proactively to the health policy and disease prevention debate in Europe is the question of smoking cessation. Tobacco is the single largest cause of avoidable death in the EU and over half a million people die each year in Europe as a direct or indirect result of smoking. It is estimated that 25% of all cancer deaths and 15% of all deaths in the EU could be attributed to smoking. 

Until recently, efforts by European regulators to reduce smoking were concentrated mainly on the introduction of 'smoke free' legislation which prohibits smoking in certain environments. Novartis believes that greater public health benefits could be achieved through a policy of smoking cessation, coupled with increased duty on tobacco. 

Novartis is campaigning to encourage policies to complement non-smoking environments with smoking cessation, with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as an important component of an EU strategy on tobacco control. 

Together with various NGOs, we helped to foster a 'Smoke Free Partnership.' Our aim is to foster a policy and legislative environment which leads to better public health through strong tobacco control measures and increased availability of NRT in line with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

It clearly acknowledges lobbying for conditions that favour its commercial objectives, namely NRT sales. Perhaps these well-meaning souls actually believe what they are saying, which is effectively that they are whiter than white, use only the best peer-reviewed evidence, care very much about citizens' health (and, of course only incidentally, can make a comfortable living into the bargain).

It is a favourite trick of the tobacco control industry to portray tobacco as 'big business' that is ruthlessly exploiting the little guy. But this company, and the entire pharmaceutical sector, is even bigger business. Somehow tobacco is unduly tarnished on the grounds that it is a big business, even though its rivals in the nicotine market are favoured and allowed to contribute to public policy. They have the ear of government, and can also engage in this kind of activity with the intelligentsia.

One result is that a whole lot of well meaning people with benevolent intentions can reduce people's capacity to make their own, usually faulty, choices about food, drink or smoking. The angle that is not acknowledged is the money that is made in the process. Not only does this benefit large corporations financially at the expense of smaller communities, but it also empowers them at the expense of these communities (probably on many issues beyond the lifestyle ones usually addressed here). Thanks to lobbying of this kind, we have the smoking ban and further restrictions, which have damaged pubs and recreational environments and will go on to damage shops. The whole fabric of economic society is at the mercy of those at the top.

I hesitate to call this kind of thing fascism (the collusion of corporations with the state?). But I still don't like it, because it looks to me as if the rightness of it is taken for granted by the whiter-than-white who engage in making decisions on behalf of everyone else, without apparently caring about the economic ramifications for the wider public – and failing to acknowledge their own dependence on the wider public for their survival.

New Statesman and Pete Robinson on pubs

The New Statesman discusses the plight of pubs. It discusses pubcos and then 'other challenges':

Demand is falling. Competition is increasing. Supermarkets are serving a new generation more interested in intoxication than conversation. With beer duty set to go up 10p a pint in the budget on top of VAT rises, there are worries that another wave of pubs will be pushed over edge, and free holders like the Railway are also at risk.

The smoking ban does not even merit mention as a minor contributing factor. Another article referred to in the text of this story does not mention the smoking ban either.

I leave it to Pete Robinson to explain that the smoking ban did enter the equation at some point. From his position with The Publican he was able to see the direction of travel very clearly. The trade was doing very well until mid-2007.

If the Publican was guilty of anything it was blind, unbridled optimism. It's as if there'd been so much good news to report over the previous few years it was unwilling to dwell on the bad.

And bad it was, arse-wipingly bad.

Towards the end of 2007 the industry was clearly in deep trouble. The 'New Breed' of non-smoking drinker had failed to materialise and the long exodus of the pub trade's life blood, its rank-and-file customers, was already underway. Pub insolvencies were already up 600%, a number that would TREBLE in the following year to EIGHTEEN TIMES former rates, while those prized industry shares were nosediving into the cellar. 

Yet at the time you'd never have guessed any of this by reading The Publican. The main consensus was how smoothly and successfully the ban had been implemented. Every 'industry ‘spokesman’ and his dog queued up to insist their business had been totally unaffected by the ban and each was reported in equal, laborious measure.

And The Publican failed to learn from history:

By 2008 the post-ban carnage could no longer be ignored. But as the rapidly plummeting trade stats settled into a terminal spiral of descent the Publican's editorial opinion switched to naively blaming 'bad' pubs which had been unable to evolve.

'Embrace' the smoking ban we were told. Just do food and everything will be okay. Up your game, open a library/post office/cinema in your pub. Set aside a lunchtime for expectant mothers or an evening for transvestite grandads.

Just offer 'excellence' then watch the customers come running.

How do you 'evolve' to a 33% to 80% drop in takings? Even if it were possible for the country to sustain 40-odd-thousand foodie pub-restaurants, for many it was madness to invest a fortune in pricey catering equipment when local competitors were offering £2.99 two-for-one deals.

In truth the customers we've lost don't want excellence. Most pubgoers couldn't give a toss about fine dining, health emporiums, creches, drop-in centres or gymnasiums. They simply want to be treated like adults. They want their old pubs back, warts an' all. 

The Publican magazine has now folded.  

Inappropriate influence at the Labour Conference?

The Telegraph reports that the Shadow Labour Secretary (and one of his team) took the huff because representatives of tobacco companies were invited to a business forum at the Labour Party Conference, and refused to turn up.

It's hard not to agree with the Labour Party leadership that the tobacco industry has received no favours from them. Politicians must take every precaution against being unduly influenced by corporations but the mere presence of industry representatives at conference events is no evidence of undue influence. The Shadow Health Secretary's gesture is petulant – it may reflect advice given in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control by attempting to marginalise any tobacco industry presence in policy circles, but we should not attempt to exclude interested parties completely from the policy-making process.

It seems that another MP appeared to go on the run from a tobacco-sponsored fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference but her non-appearance turned out to result from a misunderstanding about the arrangements. She did, however, express disquiet about the TMA sponsorship of the event, which came to her notice late.

Anyone would think that the tobacco companies were the only monstrous manifestations of capitalism that were accountable only to their shareholders and cared nothing for the welfare of consumers or the environment. It's actually refreshing to see the New Statesman's partnership with the TMA for this fringe meeting, since their relationship with Pfizer (clearly a rival to tobacco manufacturers in the market for nicotine) is entrenched.

But who's idea was the fringe meeting? I've no idea – but it does look like the Labour Party needs support to be renewed from all sectors. Perhaps it went begging?