Farewell, 2024

I'm not going to do a review of the year. I'm sure you can remember what happened as well as I can. But as 2024 draws to a close I'd like to thank all the people who read my stuff here and elsewhere. As I was saying to Paul 'Guido' Staines on the Last Orders podcast recently, blogging ain't what it used to be, but I should give a shout out to Michael Siegel who is back at The Rest of the Story after a few years absence and to the Angry Chef who fired up his blog yesterday to write about why 'ultra-processed food' is dumb (a must read).

If you don't follow David Zaruk's Firebreak blog, you should. In his wish list for 2025, he hopes that governments will stop funding NGOs. Amen to that and a happy new year to you.

Share

Tweet

Defanging the nanny state

AI generated

 

I have a new IEA report out today. It's called Defanging the Nanny State and it looks at what politicians would have to do to get the UK to the bottom of the Nanny State Index. I suggest the following steps:

1. Alcohol taxes: set them at 13p per unit for all drinks to cover the external costs. This would be a significant reduction for most products. Wine duty would still be higher than in most EU countries.

2. Tobacco taxes: halve them to bring them in line with places like Italy and Cyprus. This wouldn't even cost HMRC much money because so much tobacco is sold illegally in the UK at the moment.  

3. The sugar tax: get rid of it. It hasn't worked and most European countries don't have one.

4. E-cigarette and heated tobacco advertising: legalise it on all platforms with appropriate regulation of content. The e-cig ad ban is a hangover from EU membership. Ditto all other silly EU regs, e.g. banning vape juices bottles larger than 10ml.

5. Legalise snus. Another hangover from the EU.

6. Maintain the smoking ban in all state-owned buildings open to the public and have no-smoking as the legal default in privately owned buildings unless the owner explicitly permits it.

7. Abolish minimum pricing in Scotland and Wales. Ireland is the only other country that has it. The policy hasn't worked and has cost drinkers a fortune.

8. Abolish restrictions on where tasty food can be positioned in shops and cancel the forthcoming advertising ban.

9. Abolish licensing hours. Of the 30 countries in the 2023 Nanny State Index, 18 have no national legislation dictating when licensed premises have to close. Restaurants and bars should close when their owners wants them to.

Doing all this would get the UK below Germany in the Nanny State Index - but only just. Is it going to happen? No. More nanny state legislation is on its way. But this wish list shows two things. 

Firstly, we have a hell of a lot of nanny state regulation and our sin taxes are sky high.

Secondly, it is politically feasible insofar as other countries have a much smaller nanny state and their governments don't get kicked out for not being paternalistic enough. 

Some people might consider the proposals above to be dramatic but they would leave us in a very similar position to the likes of Luxembourg and the Czech Republic. I could have gone much further. I haven't touched daft policies like plain packaging (which only a small handful of European countries have) and I have kept the cigarette advertising ban in place. That doesn't mean I agree with them, but the task I set myself was to do the minimum required to get the UK to the bottom of the index.

Read the full report here. 

  

 

Share

Tweet

Black market, here we come

In my end-of-year article for Spiked I take a glimpse at Christmas future by looking at the black market.

 

As I write this, there have been 198 arson attacks on Australian tobacconists and vape retailers since its ‘tobacco turf wars’ began last year. By the time this article is published, there will probably have been 200. The root causes are so obvious that even the ABC, Australia’s left-wing state broadcaster, no longer denies them: Australia has the highest tobacco taxes in the world and has banned e-cigarettes in every form. The consequences have been worse than any opponent of the nanny state could have predicted: criminal gangs are firebombing retailers on an almost daily basis and people have been murdered in broad daylight.

This could all be stopped by legalising vapes and making cigarettes affordable for any adult who wants to buy them. The sky is hardly going to fall in if Australia starts taxing and regulating these products like a normal country. Yet there are almost no mainstream politicians in Australia making that case. Meanwhile, the British health secretary, Wes Streeting, has seen what’s going on Down Under and has decided that he would like a slice of it. Last year, Conservative MP Neil O’Brien, who was then the public-health minister, proudly announced that his government had not run an impact assessment to look at the effect of generational prohibition on the black market because he didn’t think it would be a problem.

 

After two firebombings in Melbourne overnight, Australia's tally has moved up to 202.

 

It is possible that things will have to get worse before they get better, but it is equally likely that things will get worse and stay worse. In any case, it is out of our hands. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill passed its second reading by 415 votes to 47 in November, a thumping victory for the prohibitionists. The political class has decided to let the black market rip. The rest of us will just have to adapt.

 

Merry Christmas!

Share

Tweet

Moderate drinking continues to be good for you

Ongoing attempts to erase the health benefits of moderate drinking have suffered a setback in the USA. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has published a 230 page report to feed into the latest deliberations around the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025.

As (Bloomberg-funded) Stat News reports:

 

A major report on alcohol’s health effects — which will inform the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans — found moderate drinkers had lower all-cause mortality, and a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, than those who never drank. The findings are sure to cause a stir, especially once a separate panel of experts releases its own alcohol report in coming weeks.

 

We can expect the anti-alcohol academics on that panel to come out swinging with the usual cherry-picked studies (hello, Tim Stockwell!) and merchant of doubt rhetoric. But for now, we have the actual evidence...

 

According to its meta-analysis, the committee found those who consumed moderate levels of alcohol had a 16% lower risk of all-cause mortality than those who never drank. This conclusion was graded as being of moderate certainty, meaning there was enough evidence to determine the health effects, but there are limitations due to the quality of the evidence. Future data could change the conclusion.

Meta-analyses the committee reviewed found moderate drinking was associated with a lower risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular disease mortality as compared to never drinking.

 

This much we have known for decades. These associations have had everything thrown at them. There is probably no finding in epidemiology that has been subjected to so much rigorous examination. The reason for that is obvious: a lot of people in 'public health' don't want it to be true. 

And yet here we are.

You can read the full report here.

Share

Tweet

The unflushable Chris Whitty

Why won’t Chris Whitty go away? If he had any decency, the Chief Medical Officer would have resigned in 2021 after he told fibs about Omicron in an attempt to bounce Boris Johnson into yet another lockdown. (In case you’ve forgotten, he said that “all the things we do know are bad” about the manifestly less dangerous Covid variant.) Every other player in the nightmare of 2020-21 has shuffled off the stage, but Whitty lingers on, a slap-headed Rasputin whispering terrible ideas into the ears of our leaders.

 

Read the rest at The Critic.

Share

Tweet

Food advertising - the next set of demands

On the face of it, the first line of this BBC article is stupefyingly obvious.

 

Brands that make unhealthy foods will be able to get round the government's junk food advertising ban if their adverts do not show products that break the rules.

 

Yes, that's how rules work. If you comply with them you 'get round' them. 

 

There is, of course, an agenda here. After a brief period of celebration following the government's introduction of new advertising regulations on Tuesday, the 'public health' lobby is teeing itself up for its next set of demands.

 

It means that adverts from fast food chains, for example, will not face restrictions as long as they do not feature products such as burgers or fries.

 

You can see where this is going, I'm sure.

 

Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, an umbrella group for health campaigners, had argued for brands to be included in the ban, and said she would like to see firms respond by making their products healthier.

"That would be the ideal thing, but they can get round it by just showing the brand and it's unclear what effect that would have, above and beyond what we've already got," she added.

"We are very supportive of [the restrictions] coming in as planned, but in future I think we'd like to see where loopholes could be closed".

 

So it's not about the food. It's about the companies. Or, as these cranks call them, the "unhealthy commodity industries".

But hang on. Didn't these very same people say that one of the 'benefits' of the ban on 'less healthy' food advertising was that it would encourage companies to reformulate their products with less sugar, fat and salt? Even in the quote above we are told that Jenner has "argued for brands to be included in the ban, and said she would like to see firms respond by making their products healthier." But if companies can't advertise at all - not even their own brand logo - what would be the point of reformulating their products?

It's a revealing quote because it shows her in mid-air, jumping from one horse to another. Her new line is that food companies she dislikes shouldn't be able to advertise at all, but she can't help parroting her old line about reformulation. It's a glitch, but I'm sure she'll smooth it out with practice and the old argument about reformulation will be erased from history. 

The BBC also says of the ban... 

But details of the restrictions, unveiled earlier this week, also showed that sugary breakfast cereals, crumpets and certain types of porridge would also fall on the ban - prompting criticism from some business owners.

 

Criticism has gone well beyond business owners, but the BBC can't admit this. The scope of the ban has been roundly mocked as the public have finally realised they've been sold a pig in a poke. I wish it would be criticised by business owners! How long are the broadcasters and food companies going to take this lying down? Where are they? I haven't heard a peep from the Food and Drink Federation this week, for example. Meanwhile, Chris van Tulleken and Greg Fell are in The Times claiming that the food industry is using "tobacco industry tactics". Maybe it's time to wake up, lads?

Share

Tweet

Then they came for the croissants

Misleading the public until the bitter end, the Department of Health and Social Care issued a press release this morning confirming that “junk food adverts” will be banned on TV before 9pm and online 24/7 from next October. It used the legally meaningless phrase “junk food” five times. 

Junk food is in the eye of the beholder, but is obviously pejorative. That is why politicians and “public health” lobbyists use it. If they abandoned the weasel words and told us what is actually being prohibited, even natural allies of the nanny state might conclude that the advertising ban — which goes far beyond anything introduced elsewhere in the world — is a bit excessive. 

Find out why at The Critic.

Share

Tweet

47 lions

MPs voted for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill yesterday by a landslide. The Bill legislates for the gradual prohibition of all tobacco products, a total ban on e-cigarette advertising and allows Wes Streeting to do whatever he likes with vape flavours, smoking bans, vaping bans, vape packaging, etc.

Labour MPs were given questions to ask and told what to think by the leadership. Not a single one voted against prohibition. Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs were given a free vote. 35 Tories, 7 Lib Dems and 4 Reform MPs voted against. Rishi Sunak, whose 'legacy' this was supposed to be, didn't bother to turn up to vote.

The conscience of these 47 MPs is clear. They could have gone with the crowd - they had no chance of winning - but they stood up for personal liberty. There are 72 Lib Dems so seven voting against isn't much, but it shows that liberalism hasn't been completely snuffed out in the party. 

It's been fifteen years since I published Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, the last chapters of which warned about the looming threat of prohibition and the slippery slope of regulation from tobacco to food and alcohol. I shouldn't be surprised that prohibition has returned and that the government is now planning taxes on 'junk food', but I never thought that Britain would be first out of the blocks with Prohibition 2.0. As one of the more prominent defenders of smokers' rights in the UK, this is obviously sub-optimal.

The more I think about it, the less it matters. The generational ban won't affect anybody until 2027 and won't really be noticeable until around 2030. Vaping is making cigarettes obsolete, especially among young people, but even if an 18 year old wanted to smoke, why would they buy cigarettes legally? 

I was on a night out in a city in the north-west recently when the trusty vape that I've had for two years finally packed up. I went to a shop to get a disposable vape and a pack of cigarettes in case I didn't like the disposable vape (I'm not into sweet flavours). I picked out a disposable vape, picked out a lighter and asked the guy behind the counter if he sold cigarettes. He pulled up a big plastic bag and showed me what he had - all loose packs with health warnings in a variety of different languages, obviously not legal. I chose a pack of Marlboro Touch, whatever that is, and he sold me the lot - disposable vape, lighter and a pack of premium cigarettes - for £14. The cigarettes alone are worth more than that on the legal market. The guy had never seen me before. I could have been anybody. The shop was in the middle of the city centre.

This is happening up and down the country. Tax morale among smokers is at rock bottom and the legal market is collapsing. The government has its head in the sand and no one is going to do anything about it. We know from Australia how bad this could get (it had firebombing number 150 at the weekend). Banning disposable vapes next June isn't exactly going to help. 

The point is that by the time this idiotic law starts to bite, there will be so little of the legal market left that the age at which people can legally buy tobacco will be largely academic. The de facto age at which people will be able to buy tobacco will be zero.

They can't say they haven't been warned. This is on the 415 lemmings who voted for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. The 47 rebels can sleep soundly.

Share

Tweet

Calorie labelling didn't work

Of all the anti-obesity policies that have been tabled in recent years, calorie labelling is the least objectionable. It is not regressive like the sugar tax or anti-competitive like the advertising ban. If it’s nannying, it is of the gentlest sort; a nudge rather than a shove. It would have been a nightmare for small businesses to implement, but they were given an exemption when the government made calorie counts mandatory in cafés, pubs and restaurants two years ago.

You could argue that the number of calories in a meal is basic information that consumers have a right to know, even if it doesn’t make any difference to what they eat. That is just as well because we now know that it doesn’t change what people eat. An evaluation funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research was published this week and concluded that “the introduction of the mandatory kcal labelling policy in England was not associated with a significant decrease in self-reported kcals purchased”. Monitoring the behaviour of 6,578 customers in pubs, fast food outlets, cafés and restaurants before and after the introduction of mandatory calorie counts, the authors found that the number of calories consumed actually rose from 909 per meal to 983 per meal.

Read the rest at the Telegraph.

It's been another bad week for 'evidence-based' public health policies. I've written about three of them on my Substack.

Share

Tweet

The 'intimidation' of 'public health' cranks

Anna Gilmore has been dipping into the millions of pounds she gets from Mike Bloomberg to complain about people being mean to her. Her latest 'study', titled 'Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review', is the usual Google-based fluff and is a bit rich from someone who set up a fake wiki to smear her opponents and who starts her article by describing the infant formula industry as a 'vector of disease'.

What kind of intimidation do these delicate poppets have to put up with?

The most reported form of intimidation was public discreditation with advocates and researchers often portrayed as extremists, under-qualified, or a waste of taxpayer money.

Well, if the cap fits...

Gilmore and her chums then give an enjoyably long list of examples...

Researchers were publicly labelled as ‘extremists’ (Landman et al., 2002; Malone, 2002; Knight and Chapman, 2004; Yang and Malone, 2008; Avery et al., 2016; Johnson, 2020), ‘fascists’ (Smith and Malone, 2007), ‘nazis’ (Schneider and Glantz, 2008), ‘zealots’ (Daube, 2015), ‘demons of overzealous and moral righteousness’ (Knight and Chapman, 2004) and ‘prohibitionists’ (Landman and Glantz, 2009; Daube, 2015). Similarly, those producing research unfavourable to the alcohol industry were labelled ‘nannyists’ (Avery et al., 2016), those doing the same in the UPF sector were called ‘too radical’ (Mialon, 2021), ‘food fascists’ (CCF, 2010), ‘gastronomical gestapo’ (Thomson, 2009) and ‘food police’ (Heisel, 2011), while breastfeeding advocates were described as the ‘breastapo’ (Hager, 2014) and were portrayed as ‘limiting mothers’ freedom of choice’ (Baker et al., 2021). Negative religious connotations were also used across the different industry sectors, with academics referred to as the ‘anti-food jihad’ (CCF, 2004), ‘health jihadists’ (Hager, 2014) and ‘religious fundamentalists’ (Petticrew et al., 2015; RESYST, 2019).

In addition, across all sectors, researchers were criticized as lacking the relevant skills (Drope and Chapman, 2001; Landman and Glantz, 2009; RESYST, 2019), being ‘bogus’ (Landman and Glantz, 2009), ‘untrustworthy’ (Vedwan, 2007), ‘mad’ (Hager, 2014), having conflicts of interest (Ibrahim et al., 2004), being money hungry (White and Bero, 2004; Landman and Glantz, 2009; Hoe et al., 2021), ‘publicly funded troughers’ (Hager, 2014) or simply for being ‘peculiar’ (Bornhäuser et al., 2006) or for not having the right physique to criticize the food industry (Pollan, 2006).

 

Pejorative adjectives were the most common form of 'intimidation'. The second most common form of 'intimidation' was legal action. And then there is the horror of people complaining about them. For example...

 

A further six sources (9.4%) included examples where advocates and researchers working on issues affecting UPF, and in one case tobacco, received a complaint. These complaints took several forms, including a detailed critique of research and a request for the original data for ‘proper’ analyses to be conducted.

Oh no, not a detailed critique! Anything but that!

 

Some of the 'intimidation' amounts to nothing more than polite disagreement...

 

UNICEF’s Director General received complaints from a US-based lobby group working for the baby formula industry. The complaints argued that UNICEF’s Philippines country office promoting breastfeeding ‘misrepresents the available scientific evidence regarding the alleged risks of not-breastfeeding’.

 

It is probably true that 'public health' academics get more abuse online and are called names more often in the media than most other academics, but most other academics are not political activists using taxpayers' money to restrict the freedom of the individual. If you're going to get involved in politics, you have to expect some rough and tumble. What these people want is power without accountability. They explicitly seek to stigmatise ('denormalise') millions of people, make them poorer through sin taxes and ban the things they enjoy doing. They want to be seen as serious academics but normal people see them, quite rightly, as authoritarian killjoys who are making an unprovoked assault on their lifestyle (including the right of mothers who cannot breastfeed to keep their baby alive). If a few of their powerless victims are calling them 'mad' and 'peculiar' on social media, they have got off very lightly.

Share

Tweet

The scary logic of the generational tobacco ban

As the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill approaches today, MPs on both sides of the house will be looking for something to say in their speeches after the obligatory throat-clearing of “I believe in freedom but…”. When it comes to anti-smoking legislation, the welfare of children is the usual excuse, but since the Bill’s flagship policy is a ban on adults buying tobacco products, an appeal to vulnerable minors will not cut it this time. The costs of smoking-related diseases to the NHS have often been cited in the past, but it is easy to demonstrate that the £3.1 billion smoking supposedly costs the NHS is much less than the £11 billion the government raises in tobacco taxes.

What, then, can be used to put a liberal mask on prohibition? The Department of Health and Social Care has prompted MPs with a “factsheet” which claims that smoking “costs the economy and wider society £21.8 billion a year”. Most of this — a whopping £18.3 billion — is due to “lost productivity”. This claim is derived from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), a pressure group funded by the government, who commissioned Howard Reed of Landman Economics to do some modelling. I have a slight affection for Reed because he co-authored a report with Jonathan Portes that made some predictions about child poverty that were so wrong that I made £1,000 betting against them. 

Reed has been playing Numberwang for ASH for years and every estimate of the “cost of smoking” is higher than the last. In 2019, it was £17 billion. Now, despite smoking rates continuing to fall, it is £21.8 billion. Lost productivity due to unemployment, lower wages and early death are always the biggest component.

ASH have tapped into a rich seam of political concern about economic growth by focusing on these “costs”, but are they really costs? If they are really costs, who pays them? And can nonsmokers expect to benefit financially if smoking somehow disappears? 

Read the rest at The Critic.

Share

Tweet

A bad time for a bad obesity prediction

All you have to do to produce an obesity forecast that will be published in a medical journal is draw a straight line through the recent past and push it forward a few decades. That is literally all there is to it and it is why such forecasts are very likely to be wrong. 

Sure enough, they are always wrong. According to past predictions, the UK's adult obesity rate should have been 33% in 2012 (it was 25%) and it should be 40% by 2030 (seems unlikely; the figure for 2022 was 29%).

Predictions for the US are even more dramatic. To be fair, obesity is significantly higher there (41%). But the prediction that "by 2048, all American adults would become overweight or obese, while black women will reach that state by 2034" remains as implausible as it did in 2008.

Nevertheless, the media lap these forecasts up and the studies that contain them invariably urge policy-makers to regulate people's diets to avoid these awful outcomes. It's never too late!

The latest effort was published in the Lancet this month. Minor aristocrat and major killjoy Jim Bethell was all over it.

This is very powerful.
Most striking, USA obesity rates are accelerating!
Our current efforts are a total failure.
I’d guess UK data similar. Anyone know for sure?
For sure, to bend the curve we need a new approach. https://t.co/sy5yEwqZ1l

— Lord Bethell (@JimBethell) November 20, 2024

The study reckons that...

 

The projected prevalence of overweight and obesity in 2050 is estimated to be 81·1% (77·9–84·5) in adult males and 82·1% (76·7–85·7) in adult females. The prevalence of obesity is projected to increase at a more rapid rate than overweight, and faster among males than females. In males, the percentage change in the prevalence of obesity from 2021 to 2050 is estimated to be 32·8% (15·7–48·0), with a prevalence of 55·3% (47·7–61·8) in 2050. For females, the percentage change in the prevalence of obesity from 2021 to 2050 is estimated to be 28·6% (13·5–39·3), with a prevalence of 58·8% (51·1–64·1) in 2050.

 

In West Virginia and Kentucky, the authors reckon at least two-thirds of the adult population will be obese by 2050! 

 

 

All this is based on the assumption that "current trends" will continue. But if you've been reading the news recently you may know that current trends have already stopped continuing. As James Burn-Murdoch reported in the FT last month...

Around the world, obesity rates have been stubbornly climbing for decades, if anything accelerating in recent years. But now newly released data finds that the US adult obesity rate fell by around two percentage points between 2020 and 2023.

 
What makes this all the more remarkable is the contrast in mechanisms behind the respective declines in smoking and obesity. The former was eventually achieved through decades of campaigning, public health warnings, tax incentives and bans. With obesity, a single pharmaceutical innovation has done what those same methods have repeatedly failed to do.

  

I guess this news came out too late for the Lancet to halt publication. Awkward.

 

 

Burn-Murdoch is confident that weight-loss drugs explain the decline in the USA. I think we need to wait another year or two to be sure. Someone on Twitter mentioned the possibility that the decline is because Covid killed off a disproportionate number of obese Americans. It's an interesting thought. After all, it should have. And yet we saw no reduction in obesity in the UK (the 2022 figure is an all time high) and I don't think any other country has seen a fall in obesity rates. Burn-Murdoch also says that the fall in obesity was largest among the better educated, which fits the drug theory but not the Covid theory.

Let's wait and see.

Share

Tweet

Not Invented Here (2): alcohol

Doctors have been advising people to have several days without alcohol each week for decades. It is sound advice because, as the British Liver Trust says, ‘it is simple and easy to understand, reduces the overall number of units that you drink each week, helps prevent alcohol dependency and importantly for liver health gives your liver a rest and a chance to rejuvenate.’ In 2011, Ian Gilmore, the chairman of the Alcohol Health Alliance, advised drinkers to have ‘two to three alcohol-free days a week’. In 2012, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that ‘people should be advised to take at least two drink-free days a week’. In 2016, the Chief Medical Officer said that ‘a good way’ for people to reduce their alcohol consumption was to have ‘several drink-free days each week’. None of this was remotely controversial until the alcohol education charity DrinkAware partnered with Public Health England (PHE) in 2018 to launch the ‘Drink Free Days’ campaign. Aimed at drinkers aged between 40 and 64, it advertised on radio and digital platforms and provided an app to help people monitor their alcohol consumption.

You might think that public health groups would be delighted to see a well known charity put its time and money into encouraging drinkers to consume less alcohol. But you would be wrong. DrinkAware is funded by donations from alcohol producers and retailers, and this was enough to make the aforementioned Ian Gilmore resign as co-chair of PHE’s alcohol leadership board and write an article titled ‘Public Health England’s capture by the alcohol industry’. An open letter opposing any collaboration between PHE and Drinkaware was signed by 332 academics, some of whom threatened to stop working with PHE if it did not part ways with the charity.

 

Read the rest at the IEA Substack.

Share

Tweet

Not Invented Here (1): obesity

This month I'll be writing a series of articles about Not Invented Here Syndrome - when institutions reject practical solutions because they weren't part of their plan. The first is about obesity and weight loss drugs.

 

The Department of Health and Social Care says that obesity costs the NHS ‘up to £6.5 billion a year’. The health secretary Wes Streeting has claimed that it costs the NHS £11 billion a year. When wider societal costs, including lost productivity, are included, Frontier Economics estimated that obesity cost Britain £58 billion in 2020, and when they made a further estimate to include the cost of people being overweight in 2023, this rose to £98 billion, of which £19.2 billion were direct costs to the NHS.

Obesity is routinely referred to as a ‘crisis’ in the UK and elsewhere. Fifteen million adults (28 per cent) have a body mass index of 30 or more and are therefore classified as obese. The number of obese Britons has been gradually growing for decades and none of the anti-obesity policies enacted so far, such as the sugar tax and traffic light labelling on food, has made any tangible difference. Some countries have gone further. Hungary, for example, has an extensive system of taxes on food that is high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS). Chile has had mandatory health warnings on HFSS food since 2016 and has banned the use of cartoon mascots such as Tony the Tiger. Both countries have seen obesity rates continue to rise.

Given how seriously public health campaigners take obesity as a health problem, you might think that they would be delighted to find something that makes people lose a great deal of weight in a short space of time. But you would be wrong. A new generation of pharmaceuticals that have been shown in randomised controlled trials to help people lose an average of 15 per cent to 20 per cent of their body weight have been given a cautious welcome at best by those who should be most excited by them.

 

Read the rest.

Share

Tweet

Has vaping backfired? (No)

Has vaping backfired? That is the question asked by Sunday Times journalist Tom Calver yesterday. He claims that rising e-cigarette use has left Britain with more nicotine users than it did when the smoking ban was introduced in 2007 and that nearly 40 per cent of 16-24 year olds are “hooked” on nicotine. This, he says, “might just about be tolerable if cigarette smoking rates were quickly falling. But they are not.” He even claims that there are “some signs that the number of young cigarette smokers is ticking back up again”.

Read the rest at The Critic.

Share

Tweet

Rachel Reeves' taxes on working people

 

Not entirely unpredictably, taxes and spending are set to go through the roof after Labour's first budget since 2010. Having promised not to tax working people, Rachel Reeves announced tax rises for smokers and drinkers, announced a new vape tax and increased the sugar tax. Details below from the Red Book.

 

Alcohol duty will rise in line with the RPI from February 2025 and it was implied that this would be an annual thing. Draft beer duty will be cut by 1.7%, which apparently amounts to a penny off a pint. I will be personally making sure that the IEA's local in Westminster has cut the price of a pint of Paulaner from £7.55 to £7.54. 

While the draft beer duty cut will be barely be felt by drinkers, the vape tax will cost vapers around £300 a year. And yet the beer duty cut will cost the government £100 million a year while the vape tax will only bring in £15 million. Is it really worth it?

 

My comment on behalf of the IEA:

 

"A wealth of economic evidence shows that taxing e-cigarettes leads to more people smoking. Taxing vape juice shows that the government is not serious about its 'smokefree' ambitions.  

 

“Reeves says that yet another 'one-off' tax hike on tobacco will dissuade vapers from switching back to smoking, but with 26% of the cigarette market already in the hands of organised crime, the legal price of cigarettes is irrelevant to a growing number of smokers. Tobacco duty revenue has fallen by £1.5 billion in the last two years and it will go on falling, despite the tax rate rising, because smokers feel no moral duty to buy legal cigarettes and give money to politicians who so obviously hold them in contempt.  

 

“Cutting draft beer relief so that a pint in a pub is 1p cheaper doesn't come close to compensating from this tax raid. Drink 600 pints and get one pint free? It is a cheap gimmick."

Share

Tweet

The Guardian view on gambling

It looks like the Guardian has let its anti-gambling correspondent Rob Davies have a go at writing a leader.

 

The Guardian view on gambling: a public health approach is a good bet

The regulation of internet gambling was left out of the last government’s online harms bill. So far, Labour’s plans for the industry are opaque. But the industry’s rapid growth...

 

What growth? The industry only appears to have grown if you don't adjust for inflation. In 2014/15 (the first year for which we have comparable data), gambling spend in the UK was £13.5 billion. If this had kept pace with inflation, it would be £18.1 billion today. In fact, gambling spend last year was £15.1 billion. It has shrunk in real terms.

... coupled with growing concern about problem gambling in the UK and around the world, means ministers deserve to come under pressure if they don’t clarify their intentions soon. 

The sports minister Tracey Crouch resigned in 2018 when a pledge to cap the stakes on fixed-odds betting terminals was delayed. 

 

The idea that the government was delaying the cap was the last lie from the anti-FOBT people in a campaign full of lies. It was originally planned for April 2020 and was brought forward to October 2019. Crouch's dishonest stunt brought it forward by a further six months.

How did that cap on FOBTs go anyway? Weren't they the crack cocaine of gambling, responsible for hundreds of suicides a year? Shouldn't things be much better now they've disappeared? As far as I can see, the only tangible result has been the closure of lots of betting shops and the loss of thousands of jobs. As I predicted.

Six years on, proposals to cap the stakes on digital slot machines are up in the air, after last year’s white paper was shelved. Also on hold are the introduction of a statutory levy on businesses to pay for research and treatment, and the creation of an ombudsman.

 

It's that last bit that really concerns the pressure groups and the 'public health' quackademics. They were told there was a £50 million slush fund coming their way. They are getting impatient.

 

Arguably even more concerning is the lack of any clear direction on restricting gambling advertising, which has become ubiquitous in sport, and particularly football. Recent research showed that Premier League fans were bombarded with almost 30,000 advertisements on a single weekend, with half of clubs found to have promoted betting on webpages aimed at children.

 

The claim here is that fans of the Premier League saw an average of 30,000 gambling advertisements in a single weekend. Does that seem remotely plausible? The source of the claim is some 'research' by people at Bristol University who watched six televised football games in August, but instead of watching the football, they were looking for gambling 'messaging'. This included "static pitchside hoardings, electronic
pitchside hoardings (both full or part), clothing worn by supporters, the front of a player’s shirt, the sleeve
of a player’s shirt, integrated graphic, sponsorship lead-in, commercial advertisement break, interview
or press conference, stadium structure, and ‘other’ to capture anything else."

So not really advertisements, then. And far from being 'bombarded' by them, people would have seen them - if at all - in the corner of their eye. Every time a logo appeared somewhere on the screen, it was counted as a 'message'. And because they counted "the maximum number of logos per format that were visible during each individual camera shot", this added up to a very large number. They then added in coverage on TalkRadio, Sky Sports News and social media for good measure.

This is the kind of meaningless garbage academics want to spend millions of pounds on once they get their hands on the levy money.

In 2023 the Guardian banned all gambling advertising, because of the risks.

 

I'm sure that was a huge blow to the industry.

 

Meanwhile, the NHS has doubled the number of specialist clinics in England to 15.

 

That is a good thing. It will be interesting to see how busy they are. It's just a shame that taxpayers are paying for them now that the NHS has refused to use the industry's money.

 

Last week’s report from the Lancet medical journal grouped gambling with tobacco, alcohol and other “unhealthy commodity industries”, and argued convincingly that governments and regulators should strive for a common approach.

 

The Lancet report is a long document with remarkably little substance. 'Public health' academics want to get their hands of gambling, that much is clear, but they don't have much idea of what they're going to do with it when they do. Banning advertising is about their only concrete proposal. The other ideas that 'public health' chancers have come up with are demented and show their total ignorance of the industry and its customers.

 

Anti-gambling activists want gambling treated as a 'public health issue' because they think - correctly - that a 'public health approach' means incrementally banning things. But gambling is not a public health issue by any reasonable definition and there is nothing to be gained by having people who know nothing about it getting involved. 

 

This would include a recognition of corporate practices designed to influence both consumer behaviour and regulation – and a robust challenge to the industry’s preferred framing. This treats problem gambling, like other addictions and obesity, as the result of poor choices by individuals, rather than as the predictable result of an environment in which people are encouraged to adopt risky habits.

 

Problem gambling is a recognised psychological disorder and it cannot be dealt with unless it is understood as such. The 'public health' framing thinks it is all about tHe InDuStRy and that is why a 'public health approach' will never work. Paradoxically, treating problem gambling as a public health issue is antithetical to treating it as what it is: a (mental) health issue.

Share

Tweet