|
|
| (40 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | BAT and Front Groups
| + | *[[British American Tobacco: Front Groups|Front Groups]] |
| | + | *[[British American Tobacco: Advertising|Advertising]] |
| | + | *[[British American Tobacco: Lobbying|Lobbying]] |
| | + | *[[British American Tobacco: Third World Production|Third World Production]] |
| | + | *[[BAT Industries: Extract from 'Written in Flames']] |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | ==People== |
| | + | * [[Paul Rayner]] - Chief Operating Officer of [[British American Tobacco]] Australasia (since 1999). Rayner was previously Finance Director of [[British American Tobacco]] plc between 2002 to 2008. He is currently (in 2008) also Non-executive Director with energy company [[Centrica]], is Non-Executive Director of [[Qantas Airways Limited]] (since 2008) and held senior executive appointments with [[Rothmans Holdings Ltd]]<ref>Centrica [http://www.centrica.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=49 Management] Accessed 26th August 2008</ref>. |
| | | | |
| − | 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).
| + | ==Lobbying== |
| − | 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.
| + | *[[EUK Consulting]] Ltd<ref> [http://www.appc.org.uk/members/register/register-profile/?company=EUK%20Consulting Register 1st September 2014 - 30th November 2014] ''APPC'', accessed 28 January 2015 </ref> |
| | + | *[[FTI Consulting]]<ref>[https://registerofconsultantlobbyists.force.com/CLR_Public_Profile?id=00124000006ZigqAAC FTI Consulting profile 2016], ''parliament.uk'', accessed 29 April 2016</ref> |
| | | | |
| − | 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
| + | ==EU lobbying== |
| − | 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.
| + | BAT were among the top spending British based companies on EU lobbying in Brussels in 2014, spending between €1,500,000 and €1,750,000.<ref> [http://lobbyfacts.eu/news/29-01-2015/finance-industry-uks-biggest-lobbyist-brussels Finance industry is UK's biggest lobbyist in Brussels] ''Lobby Facts'', 26 January 2015, accessed 3 February 2015 </ref> They also have 4 lobbyists with European Parliament passes, allowing the bearer virtually unlimited access to the Parliament's buildings.<ref> [http://lobbyfacts.eu/reports/staffing/companies?page=2 Companies declaring the most lobbyists] ''Lobby Facts'', 26 January 2015, accessed 3 February 2015 </ref> |
| | | | |
| − | ‘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’
| + | ==Resources== |
| − | Bates number:321357061 http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vas03a99
| + | * Gary J. Fooks, Anna B. Gilmore, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080864 Corporate Philanthropy, Political Influence, and Health Policy], University of Bath, Nov 27, 2013, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080864 |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | ==References== |
| − |
| + | <references/> |
| − | Another angle in which front groups are used is to stimulate public support of relaxed smoking restrictions. FOREST the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco describes itself as ‘a media and political lobbying group that defends the interests of smokers’ In a report on smoking in public places which was submitted to the GLA (Greater London Authority) the group argue that passive smoking is not a significant risk to the health of non- smokers (ASH). It is also argued that restrictions on smoking in public spaces is detrimental to business, especially the restaurant and pub sectors. The group admit that they accept ‘donations’ from tobacco companies but claim that they do not promote smoking or speak on behalf of or in defence of the tobacco industry.. Using the term ‘donation’ to describe the input of the tobacco industry gives a false impression as in 2000 the group received 96% of their funding from this source. Despite the fact the group are apparently open about their funding the organisation is still misleading as it positions itself as representative of ordinary smokers but is in fact highly influenced by the industry This idea is summed up entirely in a BAT document sent to Nick Brookes, the director of the America Pacific region for the company, in February 1981, in which shows the company wished to use FOREST as:
| |
| | | | |
| − | ‘a consumer pressure group funded by the industry. There would be no attempt to conceal the funding but equally there would be no suggestion that FOREST were anything other than an independent consumer pressure group’ Bates number:303695993 http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqs55a99
| + | [[Category:Transnational Corporations]][[Category:Tobacco]][[Category:Tobacco Companies]][[Category:Tax avoidance]][[Category:EU Lobbying]] |
| − | | |
| − | This approach is not much different than those front groups which hide their true sponsorship. Although FOREST admits to industry funding they can still mislead the public by appearing to be a consumer led group. This is obviously the intention of the tobacco companies who wish to make it appear as though they have widespread consumer support. Although undoubtedly many people agree with relaxed smoking legislation groups such as FOREST exaggerate this support and so obscure the true facts about the issue.
| |
| − | Groups such as FOREST are often used to publicise opposition to smoking bans in public spaces. One such example is in the Scottish edition of the Daily Star, March 25, 2006: ‘Smokers urged to fight the ban’ in which FOREST spokesmen Neil Rafferty says ‘The claims about passive smoking are a calculated deception by anti-smoking groups to scare the population and manipulate weak-minded politicians.’ The article goes on to urge smokers to resist the Scottish smoking ban which is positioned as an infringement of their rights. Although this can be seen as an expression of the opinions of smokers it is also an important tactic used by the tobacco industry which stands to lose vast amounts of revenue if such smoking bans are implemented. In 1993 Philip Morris highlighted the threat from restrictions on smoking when it said: ‘[The] Financial impact of smoking bans will be tremendous.’
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Front Groups can also be used which appear to represent the hospitality industry but are in fact just another tobacco industry PR exercise. Stan Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California wrote an article looking at tobacco industry funding of the hospitality industry (http://www.prwatch.org/node/1221) which appeared in the June issue of Tobacco Control, a specialist publication of the British Medical Journal. Glantz used internal industry documents to prove that tobacco manufacturers gave donations to more than 65 hospitality groups in the USA alone. He writes that:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ‘tobacco companies made financial contributions to existing hospitality associations or, when it did not find an association willing to work for tobacco interests, created its own 'association' in order to prevent the growth of smoke-free environments. ... Through the myth of lost profits, the tobacco industry has fooled the hospitality industry… in reality 100% smoke-free laws have been shown to have no effect on business revenues, or even to improve them. The tobacco industry has effectively turned the hospitality industry into its de facto lobbying arm on clean indoor air." (http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/11/2/94)
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are countless groups which represent hospitality interests, many of which reflect genuine fears within the industry about the possible effect on profits a smoking ban may have. There are also groups which have received funding from the tobacco industry and some which have been entirely invented which play on the fears of business owners by claiming that smoking restrictions lead to significant losses of profit.
| |
