Friday 28 September 2018

The WHO's immortality delusion

Yesterday saw the WHO's High Level Meeting on NCDs (non-communicable diseases) take place in New York. The good news is that the accompanying Political Declaration did not mention sin taxes on soft drinks, alcohol or tobacco. This has annoyed lots of nanny state campaigners who have had to settle for publishing a bunch of glorified advice sheets (like this) which are not remotely binding.

The bad news is that the WHO is off its head. I've written about the patent insanity of pretending that non-communicable diseases can be wiped out before. You may have thought that I was exaggerating or straw-manning. I was not. If anything, it's worse than I thought. The #BeatNCDs wheeze isn't just the latest incarnation of middle class paternalism that puts the whims of first world political activists before the needs of the developing world. It is genuinely delusional.

For example, here is Director-General Tedros calling on the world's governments to eradicate all non-communicable diseases within 12 years. Oh, and 'solve' mental health.

And here he is explicitly stating that every last one of the 41 million deaths from non-communicable disease are preventable. Your granny who died in her sleep at the age of 95? A preventable death. That old boy who kicked the bucket at the age of 88? Preventable.

And here is the President of Zambia suggesting that it is pointless preventing people dying from horrific contagious diseases in childhood or in the prime of life because they'll only die from cancer or heart disease when they're 80.

This is truly bonkers stuff. What do they think people are going to die from if they succeed in preventing death from non-communicable disease? Is Tedros planning to unleash a global plague to end the scourge of NCDs?

This was not a health conference. It was a meeting of an ever-lasting life cult. And once they've finished in New York, many of the cultists will be heading to Geneva for their next religious service: the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control's eighth Conference of the Parties. Those guys really rack up the air miles.

Since the British taxpayer is paying for most of this, I'm going to head over there to see what we get for our money. I won't be allowed in - nobody from outside the tribe is - but Geneva is a small place so I should get to see some of the believers with my own eyes. On the agenda this year is censorship of the arts and banning all e-cigarette advertising, amongst many other things. It will be interesting to see whether the UK representatives, who will doubtless include ASH's Deborah Arnott, take a stand against the WHO's prohibitionist stance on vaping.

I'll be in Geneva from Thursday to Saturday and I know a few vaping activists and libertarians are also going to be showing up. If you're going to be in town, let me know. I have a little event planned for Friday evening. Drinks will be provided. Details to follow next week.

And feel free to use the graphic at the top of this post (lovingly designed by my wife) which I liked so much that I turned them into posters. Could come in handy...

Have a good weekend.

Wednesday 26 September 2018

Finally, a successful alcohol policy

Something extraordinary has happened at NHS Walsall. It has seen a 54 per cent drop in alcohol-related Accident and Emergency admissions and a 68 per cent reduction in bed days as a result of taking action on the 'frequent flyers' who come to A & E time and time again.

The NHS Trust identified ten people who were visiting A &E a great deal. How many times do you think they were admitted to hospital in a six month period? Ten? Sixty? A hundred?

The answer - incredibly - is 499. On average, each of them was being admitted twice a week.

It's an incredible statistic but the same thing is happening up and down the country. A small number of people who have a problem with alcohol - often combined with problems with drugs and mental health - take up a vast amount of NHS time.

So the Trust decided to focus on prevention among this small minority. They identified 38 frequent flyers and co-ordinated different service providers to help them out. As Daniel Hodgkiss, patient safety manager at the trust, explains:

'We identified a small number of hospital patients with complex needs that were discharged only to return multiple times and which accounted for a very disproportionate number of admissions.
'This was due to a lack of cohesion between social care, mental health services, police and a range of other services. By bringing these agencies together to co-ordinate patient care, we were able to substantially reduce admissions.'

The results have been astounding. A & E attendances have been more than halved! If other NHS Trusts achieved a fraction of this, it would result in huge savings (it is estimated that the initiative has saved NHS Walsall £250,000).

And yet I haven't seen any mention of this remarkable success story in the timelines of the anti-alcohol pressure groups or the 'public health' academics who profess expertise on alcohol policy. They are too busy whining about the PHE/Drinkaware collaboration and campaigning for (illegal) cancer labels on wine bottles in Ireland.

Could it be that dealing with the minority while leaving the majority alone doesn't quite fit their dogmatic belief that 'population-wide interventions have the greatest potential for prevention'?

As my friend Dick Puddlecote always says, it's not about health.

Sunday 23 September 2018

The martyrdom of Aseem Malhotra

Aseem Malhotra's bid to become famous and sell his diet book protect the health of the nation has provided this blog with some hilarious content over the years, but he hits new heights of comedic gold in the Sunday Times today.

The low carb/LCHF movement to which Malhotra belongs is ultra-conspiratorial. Being essentially a cult based on magical thinking, it blames other people's failure to share their beliefs on a vast and growing network of corrupt scientists and government agencies. You might wonder what motivates so many scientists, dietitians and bureaucrats to hide the truth about killer carbs, thereby condemning millions of people to 'diabesity', but the answer is obvious: they're all in the pay of Big Food/Big Soda/Big Grain/Big Ag! Wake up sheeple.

Malhotra denounced the British Dietetic Association as Big Food puppets after they dissed his diet book. He has since added the British Heart Foundation and the American Heart Association to his list.

Now it's Public Health England's turn. In a barking mad op-ed for the Sunday Times, he claims that the quango is trying to silence him. 

For decades, powerful food companies have profited from promoting misleading health information and aggressively marketing junk food to children and the most vulnerable members of society. Public Health England is charged with help to protect and improve the nation’s health. My experience is that its officials undermine public debate and behave more like a front group for the processed food industry rather than an independent and trustworthy body that welcomes public debate.

Really?! To put it mildly, that is not my experience.

In an effort to combat the epidemic of health misinformation I co-wrote a book, The Pioppi Diet, which brings together the evidence on what individuals and policy-makers can do to rapidly improve health and reverse the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. I was pleasantly surprised when the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, contacted me a few months ago to let me know he had “relatively easily” lost 94lb and improved his health by specifically following the diet.

Good for him. By his own account, Watson 'basically stopped taking sugar, refined sugar, and then I started walking 10,000 steps a day and walking up staircases and when a bit more weight came off I started to jog and cycle.' You don't need to spend £8.99 on Malhotra's ludicrous book to know that a regime like that is going to lead to weight loss.

The most important message in the book — which recommends a Mediterranean-style diet low in refined carbohydrate — is how lifestyle changes are more powerful than any drug in preventing and treating heart disease; these also come without side effects.

A diet low in refined carbohydrate is not a Mediterranean diet and Malhotra's 'Pioppi diet' is not the diet of people who live in Pioppi. Malhotra's diet takes bits of the Mediterranean diet, removes the bread and pasta and adds in lashings of saturated fat and an assortment of his own bizarre LCHF recipes, such as boiled and eggs and soldiers with the soldiers replaced with bits of asparagus wrapped in bacon.

For inexplicable reasons, according to one prominent healthcare leader (who has asked not to be identified), Public Health England tried to “sabotage” the launch and press coverage of the book last year. I was told by one eminent doctor that he had been contacted by a senior official from the body and warned from attending the launch in London, to be held at the headquarters of Penguin Random House. To his credit, he did attend.

Another health leader, who heads a national charity, did not attend, and said he had been “poisoned” against the book. Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester and a former health secretary, endorsed the book and attended a launch in Manchester. His office also received a call from Public Health England, warning him against showing public support of the diet.

Assuming Malhotra isn't making this up to get attention (who knows?), it wouldn't be wholly surprising if one of PHE's many employees suggested to 'health leaders' that it might not be in their interests to be associated with a man whom even Action on Sugar regards as being 'completely mad' and who has a track record of embarrassing journals with his error-strewn articles. Public Health England has criticised Malhotra's version of the Atkins Diet in public. It stands to reason that they would also criticise it in private.

I was shocked by these attempts to try and undermine a healthy eating plan, to stifle debate and to damage my credibility.



Public Health England’s own recommendations for healthy eating — which are promoted by the Eatwell Plate, a diet guide backed by the Department of Health, which includes chocolate, crisps and cakes to eat “less often” — was drawn up in consultation with the food industry.

Firstly, the Eatwell Plate was replaced by the Eatwell Guide in 2016. You'd think a self-proclaimed expert would know that.

Secondly, I know of no evidence that the Eatwell Guide was drawn up 'in consultation with the food industry'. This claim seems to be based on a wafer-thin article by Malhotra's friend and fellow low carb zealot Zoe Harcombe. Harcombe claims that the Eatwell Guide 'was formulated by a group appointed by Public Health England, consisting primarily of members of the food and drink industry rather than independent experts.' She provides no evidence for this assertion. Public Health England says it commissioned experts from Oxford University to develop the Eatwell Guide. Indeed it did. Their work can be seen here. None of them report any relevant conflicts of interest.

Thirdly, you'd have to be on drugs to think that Public Health England encourages people to eat chocolate, crisps and cakes. Indeed, one of main differences between the old Eatwell Plate and the new Eatwell Guide is these foods were taken off the plate altogether because, as the British Nutrition Foundation explains...

Foods high in fat, salt and/or sugars, which previously featured in the purple section of the Eatwell plate, have been moved outside the main image.

This has been done to clarify consumer understanding of the role of these foods and drinks in the diet. They are not a necessary part of a healthy diet but such products can be included, although they should only be consumed infrequently and in small amounts.

Their inclusion in the guide may help consumers feel that moving towards such healthy guidelines is an achievable and realistic target.

The Eatwell Guide therefore recommends food that is entirely healthy, unless you are a low carb nutter who thinks that bread and rice cause diabetes. It doesn't say that sweet treats should never be consumed because that would be extreme and unrealistic, but it clearly doesn't endorse them.

Malhotra continues...

I have not seen any statements from the organisation’s health officials saying we should be eating less of the sort of ultra-processed food that now makes up half of the British diet. 

Has he been living in a cave for the last few years or does a high fat diet cause amnesia? How did he miss this, this and this, for example? Public Health England never stops haranguing people about sugar, snacks and processed food. 

Public Health England makes different dietary recommendations to the Pioppi diet. It recommends placing starchy carbohydrates, such as bread, pasta, rice and potatoes, at the base of the diet, and to reduce consumption of saturated fats.

Now we're getting down to brass tacks. Malhotra's problem with the Eatwell Guide isn't that it encourages people to eat 'ultra-processed food' (it doesn't) but that it encourages people to eat starchy carbohydrates, presumably because of the nefarious influence of Big Bread, Big Pasta, Big Rice and Big Potatoes.

The reason Public Health England - and every other health agency in the world - makes different dietary recommendations to the 'Pioppi diet' because the 'Pioppi Diet' is a load of unscientific, low carb toot created by an attention-seeking cardiologist whose slogan is 'fat is your friend'.

I have published evidence reviews showing no association between consumption of saturated fat and a heightened risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and death, but Public Health England doesn’t want to debate the issues.

Malhotra has never published anything resembling an evidence review. He writes comment pieces in which he references a few cherry-picked studies, such as this and this. That is not the same thing at all.

We want to trust government dietary guidelines, but Public Health England must give a clear commitment to systematic reviews of the evidence. It must stop engaging in dirty tricks to try and censor and silence those who want to engage in legitimate debate.

Far be it from me to defend Public Health England, but they have no more reason to engage in debate with a diet book salesman on the make than with any other random conspiracy theorist. They have already responded to his rubbish once, saying in 2016: 'In the face of all the evidence, calling for people to eat more fat, cut out carbs and ignore calories is irresponsible.'

What more is there to say? Scientific issues are not resolved by Public Health England debating with people. They are resolved through the accumulation of evidence in peer-reviewed journals. Malhotra has never conducted any primary research and has never published anything but op-eds in journals (usually the Z-list British Journal of Sports Medicine). It is quite possible to accept - as I do - that fears about saturated fat have been over-hyped without relying on a patently unreliable narrator like Malhotra to design a healthy diet.

Inevitably, Malhotra's response to PHE's criticism of his dietary theories was to accuse them of incompetence and corruption (see tweets below). It's his response to everything. Why would anyone want to engage in debate with such a person?

Friday 21 September 2018

Drinkaware and the scream test

Public Health England's collaboration with Drinkaware for the 'two days off drinking' campaign is of little interest to the general public but has produced a hell of a squeal from 'public health'. Two weeks after the announcement, the hot takes are still coming. Here are a few of them...

The gist of these articles (they are all essentially the same) is that the government wouldn't work with the tobacco industry so they shouldn't work with the alcohol industry. This is the fabled slippery slope in action. By this logic, they shouldn't work with the food industry either, but they are working with the food industry - on labelling, reformulation and other things beside. They also work with the alcohol industry on drink driving, underage sales and much more. The wingnuts of the nanny state probably think that the industry wants people to drink drive because - as they keep claiming - their interests are irreconcilably at odds with those of 'public health'.

This is dogmatic nonsense and you have to be deep down the temperance rabbit hole not to laugh at it. Telling people to go teetotal for at least a couple of days a week isn't bad advice. It's not going eradicate liver disease but nor will the grab bag of nanny state interventions favoured by the people who have been spitting their dummies out of their pram for the last fortnight.

Alcohol Focus Scotland's Alison Douglas has often advised the public to have drink-free days in the past (see here and here, for example), but now that Drinkaware are saying it, she no longer thinks it is good advice. You couldn't ask for a better illustration of the fact that it's not about health for these people.

Or take this from a BMJ article with the hysterical headline 'Public Health England's capture by the alcohol industry' by the terrible trio of Ian Gilmore, Linda Bauld and John Britton...

The question that senior PHE managers do not seem to have asked themselves in the process of entering into this partnership, and certainly did not ask their alcohol leadership advisory board, is why the alcohol industry is happy to fund a campaign that ostensibly aims to reduce alcohol consumption. Had they done so they would have received the answer that the industry does so because it thinks the campaign will be ineffective or will divert attention from other more effective policies to reduce alcohol consumption that the industry fears more, such as minimum unit pricing.

Who needs evidence when you have sweeping assertions? "If they'd asked us, this is what we would have said, therefore it is the truth."

Like rain bringing worms to the surface, the PHE collaboration has drawn the worst people in 'public health' out to bat. Today, the Lancet published an equally woeful op-ed by the equally awful trio of Mark Petticrew, Martin McKee and Theresa Marteau, who say...

In its defence, PHE points to Drinkaware's independent governance. Drinkaware revised its governance after a critical evaluation, but its new model did not prevent Drinkaware and other industry bodies from disseminating messages that could mislead the public about the risk of cancer from alcohol consumption, using strategies similar to the tobacco and other industries.

Their evidence for this comes from an article Petticrew wrote last year which was full of errors (some people would call them lies) and totally misrepresented what Drinkaware say about alcohol and cancer. In a serious scientific discipline, the article would have been retracted.

Bhattacharya and colleagues report that in England about two-thirds of alcohol sales revenue comes from people drinking above guideline levels; if all drinkers followed recommended drinking guidelines, the industry would lose almost 40% of its revenue. The lead author of that study stated in a press release: “The government should recognise just how much the industry has to lose from effective alcohol policies, and be more wary of its attempts to derail meaningful action through lobbying and offers of voluntary partnership.”

Bhattacharya represents the Institute of Alcohol Studies (née the UK Temperance Alliance) and his study was economically illiterate garbage. His comments to the press, as with the conclusion of his study, were based on the fallacy that businesses chase revenue over profit.

This is what happens when you pride yourself on not having anything to do with the industry that makes the product about which you claim to be an expert. Knowing nothing, you can make up little fantasies in your head. That can work OK so long as you only associate with other conspiracy theorists, but take those ideas into the real world and people are likely to make fun of you.

And when even the people at Public Health England - Public Health fricking England - start to worry about your extremism, it's time to take a cold bath.

Thursday 20 September 2018

Why are we giving the WHO so much cash?

From the Express...

British taxpayers 'should not subsidise scaremongering anti-vaping laws'

British taxpayers should no longer subsidise “scaremongering” anti-vaping laws advocated by the World Health Organisation, consumer champions said tonight.

It includes a quote from my good self...

Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: “The WHO’s scaremongering stance on e-cigarettes is at odds with the British Government’s evidence-based position.

“The UK taxpayer is paying through the nose to support this prohibitionist organisation. So far, the Department of Health has been unable to turn our money into influence. It is now time to get tough. Unless the WHO withdraws its support for the prohibition of vaping, the government should withdraw its funding.”

The idea of defunding - or even threatening to defund - the World Health Organisation may trouble some people. After all, it has done great things. And yet its past achievements all involve communicable diseases whereas the 21st century WHO is obsessed with the first world problem of 'lifestyle-related' diseases which are neither as pressing nor as easily preventable - and which are certainly not preventable by clamping down on vaping.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to threaten to withdraw funds from this organisation until it (a) gets back to its primary function of tackling contagious disease, (b) removes the dark cloud hanging over its transparency and financial affairs, and (c) embraces science on harm reduction.

The UK has the motive and method by which to do this. We pay a staggering amount to the WHO compared to other countries. Check out its list of donors here.

In the 'general fund', the typical amount donated by a reasonably-sized, rich country is $10-30 million. France gives $13 million. Italy gives $10 million. Switzerland gives $11 million. Sweden gives $27 million. Korea gives $26 million.

A handful of countries give more than that. Canada gives $34 million. Norway gives $41 million. Japan gives $47 million. Germany gives $90 million, but Germany is the third biggest donor.

The biggest donor is the USA with $401 million but the UK, which has a smaller population than Germany and a population that is barely a fifth of the USA, is second with £163 million.

We must hope that some of the general fund is spent treating the sick and preventing infectious disease in the world's poorest countries, but that is certainly not how the WHO's money for tobacco control is spent. It is all advocacy, conferencing and nice hotel rooms. The Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control had an income of $5.1million in 2017. The split between countries is quite striking because there are only three of them: Australia, Panama and the United Kingdom. And guess who is paying for 72 per cent of it?

That's right: the British taxpayer - to the tune of $3,697,792.

Presumably this is the £15 million (to be spread over five years) gifted to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control by the Department of Health civil servant Andrew Black in 2016.

Shortly after this generous use of other people's money, Andrew Black got a job with the, er, WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fancy that!

Leaving aside the happy coincidences of Andrew Black's well remunerated career, you'd think that £15 million to the WHO's anti-smoking programme, plus annual contributions of £163 million and several other commitments, would give Britain the kind of 'soft power' that would allow it to make modest demands such as getting the WHO to stop saying that prohibition is an acceptable response to vaping, wouldn't you?

But apparently not, because the WHO's current position on vaping is to recommended 'prohibition or restriction of the manufacture, importation, distribution, presentation, sale and use' of e-cigarettes. That's right: prohibition.

Until the WHO stops recommending fecking prohibition for an effective substitute for smoking, it's reasonable to stop giving it cash, right?

Wednesday 19 September 2018

More drivel about non-communicable diseases

The World Health Organisation's war on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) has always been a quixotic project. When it set its ridiculous and unachievable targets in 2012, I suggested that it was an excuse for a 'prohibitionist’s charter'...

If 194 countries really have signed this quasi-treaty, you can expect to hear much more about our ‘legal obligations’ to control eating, drinking, smoking and - the mind boggles - ‘physical activity’ for many years to come. You may recall last year’s charming article from Jonathan Waxman in The Times titled ‘To avoid cancer, let the State dictate your diet’, which was itself based on the claim that lifestyles cause 40 per cent of cancer. That is only the start and it is, of course, why the puritans, bureaucrats, nannies and headbangers of public health are so keen on the idea of ‘non-communicable diseases’, because it gives them what every trigger-happy army general wants: a war without end.

It is the conceit that anyone, let alone the WHO, can 'beat NCDs' that most annoys me. The only alternatives to death from a non-communicable disease are death from a communicable disease, violence, overdose or suicide. Fifteen million people die from the one of the latter every year, mostly at a relatively young age, but it is those who die from a non-communicable disease, mostly at an older age, that concern the WHO.

I argued in Killjoys that the WHO should not be wasting its limited resources campaigning against diseases of old age in rich countries when people are dying from easily preventable infectious disease in the developing world. Some people hoped that appointing an African as Director-General of the WHO would put the organisation back on course, but instead he is ramping up the rhetoric. Take this ridiculous tweet, for example...

It's only a matter of time before he starts telling us how many jumbo jets this equates to. I enjoyed this response...

This is all part of the build up to a big WHO conference in New York next week which will see the 'NCD Alliance' call for taxes on sugary drinks to stop people dying in their beds at the age of 99. See my Spectator post from May for more on this surreal crusade.

Tuesday 18 September 2018

The over-provision of 'public health' ignorance

From The Times...

Call to tackle the ‘retail clusters’ that help cause ill‑health in Glasgow

Not this nonsense again?! How many times are we going to have to go over this? Retailers go where the demand and footfall are. If there was 'over-provision', the shops would close down.

Many of Glasgow’s most deprived areas are populated by “health-damaging” retail clusters that offer easy access to alcohol, fast food, cigarettes and gambling.

The finding, by researchers from Glasgow and Edinburgh universities, has prompted calls for tighter regulation to reduce the density of unhealthy outlets.

That was the intention, of course. There is no academic justification for the publication of a study that shows, for the umpteenth time, that city centre high streets have more off licences and bookmakers than the leafy suburbs.

“Our local environment shapes what we have access to and what we can afford,” said Linda Bauld, professor of health policy at Stirling university.

“The density of fast food, gambling, tobacco and alcohol outlets in deprived areas is almost certainly contributing to the health gap between rich and poor. This density can be changed through local planning processes and also through regulation.”

The question that people like Bauld can never answer is why, if businesses can make people engage in certain activities by merely existing, do retailers not 'target' wealthy areas where people have more money to spend? What kind of capitalist would waste his coercive powers on people who have little disposable income?

Miles Briggs, the Conservative MSP and the party spokesman on public health, has called for “determined local authority action” to tackle the problem.

 Ah yes, the Conservatives.

Frank McAveety, the Labour former leader of Glasgow council, said: “Clearly there is overprovision in some working class areas, creating a fatal combination of bookies, fast food shops and off-licences. There has to be a fundamental look at the legislative framework around overprovision and where powers lie and can be applied.”

The only over-provision I can see is a surplus of economically illiterate 'public health' studies written by people who don't understand supply and demand.

And yet, right at the end of the article, we get this...

Laura Macdonald, a co-author of the study, hopes the findings will influence change...


...but said: “We cannot ascertain why outlets are colocated in deprived areas — it could reflect shopper convenience or because retailers purposely choose areas close to populations with greater demand for specific goods.”

Yes, Laura! And the truth shall set you free!

It is both, of course, and that is all there is to say.

Monday 17 September 2018

Insufferable bastards

Public Health England had their annual conference last week with 1,600 delegates. It's probably best not to think about how much it cost the taxpayer.

Head honcho Duncan Selbie (salary: £220,000) kicked off proceedings with a speech in which he paid tribute to my Twitter #content. You can watch it below from 11 minutes 43 seconds...

The best of the quotes pertains to PHE being "insufferable bastards". Whilst I wish I had said this - and it does sound like the kind of thing I might say - I can't find any evidence that I did. And whilst I did indeed call Selbie an overpaid, parasitic quangocrat, this was in relation to his decision to stop everybody smoking by 2030 and not, as he claims, the recent advice to have two days off drinking a week. 

This suggests - not for the first time - that Big Dunc might not have full mastery of the facts. But there is no doubt that he is doing an outstanding job by his own criteria...

Friday 14 September 2018

Snowdon and Delingpole

James Delingpole's excellent podcast is the only podcast I always listen to. If you haven't subscribed to it yet, you should do so. If you haven't, you can listen to the latest edition, featuring my good self, below...

Thursday 13 September 2018

Mexico's sugar tax flop

Who could forget Mexico's sugar tax? Introduced at the start of 2014, it is the jewel in the crown of the growing movement to tax sugary drinks (and 'junk food', which Mexico also taxes). The Lancet describes it as a 'success', as does Bloomberg. A couple of studies have concluded that sugary drink sales fell appreciably after the tax was introduced, although these claims appear to be false

The World Health Organisation didn't wait to see if the taxes on soda and 'junk food' had an effect on obesity before it started campaigning for them. But in 2016, it said...

Mexico’s soda tax has reduced sales of sugar-sweetened beverages. Time will tell whether the tax helps to reduce obesity prevalence as well.

Now the wait is over. The years have passed and the jury is in. As Mexico News Daily reports...

Mexico’s obesity numbers are up nearly 4 million in 4 years to 24.3 million

Close to 4 million adult Mexicans joined the ranks of the obese between 2012 and 2016, a result of food insecurity and undernourishment according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In 2012, 20.5 million adults were considered obese, a figure that has since risen to 24.3 million.

Great success!

No other media outlet has reported these facts and the 'public health' lobby will ignore them. Real world evidence counts for nothing in this racket, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a study published soon claiming that obesity has fallen as a result of the taxes, based on an activist's 'computer model'.

PS. I'm quoted in this Euractiv article about sugar taxes: 

“If taxes on soft drinks were a pharmaceutical drug, they would never be licensed by a medical authority”. “The costs are significant while the benefits are wholly unproven. Soft drink taxes might be a good way to raise revenue and a nice way for politicians to feel that they are doing something, but they do not qualify as an anti-obesity policy. They are remarkably ineffective as a way of getting people to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks.”

Tuesday 11 September 2018

Toys out of the pram

Ian Gilmore: "Do as I said or I shoot!"
You may fondly recall neo-temperance extremists walking out of the government's Responsibility Deal project in a huff in 2011. You may also recall the same 'public health' groups storming out of the EU's Alcohol and Health Forum in 2015. When these people don't get what they want, they exclude themselves from positions of influence. It's a brilliant strategy!

Ian Gilmore, the chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, is throwing a similar hissy fit today, 'threatening' to walk out on Public Health England if they continue to promote sensible drinking advice with the semi-temperance charity Drinkaware. Why? Because Drinkaware is funded by the dreaded alcohol industry. Never mind that it is patently independent and does not further the drink industry's interests (as anti-alcohol morons understand them) in any way.

Gilmore and the anti-smoking fanatic John Britton, have written a pompous letter to The Times about it...

Sir, The launch of a new public awareness campaign on alcohol, jointly between Public Heath England (PHE) and the alcohol industry-funded organisation Drinkaware, marks a major shift in PHE policy in its willingness to share a public platform with the alcohol industry. It also demonstrates a failure at senior level in Public Health England to learn the lessons from the use by the tobacco and alcohol industries of voluntary agreements and other partnerships with health bodies to undermine, water down or otherwise neutralise policies to reduce consumption.

Given that responses to our submissions to PHE’s chief executive, Duncan Selbie, have confirmed that the lessons of history have not been learnt, we feel our respective roles as co-chairmen of the Alcohol Leadership and Tobacco Control Implementation Boards of PHE are undermined and must cause us to consider our positions if the partnership with Drinkaware is not terminated with immediate effect.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chairman, Alcohol Health Alliance, University of Liverpool; Professor John Britton, director, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Nottingham

The Times and The Sun are both reporting that Gilmore has already quit. If so, it's not a moment too soon. His involvement in the guidelines rigging process should have been a resignation issue and there should be no place for a hardline temperance zealot in a powerful government agency.

So long, Ian! Shut the door behind you.

One day these people will realise that they need the government more than the government needs them.

Friday 7 September 2018

The secrecy and paranoia of the WHO

With the WHO's anti-nicotine COP8 conference on the horizon, Harry Shapiro has written a timely article about the way the fanatics who run this shindig have weaponised Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. I'd nearly forgotten about them excluding Interpol from the conference in Delhi on the grounds that it is some sort of tobacco industry front group...

As originally written, Article 5.3 simply required Parties to protect their tobacco control policies from tobacco industry influence. Period. Even the subsequently published Guidelines to 5.3 broken down into four Principles only required Parties to have ‘accountable and transparent’ dealings with the industry. But these ‘Guidelines’ have morphed into Holy Writ, turning the whole enterprise into something resembling a fundamentalist Doomsday cult seeing conspiracy and ‘interference’ at every turn. There is now FCTC lore which has become insanely over-interpreted to mean that there should be no contact whatsoever not only with the industry, but with any organisation or individual that has any links whatsoever with the industry in any capacity. This manifests itself, for example, in the COP meetings which unlike for example the Climate Change Framework meetings, will not allow entry to industrial interests or any organisations that do not agree with its views. Any NGO wishing access has to be a member of the FCA while, on the grounds that somebody from the evil Empire might just hear what is going on, the public and the media are also pretty much excluded from the whole event and from reading the deliberations of the meeting. This is taken to ludicrous lengths by refusing access to Interpol because one of the world’s major law enforcement agencies has been working with the industry to combat the illicit tobacco trade. The FCTC Secretariat, clearly intoxicated with power, is now even trying to dictate to the Parties by attempting for a second time to push through a new rule which would exclude any delegate with links to state-owned tobacco industries. Even the Parties have been pushing back on that one.

But cloaking a publicly funded and therefore publicly accountable agency in secrecy is bad enough, but for a global public health agency to put millions of lives at risk in the service of rampant self-aggrandisement is another matter altogether. Because the WHO persists in the fallacy against all the evidence that safer nicotine products are just a ruse by Big Tobacco to renormalise smoking, wherever possible, the agency along with its NGO allies, invokes 5.3 to effectively close down any debate on the matter by simply accusing advocacy and consumer groups and any professionals engaged in tobacco harm reduction as being Big Tobacco stooges.

Do read it all.

Wednesday 5 September 2018

The EU throws vapers under the bus again

The WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is holding its biennial conference in Geneva next month. It is the eighth 'Conference of the Parties', hence it is known as COP8.

In preparation for the event, various documents have been circling the global anti-smoking community to get a consensus on what to ban next. The depiction of tobacco use in the arts is one candidate. You can read the WHO's proposal here. The most notable part of the document is the WHO's intention to include tobacco use on film and television as tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) because:

Entertainment media content such as movies, music videos, online videos, television programmes, streaming services, social media posts, video games and mobile phone applications have all been shown to depict and promote tobacco use and tobacco products in ways that may encourage youth smoking uptake... Therefore, policies that reduce youth exposure to entertainment media depictions are required.

What policies are needed to achieve this desired level of censorship? The WHO suggests the following...

Parties are urged to develop legislation or administrative measures to reduce tobacco depictions in entrainment [sic] media such as requiring tobacco industry disclosure of all expenditures associated with TAPS [tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship], requiring health and content warnings on material that depicts tobacco, banning tobacco branding from all entertainment media, requiring that any tobacco products shown must include required health warnings and other regulatory requirements relating to packaging (such as plain packaging), and requiring age ratings on entertainment media including music videos and video games. Further, Parties are urged to prohibit tax concessions and subsidies for films that include tobacco promotions.

The EU is one of the FCTC's members and, due to its size, it is rather influential. So have they objected to this? Yes, they have. But not because the proposals are too extreme. They object because they don't go far enough. In particular, the EU wants vaping to be included. In a document from the EU to the FCTC dated 30th August that was leaked to me this morning, the EU says (emphasis in the original):

The EU welcomes the report of the Expert Group on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship and supports its recommendations... [The EU] stresses that TAPS [tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship] regulatory frameworks and their implementation at national, regional and international levels do not only cover all tobacco products, both traditional and emerging ones such as heated products, but should also consider tobacco-related products such as ENDS.

ENDS are electronic nicotine delivery systems: e-cigarettes. The EU's position - which it will be voicing in Geneva next month - is that there should not only be a worldwide ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products, but that there should be a worldwide ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship of e-cigarettes. Furthermore, it wants the proposed restrictions on people smoking in movies, music videos, reality TV programmes, etc. to apply to people who are vaping. For example, a film which shows someone using an e-cigarette would automatically get an 18 certificate.

Has the UK gone along with this? If it has - and surely it must have done - how is it consistent with the government's pro-vaping Tobacco Control Plan or Public Health England's harm reduction agenda?

And if this is the EU's position on the 'advertising, promotion and sponsorship' of e-cigarettes, how bad is its position on the other regulatory issues going to be?

Once again, the EU and the Department of Health have shown that they cannot be trusted to represent consumers. It looks like we'll have to represent ourselves. I'll be going to Geneva next month. Who's with me?

Tuesday 4 September 2018

Australia's new tobacco industry

Tobacco duty went up again in Australia on Saturday. The annual hike of 12.5% (plus sales tax) brings the price of an average pack of 25 up to $34 (£19).

You'd expect nothing less in the World Leader of Tobacco Control. Australian governments have been doggedly fighting smokers the tobacco industry for years. Alas, a new tobacco industry has emerged which is rather less compliant with the law, so let's see how those magnificent, evidence-based anti-smoking policies (plain packaging, sky-high taxation and a ban on vaping) have been working out in the last few months, shall we?

16 August:
Six Chinese family members accused of smuggling millions of cigarettes into Australia by hiding them in tiles are charged with laundering $11 million in organised crime money

A Chinese family allegedly laundered at least $11 million of dirty money for organised crime groups, after federal police seized illegally imported cigarettes in Melbourne.

Four men and two women, who are all from the same family, have been charged with smuggling tobacco and dealing with the proceeds of crime, police confirmed on Thursday.

1.5 tonnes of illicit weed seized near Grafton

The Illicit Tobacco Taskforce (ITTF) is continuing to disrupt the illicit tobacco market in Australia, this time seizing and destroying 1.5 tonnes of tobacco with a potential excise value of more than $1.3 million from a property near Grafton.

... Recent estimates from the ATO and the Department of Home Affairs reveal that almost $600 million in tobacco duty was foregone in 2015-16 financial year as a result of the trade in illicit tobacco.

It has been illegal to grow tobacco in Australia for more than a decade, with no licensed tobacco producers growing the crop since 2006.

Since July 2016, the ATO has undertaken 37 seizures totalling 231 tonnes of illicit tobacco with estimated tobacco duty forgone of $194 million.

In the last financial year the ABF also made more than 110,000 detections of illicit tobacco at the border including almost 240 million cigarettes and 217 tonnes of tobacco, worth more than $356 million in evaded duty.

Chinese university students arrested after 750kg of illegal tobacco seized at Adelaide docks

Australian Border Force officers have seized more than 750kg of loose leaf tobacco hidden in a sea cargo consignment at the Adelaide docks.
The haul of illegal tobacco, which is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars on the black market, was destined for New South Wales.

Six tonnes of tobacco seized from illegal crops in Northern Territory 

Six tonnes of illegal tobacco leaves and vast fields of mature plants worth more than $13m in lost tax have been seized on a rural property in the Northern Territory.

This bust on the sophisticated, 7-hectare crop outside Katherine was the first successful strike by a taskforce bringing together agencies including the Australian Tax Office and Australian Border Force.

Cigarettes smuggled into Australia in children's toys: police 

Australian Border Force officials have smashed an alleged Chinese syndicate smuggling tobacco and cigarettes into Australia hidden in children's toys.

A Sydney man, who police allege was using his position as a delivery driver to assist the criminal gang, has been arrested and charged with illicit tobacco offences.

Nearly 60 million illegal cigarettes seized in major border operation

A major joint operation between Queensland Police, the Australian Border Force, the Department of Home Affairs, ACIC and NSW Police has seized more than 57 million illegal cigarettes at the Australian border.

The cigarettes, worth more than $40 million in evaded duty, were being imported from south-east Asia by a "serious" organised crime syndicate.

Six alleged members of tobacco smuggling ring arrested
The Australian Border Force have disrupted a highly-organised tobacco smuggling syndicate, stopping the flow of nearly three million illicit cigarettes.

Airport bust uncovers 4.5 MILLION cigarettes disguised as toilet paper as accused smuggler faces court over the contraband

Officers have seized 4.5 million undeclared cigarettes being smuggled into the country and arrested a duel citizen over the bust.

Australian Border Force officers stopped the 43-year-old man for a baggage search at the Melbourne International Airport on Sunday after uncovering a massive haul of smuggled tobacco.

'We will find you': Border Force bust black market on cigarettes 

The Australian Border Force (ABF) has uncovered 10 tonnes of tobacco allegedly illegal imported into Melbourne.

ABF officers swooped on a number of homes across the city this week as part of ongoing efforts to bust open the cigarette black market.

ATO seizes, destroys, illegal tobacco in Dubbo and Coonamble raids 

Two raids in Dubbo and Coonamble saw Australian Taxation Office officers seize and destroy an estimated $13 million worth of illegal tobacco.
​Over 7,000 kg of illegal tobacco plants and more than 500 kilograms of dried tobacco bales were seized from the two properties and destroyed.

Three tractors valued at nearly $100,000 in total and a range of equipment, including kilns and drying machines were also seized.

Owners of a property 'unaware' a record 28 tonnes of illegal tobacco worth $60 million was being grown on their land

A record 28 tonnes of illegal tobacco with an estimated street value of $60 million has been seized at properties near Bundaberg.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) announced on Wednesday it had seized the tobacco following a joint operation with Queensland police.

Officers exercised warrants at four properties south of Bundaberg on Tuesday following an 18-month investigation which also included members of the Australian Border Force.

Perth baker made plenty of dough smuggling two tonnes of tobacco

A Perth bakery owner imported more than two tonnes of tobacco illegally into Australia, defrauding the Commonwealth to the tune of almost $2 million, a WA court has heard.

And that's just the fraction of the illicit market that the cops managed to track down. This is going great!

Monday 3 September 2018

Australian drinking at a 50 year low

Another chapter in The Decline of Australia...

224 stubbies a year: Australians' alcohol consumption plunges to lowest since 1962

1962! In 1962, pubs still had to close at 6pm in Victoria and South Australia (not that this was a very successful anti-drinking policy). Drinking in Australia peaked more than 40 years ago and has fallen by 30 per cent in the years since. Beer has been the main casualty.

Beer has also been the main casualty in Britain where per capita consumption of alcohol peaked in 2004 and has fallen by 18 per cent in the years since. Alcohol consumption is now about the same in both countries at a little over nine litres per adult per annum.

None of this will appease the neo-temperance lobby, obviously, but I was amused to see this comment from Kypros Kypri, a professor at the University of Newcastle's School of Medicine and Public Health:

"The real puzzle for people like me is: Why are some indicators of harm continuing to increase while you've got these reductions in aggregate consumption?" he asked.

It's because the total consumption model is nonsense, mate. Therefore the whole population approach of alcohol control a waste of time. Always has been, always will be.

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?