[Headlines Only] [Top Stories Only]
Categories
· Business (Tobacco)
· Tobacco Control
· Colleges
· Elections/Politics
· Ethics
· Philanthropy/Funding
· Smokeless
· Lobbying
non-USA, by Country
· Canada
Organizations
· MO

Tobacco funds cause friction at University  

Motion to ban funds ineffective
Jump to full article: The Gateway (University of Alberta) (ca), 2009-09-15
Author: Sean Steels, Senior News Editor

Intro:

An anti-tobacco student group based in Toronto has called for an all-out boycott on involvement with the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health (SPH) because of a tobacco-industry-funded researcher and his attempt to affect the composition of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Tobacco Act.

The anti-tobacco group, called Education Bringing Youth Tobacco Truths (E-butt) identified a letter from SPH Associate Professor Carl Phillips to the House of Commons Health Committee on June 10, 2009, as unethical based on his failure to disclose his reception of funds totalling $1.5 million from U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, now owned by Philip Morris USA.

E-butt has demanded the SPH issue a statement distancing itself from Phillip’s comments, and condemning both his use of SPH letterhead and failure to disclose his associations with the tobacco industry.

Phillips wrote the letter asking the House of Commons to exempt what he calls “low-risk nicotine sources,” such as Snus, Skoal, and chewing tobacco, including flavoured tobacco products, from the effects of Bill C-32, which is primarily purposed to protect the health of Canadians and “protect young persons and others from inducements to use tobacco products.” . . .

“In academia, one normally discloses any potential conflicts of interest, and when Phillips sent his letter, he didn’t,” Soskolne said.

According to Ward, however, the concern over academic freedom should not be held in higher regard than concerns of public safety.

Also irking E-butt is the fact that Phillips sent his recommendation on SPH letterhead, which could, according to Ward, lead to the misconception that his suggestions were a public statement from the SPH.

Jump to full article »