|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | 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’ [http://www.ash.org.uk/html/publicplaces/html/forestgla.html]. It is positioned as a grassroots body representing ordinary smokers but in reality it is heavily funded by the tobacco industry in order to exaggerate public support of relaxed smoking restrictions. 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 2005). 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 (ASH 2005) 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. The British American Tobacco company in particular gave substantial funding to the group, evidence of just one such instance of funding can be found in a memo from Simon Milson, the international government affairs manager. This document details three payments of over £8,000 given to the group in 1999, making a total of over £24, 000 for that year [http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/utz23a99]. 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, which shows the company wished to use FOREST as:
| + | #Redirect[[Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco]] |
| − | | |
| − | ‘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’ [http://bat.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqs55a99]
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Notes ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Stephen Wilkie, ‘Smokers urged to fight the ban’ ''Daily Star'' March 25, 2006
| |
| − | | |
| − | Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),Christian Aid and Friends of the Earth (2005) "[http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/050428.html BAT in its Own Words]"
| |
