Tobacco.org

Council leader Nash Ali defends Town Hall's £32m tobacco pension investment 

Cllr Ali (pictured) said on Tuesday: "As a council we do not encourage people to use tobacco and actively carry out work to discourage its use, but like every pension fund across the country we have a legal duty to our members and, in the case of council pension funds, council taxpayers to secure the best investment returns available." . . .

"I can see how this could be of concern to our residents and, as someone who is trying to kick the habit, it is a grim investment, but tobacco is a legal product and, in a time of financial pressure for councils, our pension fund should not become a further burden on local council taxpayers."

Jump to full article »

RAHMAN: Fighting Big Tobacco in Malaysia — Fifa Rahman 

In a country where 46 per cent of males smoke, and where the government spends RM20 billion a year treating tobacco-related illnesses, it is imperative that we as a society demand greater health protection, and stronger tobacco laws.

However, in the enactment of tobacco laws to protect public health, and also in the execution of anti-tobacco/pro-health advocacy, there has been a long history of tobacco industry interference which undermines and very often, blocks efforts from materialising altogether. As someone who has had exposure to tobacco policies and regulation, I am fearful that tobacco industry interference is the most significant obstacle that policymakers and anti-tobacco advocates face today. . . .

In addition to the use of biased studies, over the years, the tobacco industry has also been very smart in recruiting influential persons or persons with previous government links to fill positions in their companies. A quick Google search of the Board of Directors of any large tobacco company will reveal names of highly influential persons, recognizable names that make tobacco lobbying just that much stronger.

The WHO provides measures to effectively deal with the tobacco epidemic; these are called the MPOWER measures -- all of which have in the past and currently face tobacco industry interference. These effective measures are: Monitoring of tobacco use; Protection from tobacco smoke; Offer help to cease smoking (cessation techniques); Warning of harms of tobacco use; Enforce advertising bans; and Raise taxes. . . .

In the campaign for smoke-free areas, the tobacco industry employs front-groups such as restaurant owners associations and tourism groups, stating that restaurant business would reduce and tourism would reduce. I could be wrong, but logically persons frequent restaurants for food and touristic areas for scenery and recreational activities -- not to smoke. Furthermore, evidence has proven that in New York, which banned smoking in restaurants, business was not adversely affected. In fact, the New York Restaurant Association and the Restaurant Union President supported smoking bans in restaurants for public health reasons.

The above anecdotes and worldwide experiences show that tobacco industry influence is rife and extremely powerful. As someone who has had tobacco control experience, I can verify as to interference that is alive and well, and that if we don't stand up, we won't just have 45 per cent of male smokers. That figure will increase unless something is done. Political will and the voice of the people will be imperative in defeating tobacco industry lobbying, and ensuring that Malaysians' health is better protected.

Jump to full article »

Industry Documents Expose Nordic Tobacco Companies' Conspiratorial Behavior  

In the 1970s, Nordic countries were among the first to adopt policies against tobacco, like bans on cigarette advertising, health warning labels and smoke-free laws, but U.S.-owned tobacco companies, and particularly Philip Morris, makers of Marlboro, became concerned such polices could spread to America and other developed countries where they sold cigarettes. Also, Europe's first product liability case against the tobacco industry occurred in Finland in 1988, when a smoker sued several companies claiming their products caused his illness, causing even more concern for global tobacco companies. To help escape product liability claims, Nordic tobacco companies -- like Amer Tobacco and Rettig, which distributed Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds brands, respectively -- long claimed to be ignorant of, and denied participation in the multinational tobacco companies' global strategies to undermine anti-tobacco policies, but industry documents reveal the truth -- that smaller Nordic tobacco companies did, in fact, participate in the multinational companies’ long-time conspiracy to deny the health dangers of smoking and undermine anti-tobacco policies, helping delay key effective tobacco control measures, and particularly smoke-free laws, for years.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: What's tobacco doing on pharmacy shelves? 

The provincial government added smoking cessation products to its PharmaCare coverage in September and more than 63,000 British Columbians have taken advantage of the offer.

That sounds great until you realize there are an estimated 550,000 smokers in B.C., of whom 70 per cent say they would like to quit.

Victoria could do more to help them if it acted on this week's recommendation of the B.C. Lung Association and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, B.C. and Yukon, that the province should ban tobacco products from pharmacy shelves.

It is a double standard that pharmacies dispensing medications and part of the health care system should sell dangerous addictive substances. Indeed, only Manitoba and the Yukon continue to allow such a practice in addition to British Columbia.

Jump to full article »

'Sell tobacco shares' Nottinghamshire County Council urged 

Nottinghamshire County Council's £36m investment in tobacco firms as part of its pension scheme has been criticised by a doctor.

Dr Greg Place, chairman of a committee which represents GPs in the county, said the authority should "publicly disinvest".

He said supporting the industry and promoting health were incompatible.

The council said the amount was 1% of the pension fund investments and it had to get the best return for its members.

Jump to full article »

Region’s fund attacked over tobacco investment 

A DAMNING report has slammed the West Yorkshire pension fund after revealing it has £125m invested in tobacco firms – the single largest amount invested by a local authority in the country.

The research, by charities FairPensions and ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), reveals councils across Britain have at least £1.3 bn of employee pensions funds invested in tobacco.

It comes after the Yorkshire Post revealed earlier this month that three of the region’s four funds have major holdings in both tobacco firms and global corporations accused of environmental abuses.

The FairPensions report challenges the claim the funds are bound by fiduciary duty – a legal obligation to act in the best interest of their members and maximise financial returns, and calls for a more “nuanced understanding” of fiduciary duties.

Jump to full article »

• Councils told to stub out big tobacco pension deals 

Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been invested in the tobacco industry by councils which next year take on responsibility for public health, an investigation by The Independent has revealed.

Councils across England and Wales have at least £1.3bn of employee pension funds invested in tobacco companies such as Imperial and British American Tobacco, though the true figure is likely to top £2bn, with individual local authorities investing up to £125m each. The revelation last night prompted widespread condemnation from public health leaders trying to reduce the burden of smoking on the NHS.

It follows an announcement by the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, that £5.2bn will be available for public health spending in the year from April 2013, with councils set to receive just over £2bn to help reduce health inequalities and promote healthier lifestyles.

Last night health campaigners accused councils of a serious conflict of interest that would undermine the credibility of their public health efforts.

Jump to full article »

• The price paid: Manipulation of otolaryngologists by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the emerging truth that smoking causes cancer [FREE FULL TEXT] 

INTRODUCTION

In the mid-20th century the tobacco industry faced a dilemma. The emergence of ever more convincing data showing a link between smoking and cancer was threatening to undermine their market. These worrisome scientific findings were reported to the public via a steadily increasing stream of newspaper and magazine articles. The industry realized that mere advertising would not be effective against the weight of scientific authority. To plan their opposition, the industry engaged the era's most sophisticated public relations experts. Their strategy was to enlist prominent scientists and redirect their research to manufacture doubt about the emerging scientific facts and thereby to fabricate a climate of scientific controversy. Supported by generous payments, some of the U.S.'s foremost physicians, scientists, statisticians, and journal editors were recruited to participate in a decades-long effort to obfuscate the emerging truth that tobacco causes cancer.

Our purpose was to describe how the tobacco industry used the prestige and authority of leading head and neck surgeons to undermine scientific evidence about the role of smoking in cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract. Through consulting arrangements and research grants, a virtual Who's Who of leading head and neck surgeons from among the nation's foremost universities and cancer hospitals became involved, often unwittingly, in the industry's scheme. . . .

It is difficult to evaluate the impact that the collaboration of otolaryngologists and their organizations had on the growth in the consumption of tobacco products throughout this era. What is abundantly clear, however, as evidenced by the enormous rise in smoking over the years, is that the tobacco industry's campaign to obscure the health consequences of smoking was hugely successful. It could be speculated that forceful opposition of tobacco use by otolaryngologists may have improved public awareness of the dangers of smoking and perhaps even swayed government policy. The fact that organized medicine, lulled into complacency by lucrative industry support, largely stood by the wayside meant that many consumers were deprived of the opportunity to make better informed personal choices. Fortunately, once the preponderance of evidence became overwhelming, the pendulum swung, and by the late 1960s the otolaryngology community became forceful advocates for smoking cessation. . . .

CONCLUSIONS

The unfortunate history of physician collaboration with the marketing arms of tobacco companies has relevance to medicine in the 21st century. Future advances in medicine are strongly dependent on robust and mutually beneficial interactions between doctors and industry. Ethically, a physician must always act on behalf of the well-being of the patient. Responsible industries seek collaborations that balance the need to maximize profits with a commitment to optimize the health of their consumers. The lesson of the highly successful campaign by the tobacco industry to manipulate medical opinion is that physicians need to adhere to the highest standards of scientific validity and remain vigilant in their advocacy for their patient's interests.

Jump to full article »

• Big Tobacco led throat doctors to blow smoke 

Tobacco companies conducted a carefully crafted, decades-long campaign to manipulate throat doctors into helping to calm concerns among an increasingly worried public that smoking might be bad for their health, according to a new study by researchers at the School of Medicine. Beginning in the 1920s, this campaign continued for over half of a century.

"Tobacco companies sought to exploit the faith the public had in the medical profession as a means of reassuring their customers that smoking was safe," said Robert Jackler, MD, the Edward C. and Amy H. Sewall Professor in Otolaryngology.

"Tobacco companies dreamed up slogans such as, 'Not one single case of throat irritation with Camels;' then, to justify their advertising claims, marketing departments sought out pliant doctors to conduct well-compensated, pseudoscientific 'research,' which invariably found the sponsoring company's cigarettes to be safe," Jackler said. "The companies successfully influenced these physicians not only to promote the notion that smoking was healthful, but actually to recommend it as a treatment for throat irritation."

Jump to full article »

Anger as council pensions cash in on tobacco 

YORKSHIRE council pension funds are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in tobacco companies and global corporations accused of environmental abuses.

Despite a commitment to “socially responsible investment”, three of the region’s four funds have pumped more than £110m into British American Tobacco (BAT) and more than £500,000 in Japan Tobacco.

The investments have been slammed by health organisations, particularly in light of Government reforms which will see local authorities take on a much more significant role in health management this year.

Jump to full article »

• Heat on Labor over tobacco investments 

THE Gillard government is facing pressure to stop its multibillion-dollar Future Fund from investing in the tobacco industry and in companies that make nuclear weapons.

The Future Fund, which was set up by the former Howard government to help meet the long-term cost of public sector superannuation liabilities, revealed last year that it held $147 million worth of shares in cigarette producers.

The Greens, on whom the government depends to pass legislation in the Senate, plan to increase pressure for the fund to ditch the big tobacco stake and a separate $179 million holding of shares in companies involved in nuclear weapons production.

When the Senate resumes sitting next month after the summer break, the Greens will push for rules forcing the fund to divest its ''unethical'' holdings.

Greens Senator Richard Di Natale, who introduced a bill on the subject late last year, said it was a ''no brainer'' for the Future Fund to offload its tobacco and nuclear holdings.

Senator Di Natale said it was completely inconsistent for the government to fight big tobacco with ''courageous'' plain packaging laws, and ''then on the other hand to be investing $147 million in large multinationals who make the stuff''.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco rules  

China's anti-smoking lobby is fuming over the recent appointment to the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) of a scientist who works for the tobacco industry.

They say the appointment of Xie Jianping, 52, to the CAE is another example of how well connected and influential the government-owned cigarette industry is in China.

Xie is the deputy director of Zhengzhou Tobacco Research Center, which is funded by the State-owned China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC).

The anti-smoking lobby contends that Xie's research is aimed at promoting the cigarette habit, not protecting the health of citizens. . . .

A number of members of the CAE have defended their vote for Xie's inclusion as a member. They've been quoted in other media but are no longer taking interview requests or are unreachable. . . .

The controversy over Xie's election has not only raised the ire of people and organizations trying to get some of the 300 million smokers to butt out completely. It's raised serious issues relating to the criteria used to elect new members to China's prestigious science academies.

"Xie's election reflects a system that needs improving," Wang Longde told the China Youth Daily. A former Deputy Health Minister, who is also a member of the CAE but belongs to another of the Academy's nine departments, Wang says the voting process requires greater transparency.

"In many cases we have professionals from one field voting for professionals in another," said Wang.

Jump to full article »

Conservative health minister comes under fire over tobacco briefings  

The position of Tory health minister Earl Howe was under scrutiny after it was revealed he received a series of briefings from lobbyists representing a global cigarette company while drawing up his party's opposition to tobacco control measures.

A whistleblower who previously worked at Philip Morris International's headquarters in Switzerland has posted scores of internal company emails and documents on the SmokinGate website. The communications lay bare the company's determination to resist anti-smoking legislation in Britain.

Among them are exchanges between Howe and the company's lobbyists, Gardant Communications, that have alarmed health campaigners.

The emails, exchanged in 2009 when Howe was a shadow health minister, show that the peer approached lobbyists requesting the company's views on calls for cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging. Subsequent emails show that the lobbyists gave several briefings to Howe, who led Tory opposition to the Labour government's plans to introduce a ban on behind-the-counter cigarette displays in shops.

"It is deeply disturbing that Earl Howe not only met the tobacco industry but also appears to have connived with them to try to undermine public health policy while in opposition," said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash, the anti-smoking pressure group. "Worse still, he did not make his contacts with the tobacco industry known during the debate in parliament, when he was fighting to prevent the legislation to put tobacco out of sight in shops becoming law. This is unacceptable and his fellow peers should be asking whether he is the right person to lead on health for the government."

Jump to full article »

• Role of lobbyists called into question after leaked emails reveal close relationship between tobacco giant and Tory peer  

Plans to ban cigarette displays in shops were disrupted after a Tory peer contacted a lobbying group for a major tobacco firm, it has been claimed.

And the relationship between ministers and groups representing the interests of powerful industries has now been called into question after emails between Lord Howe and Philip Morris International were leaked.

The correspondence shows that the hereditary peer wrote to Gardant - the Westminster lobbyist for tobacco giant PMI - in March 2009, forwarding a letter from anti-smoking campaigners.

According to a report in today's Observer, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) had written to the then-Shadow Health Minister warning that planned legislation to sell cigarettes in plain packets risked being bypassed by unscrupulous tobacco manufacturers taking advantage of loopholes in trading laws.

Just two days before the House of Lords was to debate the legislation on March 9, 2009, Lord Howe forwarded the letter to Gardant, asking for a reaction to ASH's claims. Within 24 hours, Morris executives were able to provide the peer with a briefing - just ahead of the crucial Lords debate.

Jump to full article »

• Big tobacco scandal unfolding 

Philip Morris in Secret Cooperation With a British Health Minister . . .

Twenty Years of Price-Fixing and Cover-up? . . .

The Marlboro Cartel By SmokinGate On November 30, 2011 · In The Cartel

Reviled by many as a “merchant of death,” Philip Morris International, the world’s leading tobacco company, is a darling of investors who love its cash-generating, profit-making, stock-appreciating potential. Above all, investors love PMI’s unique “pricing power,” the key driver of its earnings.

This love affair may be drawing to a bitter end. An industry insider who has revealed an international cartel operated by the world’s largest tobacco companies claims that PMI’s astonishing profit-making machine is powered by illegal price-fixing. PMI’s customers are paying inflated prices for their Marlboros; PMI’s public shareholders, fooled by the “pricing power” myth, are paying inflated prices for their stock; and PMI’s senior management are laughing all the way to the bank in their Ferraris.

Jump to full article »