Thursday, 6 November 2025

Chris van Tulleken and the slippery slope

 

I suspect that if more people saw what goes on in Select Committee meetings there would be an armed insurrection. I've watched two recently, one from Canada where some insufferable politicians want to put cancer warnings on alcohol, and one in Britain where the Health and Social Care Select Committee is holding an inquiry into "food and weight management". 
 
This is how political pygmies distract themselves from the real business of government. Outside, prisoners are released by accident, the national debt is approaching three trillion pounds and the NHS consumes record funding to no great effect. Inside, politicians talk to idiotic nanny statists about "ultra-processed food".
 
Economic growth has been essentially non-existent for years and the price of food has risen by 37% since 2020. And yet the Select Committee wants to tax food and ban advertising. To an outsider, this seems like a form of madness or a conspiracy against the public. It only starts to make sense when you realise that they all read the same things and listen to the same people. The Health Select Committee has had two days of hearings. Every single person who "gave evidence" is a zealot or a professional activist. There were three people from Jamie Oliver's front group Bite Back, two who used to work at the tiny pressure group Action on Sugar, two from the devious Food Foundation and one of the clowns from Nesta. None of the food industry's millions of satisfied customers appear to have been invited.
 
 
I didn't recognise any of the MPs and it was impossible tell which parties they represented because they all hold the same statist views. So did the witnesses, of course. This all gives the politicians the illusion of consensus which will only be shattered when their policies are implemented and the public becomes aware of them (look at the backlash against the ban on drink refills, for example, which is a far more modest measure than anything discussed by this committee).
 
The star turn was Chris van Tulleken. Several MPs said how impressed they were by his ridiculous, error strewn book. One of the few positive things that can be said about van Tulleken is that he is upfront about what he wants. He brought along a pack of cigarettes, some wholegrain bread and a can of baked beans, products which he admits are "not entirely equivalent" but equivalent enough for him to want to do to food everything that has been done to tobacco.  
 
 
He also made the important admission that health warnings are not really about giving people useful information but about demonising certain products so that more regulation and taxes can be applied to them. Again, the model is - quite explicitly and despite decades of slippery slope denial - tobacco. What will it take for the food industry to wake from its slumber?
 
 
When asked if there are any food brands that would be allowed to advertise under his regime, van Tulleken struggled to think of any. He even claimed that "very credible nutrition academics" think that all food advertising should be prohibited. 
 

Opinion differs on what drives van Tulleken's increasingly demented campaign against brown bread. Some say he is a grifter trying to sell copies of his book. Others say he is an attention seeker. My view has always been that he has an unhealthy relationship with food and suffers from orthorexia nervosa. He casually mentions in his book that he has been known to make himself vomit so he can eat more food, i.e. he has (or has had) bulimia, but seems to think ti

Giving evidence, he admits that he has the self-control of a six year old when it comes to ice cream. The video below is telling in several ways, not least in that he assumes that his experience is universal and that it is the fault of Big Food for making food too delicious. He reckons that ice cream, which has been around for centuries, is tasty because it is "engineered using brain scanners".
 
 
Even if he were less wrong about the science and policy, this is not someone MPs should be listening to.




Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 12:22 pm 0 comments

Wednesday, 5 November 2025

Dewi Evans' unpublished letter to Private Eye

Private Eye's M.D. (Phil Hammond) is obsessed with the Lucy Letby case and has now published more than 30 lengthy (by Private Eye's standards) articles about it. They are getting rather repetitive so you'd think the magazine would be interested in some fresh content from someone who has an intimate knowledge of the case.

And yet when Dewi Evans, one of the key prosecution witnesses whom Hammond has bitterly attacked, wrote a letter to Private Eye, the editor chose not to publish it, although it did print a weird letter about the case from someone who inferred something from the way someone said something. Dr Evans has shared his letter with me and it is published below with his permission.

 

17 October 2025 

Letters
Private Eye

The Editor

I am at a loss to understand Dr Phil Hammond’s excitable article in this week’s edition of The Eye, which relate to events surrounding the collapse and death of the infant known as Baby C.

The clinical facts are straightforward. Baby C was a tiny baby who was responding satisfactorily to treatment for pneumonia until his unexpected collapse. My preliminary report dated 7 Nov 2017 noted that “I have concerns regarding the unexpected collapse of [Baby C] at around 23.00 hr on 13 June 2015”. I added that “I would advise scrutinising the staffing present at the time”. Lucy Letby’s name as a ‘suspect’ was not known to me at the time, and there was no record of her presence in the infant’s clinical notes.

Cheshire Police’s attention to detail confirmed that the infant’s collapse occurred when in Lucy Letby’s presence, after the baby’s designated nurse had gone for a break. Lucy Letby’s involvement was noted in more detail in evidence given at the Thirlwall Inquiry [9 October 2024].

An x-ray taken 36 hours before the baby’s collapse noted a large ‘gas bubble’ in the stomach. The cause of the bubble has been the source of considerable discussion. Irrespective of its cause its presence cannot explain his collapse. Several clinical markers during the 36 hours after the x-ray was taken noted an encouraging improvement in his condition. His heart and breathing rates were within the normal range for a baby of his size. His oxygen saturations were in the high 90s. His oxygen requirements were falling, being just 25% just before his collapse. Encouragingly, he was deemed well enough to be taken out of his incubator for ‘skin to skin’ contact with his mother on the afternoon of his collapse and the day before.

An injection of air into the stomach would compromise the breathing of a tiny baby, quickly destabilising him. An injection of air directly into the bloodstream would be even more catastrophic. Whilst one cannot exclude the former the latter explanation is a more likely explanation for his collapse. One cannot rule out the possibility of his suffering from a combination of both. Either is indicative of inflicted injury, where the perpetrator would know that their action would place a vulnerable baby in harm’s way. This evidence led to the jury finding Lucy Letby guilty of the baby’s murder.

It's regrettable that Dr Hammond made no effort to get in touch with me prior to publishing his article. If he cares to get in touch with Cheshire Police, the CPS, or the Prosecution team, I am sure they would confirm the sequence of events I have described above, thus setting the record straight.

Sincerely

Dewi Evans



Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 8:30 am 0 comments

Tuesday, 4 November 2025

See you in Hell, European Alcohol Policy Alliance!

Some excellent news from Brussels where the European Commission is pulling funding from more NGOs...
 

Eurocare announces closure of its Brussels office amid funding difficulties

The Board of Eurocare have announced that due to constraints on its funding it will no longer be able to maintain an office in Brussels and will be letting go its paid staff members from the end of the year. 

 
Eurocare AKA the European Alcohol Policy Alliance is a major part of the global temperance network established by Derek Rutherford. It has been kept afloat by unwitting taxpayers for years and is currently run by Florence Berteletti who used to run the Smoke Free Partnership (no slippery slope, eh?). Hopefully she is now out of a job and the Smoke Free Partnership will also be closed down because, as Politico reports... 
 
The Commission confirmed in July that it would be scrapping its operating grants — cash that goes toward daily overhead costs like staff salaries — for all health NGOs, despite signaling to many organizations that it would continue to fund them this year.
 
Haha! Afuera! 
 
Although Eurocare claims to be "funded by a combination of membership fees and EU grants", it seems to have had only two donors last year: the European Commission and a Norwegian temperance group - and the Norwegian temperance group was overwhelmingly funded by the Norwegian government. The European Public Health Alliance has already bitten the dust after losing its EU grant (and everybody falling out with each other in its toxic workplace). The rest of these tax-spongers wowsers won't be far behind. 
 
In the UK, Alcohol Concern vanished as soon as its Department of Health grants were withdrawn and ASH have said that they would have to look at shutting down if their own DHSC grants were pulled. Isn't it strange that organisations which supposedly fight for popular causes can't survive on donations from the public? It's almost as if the general public don't consider lobbying for illiberal, killjoy policies to be a good cause at all!
 


Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 9:00 am 0 comments

Monday, 3 November 2025

The big lies of ASH

 

ASH News


Hazel Cheeseman, the head of Britain's most dishonest pressure group ASH, has taken to the pages of The Grocer to tell small retailers what is good for them. You might think that owners of convenience stores know their business and customers better than someone who has only ever worked in public affairs, but the say-anything, do-anything prohibitionists at ASH have long maintained that selling cigarettes is holding corner shops back. Cheeseman writes...
 
Big Tobacco is out in force telling retailers what to think about impending changes to the law. 
 
And the pot is out in force calling the kettle black. 
 
As you may have heard, the government is phasing out the sale of tobacco to the next generation, which means by 2027 no one born before 2009 can be legally sold tobacco.
 
We’ve all seen the articles and the adverts from tobacco manufacturers painting a picture of doom over these proposed changes. And behind the scenes, no doubt, there are countless emails, letters, and visits from company reps pushing the same message: that stronger tobacco regulation spells disaster for business.
 
But the real burden on retailers isn’t regulation – it’s reliance on tobacco itself. Cigarettes might bring in footfall, but they deliver some of the lowest margins in retail, often just 6%. Smokers are quick, transactional customers; they buy their pack and leave.
 
About 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes is tax. The retailer obviously doesn't get a share of that. But if a pack of cigarettes is £15, a 6% share is 90p. Not bad for a quick transaction. Since the actual product only costs about £3, the pre-tax profit margin is 30%. If ASH wants retailers to have a bigger post-tax profit margin, it should call for tobacco duty to be cut. 
 
By contrast, the same customers who quit smoking or switch to legal vapes tend to buy more, such as food to go, coffee, groceries and snacks. Every time that happens, both retailer and customer are better off. 
 
Ex-smokers obviously spend their money on other things. The problem for small retailers is that people can buy 'food to go', coffee, groceries and snacks in lots of places whereas smokers go specifically to local corner shops to buy their snouts. Most corner shops don't sell hot food and coffee at all. 
 
In any case, retailers are not so much worried about people quitting smoking as they are about smokers evading tobacco duty (and, in the future, bypassing the ridiculous generational ban) by buying cigarettes on the illicit market.
 
When display bans and plain packaging were first introduced, the same scare stories were rolled out. Yet the evidence tells a different story. ASH’s retailer survey, conducted by an independent market research firm with 900 small retailers, found 74% said the display ban had no negative impact or even helped their business, and 75% said the same about plain packs. Retailers adapted and carried on trading successfully.
 
Neither of these stupid policies had an impact on the smoking rate, although the display ban did make it easier for retailers to sell illicit cigarettes. That was good news for some shops but presumably not for the legitimate businessmen who read The Grocer and who are losing a lot of money to a black market that ASH barely acknowledges the existence of.
 
The illicit trade myth
 
At ASH we are not remotely complacent about the illegal tobacco market. 
 
Yes you are. You have to be to do your corrupt job.
 
It brings crime into our communities, undermines legitimate trade and keeps people smoking. Illicit trade is a real issue – but it’s not caused by sensible regulation. In fact, illicit tobacco consumption has dropped by almost 90% since 2000-01, even as tax and regulation have tightened. 
 
If you believe that, you will be believe literally anything. Legal cigarette sales nearly halved between 2021 and 2024. The black market is quite obviously big and getting bigger. 
 
The best way to end the illicit trade in tobacco, possibly the only way, is to end the demand for tobacco.
 
Indeed it is the only way. But the Tobacco and Vapes Bill doesn't tackle demand. It is all about controlling supply, and we know what happens when supply is artificially restricted while demand remains high. The UK is already a cautionary tale, but Australia, with its even higher tobacco taxes and total ban on vapes, is the ultimate shipwreck that the rest of the world can use as a lighthouse. 
 
On the same day that Cheeseman's article was published, The Australian published this... 
 
Tobacco taxes backfire as black market cripples retail giants
 
Australia’s two biggest supermarket chains have recorded a collapse in tobacco sales, blaming Labor’s aggressive tax hikes and the booming black market for hollowing out legitimate trade.
 
Coles and Woolworths both reported more than 50 per cent declines in tobacco revenue over the past year – the sharpest fall on record – with the retailers saying cigarettes were priced so high that smokers have turned to untaxed, criminally supplied alternatives.
 
Amazingly, these retailers have not been selling enough coffee and 'food to go' to make up the shortfall. 
 
Woolworths revealed a 51.1 per cent plunge in sales for the first quarter, while Coles reported a 57 per cent decline, saying tobacco products now made up less than 2 per cent of total sales.
 
“New tobacco legislation and growth in the illicit market led to a 57 per cent decline in tobacco sales compared to the prior corresponding period with tobacco sales this quarter now less than 2 per cent of total sales,” Coles noted in its first-quarter trading update.
 
Nothing to see here, eh Hazel? 
 
Woolworths chief executive Amanda Bardwell said the decline in tobacco sales was “accelerating” when asked about the plunging figures during her full-year results announcement. “We’re still navigating some near-term challenges, particularly the material reduction in tobacco sales,” she said. 
“It’s been well-discussed by others, but the decline in tobacco sales is accelerating and the current regulatory settings, and continued illegal sales, is evident in our performance.”

The collapse follows The Australian’s investigation into the black market, which revealed convenience stores recorded a $2bn collapse in legal tobacco sales.
 
It is frankly shameful that politicians and the British media have avoided mentioning the real world fiasco that has been unfolding in Australia while the Tobacco and Vapes Bill has been rolling through Parliament. The government pays more attention to the fabulist propaganda of ASH than to what is actually happening in another country.
 

 


Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 10:51 am 0 comments

Friday, 31 October 2025

Desperate gamblers?

  
I'm not sure why the Lords were talking about gambling this week, but it seems that they were because Natalie "brain fade" Bennett treated the House to her thoughts.
 
 
Bennett is appalled that the most common reason given by gamblers for their gambling is to win a lot of money. She interprets this as a sign of "desperation" and describes gambling - which the state is "allowing"[!] - as a "tax on desperation". For some reason she failed to mention the second most common reason reported in the Gambling Survey for Great Britain...
 

Gambling ‘for the chance to win big money’ and ‘because it’s fun’ remain the most popular reasons given as to why respondents gambled.

 
The same survey found that 48% of Brits gambled in the past 4 weeks, two-thirds of whom played the National Lottery. What other reason could someone have to play the lottery than winning big money? That is the whole point of lotteries. It is how the government markets the lottery (other forms of gambling cannot induce punters with the explicit promise of big wins but the state exempts itself from this restriction, as it does from so many other rules). It is the hope of a big win that makes the National Lottery fun, despite it having the worst odds you'll ever come across.
 
 
Meanwhile, left-wing think tanks in Derek Webb's orbit are demanding higher taxes on gambling in the full knowledge that this will lead to punters being given "poorer odds" and a "poorer deal". And yet somehow this will not damage the gambling industry and won't draw gamblers to the black market.  I've written about them for The Critic.
 
 



Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 1:38 pm 0 comments

Wednesday, 29 October 2025

Look Back in Anger: The Conservatives and the nanny state

I was on a panel at the Tory conference earlier this month discussing the nanny state with two (pretty sound) Conservative MPs. Much of it was given over to how dreadful the Tories were in office, and why not? Now let the healing begin. 

 



Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 2:46 pm 0 comments

Sunday, 26 October 2025

Tobacco prohibition and public opinion

FOREST have released the results of a survey they commissioned to gauge support for the generational tobacco ban that is the centrepiece of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The majority of respondents are, quite sensibly, against it. 59% of respondents said that people aged 18 or over should be allowed to buy tobacco.

Opinion polls are notorious for using leading questions, and people who respond to surveys are (a) easily swayed (b) afflicted by social desirability bias and (c) unlikely to think about second order consequences. It could be argued that the question above primes people to agree with adults being able to do things by listing some other things adults can do. But the survey also asked a question that is about as neutral as it could be. It describes what the government is planning and asked if they agree with it. Only 35% of respondents did, although note that support for people being allowed to buy tobacco at the age of 18 drops to 25% when they are offered the alternative of a 21 year age limit. 
 
 
People also understand that prohibition, even if introduced gradually, fuels the black market.
 

 And they can understand why smokers' tax morale is at rock bottom.
 
 
When the state-funded prohibitionists at ASH commission studies, they find majority support for the generational ban. How do they do it? Actually, it's not clear how they do it because they don't always publish the wording of their surveys. In May, they announced that their YouGov survey found "overwhelming public support for a bold smokefree future" and that "two-thirds of the public (68%) back the ‘Smokefree Generation’ policy". 
 
But the report ASH published did not give the wording of the question. All it said was that people "support the Smokefree Generation". If all they were asked was whether they supported the "Smokefree Generation", I suppose that's unsurprising. Were they told what that meant? 
 
We may never know. The survey is not available on the YouGov website, which doesn't seem like best practice to me. The media shouldn't give any coverage to opinion polls unless it is clear what questions have been asked.
  


Posted by Christopher Snowdon at 8:00 am 0 comments
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)