On public health this government is in the pocket of big business and sleazy lobbyists

Today we saw yet another disgraceful capitulation by this government to the interests of their friends in big business.

Today we saw yet another disgraceful capitulation by this government to the interests of their friends in big business.

Despite all the evidence pointing to the fact that standardised tobacco packaging deters young people from taking up smoking, the government has done a u-turn.

Ministers say they need more evidence and that they are waiting to see the results of the introduction of standardised packaging in Australia. This is a completely spurious excuse. How much more evidence does the government need?

The government’s own systematic review of peer reviewed studies, carried out for the Department of Health (DH), found that, compared to branded cigarettes, plain standard packaging is: less attractive, especially to young people; improves the effectiveness of health warnings; reduces mistaken beliefs that some brands are ‘safer’ than others; and is therefore likely to reduce smoking uptake amongst children and young people.

Over a hundred lung doctors and consultants signed a letter recently saying ‘Restrictions on advertising and sponsorship mean that the cigarette pack has become the key marketing tool employed by the tobacco industry to attract and retain customers’.

In the UK, around 200,000 children aged 11-15 start smoking every year. There is compelling evidence that children’s perceptions of cigarettes are influenced by branding and that branding detracts from the impact of health warnings on packs.

This is the reason why the former Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley said:

“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers.” 

Even current Tory Public health minister Anna Soubry said recently that she was “personally persuaded” of the case for standardised packaging of cigarettes. And health minister Norman Lamb has said:

‘”I think it would be a legacy for this government to have legislated on something which would be a landmark public health reform and to be out there in front in Europe. It’s something that both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives could be very proud of”.

Another health minister, Dr Dan Poulter, has said:

“Introducing plain packaging for cigarettes could certainly help to reduce the brand marketing appeal of cigarettes to teenagers, and most importantly, help to stop young people from developing a smoking habit that can only shorten their lives.” 

But now the government has dropped the idea under pressure from the tobacco industry. And no doubt the hospitality lavished on members of Parliament by the tobacco industry at premium social events like the Chelsea flower Show and Glyndebourne didn’t hurt.

But the decision also carries the murky fingerprints of David Cameron’s political strategist Lynton Crosby. His company has had major contracts from the tobacco industry in the past and no doubt he was one of the voices urging the prime minister to take this decision.

Along with dropping Cameron’s personal commitment to a minimum unit price for alcohol, the government’s public health strategy is in tatters. Pleasing big business is more important to this government than the health of the nation.

This is the ‘old politics’, where the public looks on as politicians seem helpless in the hands of vested interests and lobbyists, and decisions are taken behind closed doors.

Tobacco remains Britain’s biggest single killer and cause of health inequality. Standardised packaging is a vital tool in reducing tobacco harm.

Above all this episode reveals the extent to which this government is in the pocket of big business and sleazy lobbyists.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

11 Responses to “On public health this government is in the pocket of big business and sleazy lobbyists”

  1. Ivan D

    I believe that the sleaziest moment in this whole tawdry plain packs affair was the letter from a tobacco control organization urging supporters to sign multiple petitions and therefore defraud a public consultation. A senior figure in public health admitted to having ultimate oversight of the document in question. Had he worked in the private sector he would have lost his job but different rules apply to the public health industry provided that its well heeled disciples continue to adhere to the autocratic, dogmatic line favoured by ideologues such as Diane Abbott. Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions for and against the plain packs proposal. The majority were against. Diane’s nasty insinuations and mudslinging are an insult to those who campaigned on principle for either side of this debate. I am sick of the sleaze emanating from UK politicians of all persuasions.

    I oppose plain packaging of cigarettes on principle. I expressed my opposition democratically. I do not smoke and I certainly don’t have any financial connection with the tobacco industry. Diane’s arrogant assumptions insult me and many like me. Her authoritarian tendencies do the Labour party no favours and will influence my decision the next time that I vote.

  2. Peem Birrell

    I suppose you would prefer them to capitulate to puritan ‘health’ advocates and their dodgy statistics. Evidence? That’s a good one.

  3. Jacko

    Tell us why the Labour government didn’t do it in thirteen years then.

  4. JC

    If it is a fact that plain packaging works, where is the evidence? If there is none, what’s wrong with waiting to see if some becomes available?

  5. Guest

    I suppose the argument is this only just occured, the last labour government just didn’t allow this to happen, it this government 100% to blame, when the realitty is this government is 10% to blame and the last labour one 90% to blame.

Comments are closed.