|
|
| (51 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The tobacco industry has a long history of using PR techniques to avoid regulation and undermine opposition. By looking at just one company - British American Tobacco (BAT) and its involvement in funding front groups the huge extent of this manipulation is evident. Tobacco companies have used front groups for decades, often working in co-operation with each other in order to maximise results. In 1998, as a result of litigation, tobacco companies were required to open up their records for public access, this has allowed researchers to uncover information on the inner workings of the tobacco industry. With the use of these documents several instances of BAT funded front groups have been found, showing the lengths to which the industry is willing to go to protect its interests.
| + | [[British American Tobacco]] |
| | | | |
| − | ==ARISE==
| + | The tobacco industry has a long history of using PR techniques to avoid regulation and undermine opposition. By looking at just one company -- British American Tobacco (BAT) -- and its involvement in funding front groups the huge extent of this manipulation is evident. Tobacco companies have used front groups for decades, often working in cooperation with each other to maximise results. In 1998, as a result of litigation, tobacco companies were required to open up their records for public access, which has allowed researchers to uncover information on the inner workings of the tobacco industry. With the use of these documents several instances of BAT-funded front groups have been found, showing the lengths to which the industry is willing to go to protect its interests. |
| − | Front groups have been used for a variety of purposes, one particularly important aspect being the health implications of tobacco. ARISE (Associates for Research into the Science of Enjoyment) is one group concerned with such issues. The group describe themselves as an ‘apolitical affiliation of independent scientists and academics’ which conduct research into some of life’s pleasures including chocolate, tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco. Their research concludes that partaking in such pleasurable experiences can be beneficial to health and lowers stress, going so far as to claim ‘higher resistance to cancer and less risk of damage to the stomach and heart’. These statements are in direct opposition to other medical studies into the consequences of tobacco use which have proven the negative impact on health. ARISE follows up their claims with criticism of such health information initiatives, arguing that the so called ‘health police’ ‘could be causing more harm than good’ (Monbiot). Furthermore, Professor David Warburton of the University of Reading, one of the leaders of the group, published a number of articles in academic journals which questioned findings regarding the addictive qualities of nicotine. Warburton also wrote of his contempt for ‘health scares’ which he claimed were often ill founded and could cause more harm than good because of the guilt and stress they cause could cause of health problems in itself. (Monbiot).
| |
| − | The danger of such a group is the widespread coverage it received and the fact that the public were mislead into believing research was based on independent medical inquiry. In an article published in the Guardian George Monbiot found that between September 1993 and March 1994 the group generated 195 newspaper articles, radio and television interviews. Taking just one example of such coverage, the December 22, 1996 issue of the Times includes the article ‘Eat, drink and be merry!’ which discusses the research findings of ARISE. The article included a quote from Warburton saying ‘a few puffs on a cigarette’ was proven to make people happier and thus improve their health. However the same article also states that although the group admit to receiving funding from the alcohol and chocolate industries they ‘stop short of taking money from the tobacco industry’. This claim from ARISE is proven to be false by the internal documents of the BAT company.
| |
| | | | |
| − | Monbiot writes of his discovery of documents which prove the involvement of tobacco companies including Philip Morris, BAT and Rothmans in the funding of the group. Documents relating specifically to the contributions from BAT are also to be found. One example being a letter dated September 1991 from Professor Warburton giving an invoice to BAT for their donation of £13.000 to fund a group meeting in Venice. Bates number:300561846-300561847 http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/maa35a99
| + | *[[ARISE]] |
| | + | *[[ITGA]] |
| | + | *[[FOREST]] |
| | | | |
| − | ==ITGA== | + | ==Notes== |
| − | Another way in which front groups are used is as a weapon against regulation on the premise that many countries economies are dependent upon tobacco production. ITGA (the International Tobacco Growers Association) was supported by BAT (ASH) with the aim of promoting the economic benefits of tobacco growing. In this extract from a BAT document written by Shabanji Opukah, BAT’s corporate social responsibility manager, it is clear that ITGA is being used to avoid regulation on the industry with specific reference to the World Health Organisation’s Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI). There is also declaration of the intent to undermine a study by the World Bank which argued that ‘the negative effects of tobacco control on employment have been greatly overstated’ (ASH) a claim that ITGA is used to deny.
| + | <references/> |
| − | | + | [[Category:Tobacco Companies]][[Category:Front Groups]] |
| − | ‘our efforts to ensure we get the most from our investment in ITGA is paying back. ITGA agreed to dedicate themselves to a number of core big areas of concern TFI and the issue of economic impact…Objective is to rebut the world bank study and get third world governments on our side on the issue’
| |
| − | Bates number:321357061 http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vas03a99
| |
| − | | |
| − | It has now been uncovered that ITGA was funded by BAT, an internal company memo from Simon Milson, the international government affairs manager, details three payments of over £8,000 given to the group in 1999, making a total of over £24, 000 for that year. Despite this funding great efforts were made to ensure the association was seen to be independent. In another memo Milson stresses the ‘need to remember that this is an ITGA/ farmers initiative and they should be doing the writing to governments’ (ASH) referring to the tactic of using ITGA to encourage farmers to lobby governments on the importance of tobacco growing to the economy. BAT uses this method of using third world tobacco growers as a front because they are seen to have the ‘moral high ground’ (ASH) and more credibility than industry insiders.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==FOREST==
| |
British American Tobacco
The tobacco industry has a long history of using PR techniques to avoid regulation and undermine opposition. By looking at just one company -- British American Tobacco (BAT) -- and its involvement in funding front groups the huge extent of this manipulation is evident. Tobacco companies have used front groups for decades, often working in cooperation with each other to maximise results. In 1998, as a result of litigation, tobacco companies were required to open up their records for public access, which has allowed researchers to uncover information on the inner workings of the tobacco industry. With the use of these documents several instances of BAT-funded front groups have been found, showing the lengths to which the industry is willing to go to protect its interests.
Notes
