Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

ITIC

Tobacco Industry And Front Groups Pump Up Their Propaganda For COP7

Nov 21st, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.asiantribune.com/node/89760

Over the past year, governments across the globe have continued to make new agreements with the tobacco industry, as shown above. However there is a ray of hope from Namibia, which is choosing to grow more food crops.

The tobacco industry is very angry that the Conference of the Parties (COP) is using Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to protect the policy-making process from industry interference.

The industry has hijacked the “public space” of the COP. FCTC Parties have responded in recent sessions by not allowing participation from the “public”, which is dominated by industry representatives. For COP7, FCA is recommending Parties adopt pre-screening processes for the public and for the media. (Presently, media is in the category public).

The industry has gone on the offensive: conducting an international campaign to attack and discredit the COP and the World Health Organization (WHO) about lack of transparency. Industry representatives have written angry letters to both the COP and WHO and published many statements in the media criticizing the COP’s lack of ‘transparency’, which strikes a chord with broader society.

The industry throws a tantrum whenever it does not get its way, and has no qualms in criticising the 180 governments that are FCTC Parties. In one statement, a representative of Japan Tobacco International (JTI) said the industry wants to see change, (read, “we want to influence the COP”), and that it needs to “keep raising our voice about these censorship practices”.

Since the tobacco industry has no credibility to criticise the COP and tobacco control, it has recruited front groups, think tanks and sympathetic individuals to sing from its song sheet.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is one such close ally. It advises the industry to talk more about “due process and fairness and less about the specifics of tobacco policy in drawing attention to this issue”.

According to the IEA, “With regard to [Article] 5.3 and COP, the industry needs to find allies amongst groups who take an interest in transparency, openness and constitutional structures. Such groups needn’t be sympathetic to the regulatory agenda of the industry; indeed they may even be antagonistic to the industry and tobacco products in general. That needn’t matter—the issue here is about the manner in which policy is developed and created, not the exact content of the policy.”

Another industry funded group, the International Tax and Investment Centre (ITIC), has stepped up its efforts to protect industry interests ever since the FCTC Secretariat issued a Note Verbal in 2014 about its activities. Earlier this year, an ITIC consultant, Gary Johns, wrote to several civil society groups involved in tobacco control taking issue with the critiques they had done on the ITIC’s skewed research. In a 36-page letter he sent to the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA) earlier this year Johns wrote, “vested interests are not the problem – debate behind closed doors is”.

The letter was riddled with false accusations against SEATCA, mischaracterizations of fact and law, disparaging comments about the WHO, the Framework Convention Secretariat and FCTC Parties. SEATCA published an open letter in response.

In September, Johns, a former Australian Labor Minister, released a publication attacking WHO for not conducting its business in “transparent fashion and in public view.” The tobacco industry publicized his report in the Tobacco Reporter.

Another industry front group, the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA), which routinely rounds up its members to rabble rouse at COP sessions, has stepped up its misinformation campaign. ITGA’s Indian member Federation of All India Farmer Associations (FAIFA) has been applying pressure on the Indian government to allow its members to the COP using arguments of “principles of transparency and equity”

ITGA’s president has also claimed that the FCTC had banned dozens of officials representing tobacco-growing countries from participating in COP7.

A similar statement was made by a new NGO representative cum journalist, who claimed, “The policy of banning delegates having associations with tobacco production is said to be so broad that it will almost certainly prohibit finance ministers, economic development secretaries, public health officials, and even presidents and prime ministers …”

In September, ITGA members from North and South America, India, Europe, Africa, and Indonesia were in New Delhi for a two-day seminar to prepare their protests for COP7.

The ITGA claims COP decisions are being made “only by health officials and activists”. This is simply not true. Government delegations have included officials from non-health departments, such as ministries of agriculture, industry and trade, as official COP records show (Table 1).

In 2008, FCTC Parties adopted Article 5.3 guidelines. They include recommendations 4.9 and 8.3, which explicitly state that Parties should not nominate any person employed by the tobacco industry, or any entity working to further the industry’s interests, to serve on delegations to COP or other FCTC meetings, nor should any representatives of state-owned tobacco industries be included on government delegations.

Groups demand tobacco lobbyist stops claiming links

Nov 7th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Nestlé and the World Bank are among a number of organisations to demand that a controversial lobby group for tobacco companies stops claiming links to them.

https://www.ft.com/content/c9d6e11a-a1bb-11e6-82c3-4351ce86813f

The International Tax and Investment Center, which describes itself as a “non-profit research and educational organisation” that gives clients “a seat at the policymaking table”, has claimed on its website to “work closely” with the World Bank. It also listed Nestlé, law firm Pinsent Masons and the UK Department for International Development as its sponsors.

However, when Tax Justice Network wrote to sponsors and affiliated bodies asking if they were aware of the claims, all four organisations said they had no ongoing relationship with the lobby group.

ITIC works with organisations in a range of industries. But, in 2014, it was publicly denounced by the World Health Organisation for promoting “false” information on behalf of the tobacco industry. “ITIC has published extensively in favour of the tobacco industry’s false positions on excise taxation, investment and illicit trade in tobacco products,” said Dr Douglas Bettcher, a director at the WHO.

Around this time, some organisations ended their dealings with ITIC. The World Bank withdrew from an ITIC-organised event in 2015, and told Tax Justice Network: “The World Bank Group does not have a formal partnership with ITIC.” Timothy Evans, writing on behalf of World Bank president Dr Jim Yong Kim, said: “We have, in fact, previously contacted ITIC requesting that they remove the name of the World Bank Group from their homepage.”

Nestlé, which ITIC listed as a sponsor until earlier this year, said it had ceased contributing to ITIC in 2014. It said it had “taken action” over use of its logo on ITIC’s website.

Law firm Pinsent Masons was listed as a sponsor as recently as 2016, but ceased contributions to ITIC in 2013.

ITIC said it had agreed to comply with the World Bank’s request to remove its name, but “inadvertently missed” a reference when updating its site. It said Nestlé’s name had remained on the ITIC website for 24 months after its last payment to comply with ITIC’s policy of being “transparent”.

When asked why Pinsent Masons was listed as a sponsor more than 24 months after ending its relationship with the group, Daniel Witt, ITIC’s president, said it “certainly was not a conscious decision to leave them on the list”. ITIC has since removed references to all of the organisations from its website.

Critics have accused ITIC of publicising links with high-profile bodies to boost its image when lobbying governments. “Central to ITIC’s credibility with policymakers is the claim that they work closely with leading international organisations,” said Alex Cobham at the Tax Justice Network. ITIC denies this.

The UK Department for International Development was listed as a sponsor, despite having never given ITIC any money. In 2013, then secretary of state, Justine Greening, said she would demand that ITIC take down the website listing.

ITIC says it received funding from DfID’s “predecessor”, the UK Know-How Fund. DfID acknowledges that this fund made payments to ITIC, but says DfID itself had never sponsored ITIC.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND FRONT GROUPS PUMP UP THEIR PROPAGANDA FOR COP7

Nov 7th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet
RECENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS & TOBACCO COMPANIES Over the past year, governments across the globe have continued to make new agreements with the tobacco industry, as shown above. However there is a ray of hope from Namibia, which is choosing to grow more food crops.

RECENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS & TOBACCO COMPANIES
Over the past year, governments across the globe have continued to make new agreements with the tobacco industry, as shown above. However there is a ray of hope
from Namibia, which is choosing to grow more food crops.

The tobacco industry is very angry that the Conference of the Parties (COP) is using Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to protect the policy-making process from industry interference.

The industry has hijacked the “public space” of the COP. FCTC Parties have responded in recent sessions by not allowing participation from the “public”, which is dominated by industry representatives. For COP7, FCA is recommending Parties adopt pre-screening processes for the public and for the media. (Presently, media is in the category public).

The industry has gone on the offensive: conducting an international campaign to attack and discredit the COP and the World Health Organization (WHO) about lack of transparency. Industry representatives have written angry letters to both the COP and WHO and published many statements in the media criticising the COP’s lack of ‘transparency’, which strikes a chord with broader society.

The industry throws a tantrum whenever it does not get its way, and has no qualms in criticising the 180 governments that are FCTC Parties. In one statement, a representative of Japan Tobacco International (JTI) said the industry wants to see change, (read, “we want to influence the COP”), and that it needs to “keep raising our voice about these censorship practices”.

Since the tobacco industry has no credibility to criticise the COP and tobacco control, it has recruited front groups, think tanks and sympathetic individuals to sing from its song sheet.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is one such close ally. It advises the industry to talk more about “due process and fairness and less about the specifics of tobacco policy in drawing attention to this issue”.

According to the IEA, “With regard to [Article] 5.3 and COP, the industry needs to find allies amongst groups who take an interest in transparency, openness and constitutional structures. Such groups needn’t be sympathetic to the regulatory agenda of the industry; indeed they may even be antagonistic to the industry and tobacco products in general. That needn’t matter—the issue here is about the manner in which policy is developed and created, not the exact content of the policy.”

Another industry funded group, the International Tax and Investment Centre (ITIC), has stepped up its efforts to protect industry interests ever since the FCTC Secretariat issued a Note Verbal in 2014 about its activities. Earlier this year, an ITIC consultant, Gary Johns, wrote to several civil society groups involved in tobacco control taking issue with the critiques they had done on the ITIC’s skewed research. In a 36-page letter he sent to the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA) earlier this year Johns wrote, “vested interests are not the problem – debate behind closed doors is”.

The letter was riddled with false accusations against SEATCA, mischaracterisations of fact and law, disparaging comments about the WHO, the Framework Convention Secretariat and FCTC Parties. SEATCA published an open letter in response.

In September, Johns, a former Australian Labour Minister, released a publication attacking WHO for not conducting its business in “transparent fashion and in public view.” The tobacco industry publicised his report in the Tobacco Reporter.

Another industry front group, the International Tobacco Growers Association (ITGA), which routinely rounds up its members to rabble rouse at COP sessions, has stepped up its misinformation campaign. ITGA’s Indian member Federation of All India Farmer Associations (FAIFA) has been applying pressure on the Indian government to allow its members to the COP using arguments of “principles of transparency and equity”.

ITGA’s president has also claimed that the FCTC had banned dozens of officials representing tobacco-growing countries from participating in COP7. A similar statement was made by a new NGO representative cum journalist, who claimed, “The policy of banning delegates having associations with tobacco production is said to be so broad that it will almost certainly prohibit finance ministers, economic development secretaries, public health officials, and even presidents and prime ministers …”

In September, ITGA members from North and South America, India, Europe, Africa, and Indonesia were in New Delhi for a two-day seminar to prepare their protests for COP7.

The ITGA claims COP decisions are being made “only by health officials and activists”. This is simply not true. Government delegations have included officials from non-health departments, such as ministries of agriculture, industry and trade, as official COP records show (Table 1).

In 2008, FCTC Parties adopted Article 5.3 guidelines. They include recommendations 4.9 and 8.3, which explicitly state that Parties should not nominate any person employed by the tobacco industry, or any entity working to further the industry’s interests, to serve on delegations to COP or other FCTC meetings, nor should any representatives of state-owned tobacco industries be included on government delegations.

PRESS RELEASE: CAMPAIGN TO EXPOSE BIG TOBACCO’S LOBBY FRONT MAY SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES IN LOWER-INCOME COUNTRIES

Nov 6th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

‘INTERNATIONAL TAX AND INVESTMENT CENTER’ (ITIC) FORCED TO WITHDRAW CLAIMS OF ASSOCIATION WITH WORLD BANK, IMF, TAX AUTHORITIES AND MAJOR MULTINATIONALS

http://taxtobacco.org/2016/11/press-release-campaign-expose-big-tobaccos-lobby-front-may-save-millions-lives-lower-income-countries/

Today, an unprecedented joint movement of leading international development and public health organisations including the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research, Christian Aid and Save the Children, declared a major success in their campaign against the tobacco lobby.

For more than two decades, big tobacco companies have used the neutral-sounding ‘International Tax and Investment Center’ (ITIC) to promote their agenda around the world. Since tax policies are the single most powerful measure to reduce tobacco consumption, and the inevitable deaths that follow, the influence of ITIC on public officials and finance ministers has the potential to be – quite literally – a killer. ITIC has targeted developing countries as the major growth markets for tobacco; it is in these countries where the death toll will be greatest, if the tobacco lobby succeeds.

Central to ITIC’s credibility with policymakers is the claim that it works closely with leading international organisations, multinationals and global professional services firms. The campaign to expose ITIC as a front for tobacco interests, coordinated by the Tax Justice Network, ASH (UK) and the FCA contacted all the groups named by ITIC, described the ITIC’s role as a lobbyist for tobacco and asked the groups to disassociate themselves from ITIC. The letter that was sent can be viewed here.

The organisations that responded overwhelmingly expressed support for the the campaign to counter big tobacco’s tax lobbying efforts, and in many cases outlined their dismay at the claims made by ITIC.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

Previously, ITIC regularly claimed – including on the very front of their website – that “ITIC works closely with ministries of finance, customs services and tax authorities in 85 countries, as well as international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Customs Organization, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”[1]

itic-front-250416-1024x499

Timothy Evans, writing on behalf of World Bank president Dr Jim Yong Kim, said:

“I am writing to confirm that the World Bank Group (WBG) does not have a formal partnership with ITIC. We have, in fact, previously contacted ITIC (on November 29 and December 1, 2015), requesting that they remove the name of the World Bank Group from their homepage, and also remove the World Bank Group’s logo from several other pages and PDFs on their website. I am pleased to note that this request has been complied with by the ITIC… I appreciate all of your strong advocacy for better global public health policy on tobacco, which has been extremely important to ensure better regulation of tobacco and to save lives. We look forward to working together towards the same goals.”

The International Monetary Fund stopped short of full disassociation, but wrote: “We understand your concerns with the work of the ITIC on tobacco… [W]e have asked them to clarify the nature of our interactions with them on their website.”

This involved, again, the removal of nearly all references and above all the claim on the site’s front page of ‘working closely together’. The World Customs Organisation wrote that “ITIC is not a partner”, and references have also since been deleted from the ITIC website (except a quote from 2011).

Perhaps most damning of all was the response from the African Tax Administrators’ Forum (ATAF), a key regional body, whose executive secretary Logan Wort said:

“Allow me to state categorically that ATAF does not partner, cooperate nor collaborate with the ITIC in any way, and has no intention of doing so. Officials of the ATAF Secretariat had attended two of its meetings a few years ago in order to establish its motives and how the organisation functioned, however we soon distanced ourselves from the ITIC, with the ATAF Council also directing the Secretariat to inform all ATAF members of this decision, and warning them against associating with the organisation…

“We are thus well aware of the activities of the organisation and find its objectives and modus operandi to be in direct conflict with everything that ATAF stands for. In recent discussions with officials of the World Health Organisation, we were also in full agreement that higher taxes are particularly effective in reducing tobacco use among vulnerable populations.

“We had also requested the ITIC to remove the ATAF logo from its website and all of its publications. Should we find that the ITIC has continued to abuse our logo or (mis)informed stakeholders of any association or partnership between our respective organisations, we will demand, in the strongest of terms, that they desist with this practice. Rest assured of our full support for this campaign.”

ITIC’S CLAIMED ‘SPONSORS’

Before the campaign to counter big tobacco’s tax lobbying efforts, ITIC listed around a hundred multinationals, global professional services firms and national authorities on its roster of sponsors. While some have told the campaign they will continue with their support, such has been the response that ITIC has now removed the list entirely from their website – so it is no longer possible to see which supporters remain.

Nestlé said that it had ceased to make any contribution to ITIC in 2014, but that the letter had drawn their attention to the fact Nestlé’s logo was still displayed on ITIC’s website, so “we have taken action on this.” Similarly, the law firm Pinsent Masons said there was “no on-going relationship with ITIC, having last engaged with the organisation in 2013.” The Qatar Financial Center thanked the campaign for highlighting the claims on the ITIC website, and said: “we will write to ITIC formally to request the immediate removal of our name from their list of sponsors and any promotional materials or publications; we will also consult with Qatar’s Ministry of Finance on any further action that needs to be taken.”

However, Carlsberg told campaigners: “we do not plan to participate in the activities mentioned in your letter. We have our policy of Responsible Drinking and other projects are beyond our plans.” IBM said: “The policy issues discussed in your letter fall outside the scope of, and do not directly impact, IBM’s business.”

RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS

ITIC’s approach has often involved working with or funding existing think tanks or research centres, in order both to draw on their credibility and in some cases to generate new findings that support the case against strong tobacco tax measures – notably, by suggesting that high tobacco taxes will simply lead to growth in illicit trade. Most prominent amongst these has been Oxford Economics, whose chair Adrian Cooper told campaigners in May: “I can assure you that we consider all such representations very seriously and we will table your letter for a discussion with our Board.” Subsequent requests for an update or Board response have not been replied to.

CAMPAIGNER REACTIONS

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH UK), said: “This is a fantastic victory. For years, this tobacco industry-funded tax think tank has bolstered its credibility by claiming the support of major global organisations – and now those claims have been revealed as completely hollow. We should no longer be surprised at the tobacco companies being liberal with the truth, but the willingness to misrepresent relationships is still striking. Nobody should take this outfit or its claims seriously – least of all, public officials.”

Dereje Alemayehu, chair of the Global Alliance for Tax Justice (GATJ), said: “For developing country policymakers, the claim of working closely with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank carry a great deal of weight. Now these organisations have demanded that ITIC stop making these misleading statements, people can see the true picture – that this is just one more lobby group, pretending to offer technical analysis but really just pushing an agenda. And a particularly poisonous agenda at that.”

Mary Assunta, Senior Policy Advisor of the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), said: “We need to expose how the tobacco industry funds third parties to do its lobbying. Every lobbying success of Big Tobacco causes a delay in life-saving measures in developing countries. This wave of public disassociations should send a clear message to the ITIC that being a spokesperson for the tobacco industry runs counter to global movement to reduce tobacco use.”

Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network said: “If current trends persist, tobacco will kill more than 8 million people worldwide annually by the year 2030, with 80 percent of these deaths in low- and middle-income countries. If ITIC’s loss of credibility undermines their ability to influence for Big Tobacco, in a way that reduces that by just 5%, it would save 400,000 lives a year.”

NOTES

[1] Quotation from ITIC website as at 18 November 2015, currently available in archive from: http://web.archive.org/web/20151118225508/http://www.iticnet.org/.

[2] Quotations from ITIC website as accessed at 8 July 2016.

ADDITIONAL NOTES FOR EDITORS

The organisations involved in the campaign to counter big tobacco’s tax lobbying efforts are: Action on Smoking and Health, (UK); Action on Smoking & Health, USA; Action on Smoking and Health, Scotland; African Tobacco Control Alliance; Association of Directors of Public Health, UK; British Heart Foundation; British Lung Foundation; CAFOD; Cancer Research UK; Christian Aid; Faculty of Public Health, UK; Framework Convention Alliance; FRESH; Global Alliance for Tax Justice; Health Poverty Action; InterAmerican Heart Foundation; International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; Latindadd; Save the Children; Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA); Tax Justice Europe; Tax Justice Network; Tax Justice Network – Africa; and Vital Strategies.
This press release and the original letter sent to companies and organisations can be accessed at http://taxtobacco.org.
CONTACTS

Alex Cobham, Tax Justice Network: +44 7982 236863 and alex@taxjustice.net

Deborah Arnott, ASH (UK): +44 7976 935 987 and deborah.arnott@ash.org.uk

US-BASED THINK-TANK TRIES TO INTIMIDATE REGIONAL TOBACCO CONTROL GROUP

Aug 7th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/4/373.full

Tobacco control advocates are familiar with the “scream test” – the litmus test for an effective measure that hurts the tobacco industry and causes it to protest. Recently, a regional tobacco control group, the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA) received a 36-page letter from Dr Gary Johns on behalf of the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) which shows the industry screaming.

The ITIC is a think tank based in Washington DC that claims to be an independent, non-profit research and educational organisation supported by 100 corporations including four transnational tobacco companies (BAT, PMI, JTI and Imperial Brands), each of which are represented on its board of directors (http://www.iticnet.org/Sponsors_BoardOfDirectors). Dr Gary Johns is an Australian consultant “engaged by ITIC to engage with its critics”.

The letter sent to SEATCA is riddled with false accusations against SEATCA, mischaracterizations of fact and law, disparaging comments about the World Health Organization (WHO), the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat (FCS) and the Parties to the FCTC.

What had SEATCA done to bring about this tirade? In 2012, the ITIC and Oxford Economics (OE) released a report on illicit tobacco trade, Asia-11 Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2012 to provide evidence of illicit trade of tobacco products of 11 countries in Asia. The ITIC later launched an updated version, Asia-14 Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2013”, expanding the review to 14 countries in Asia. Both reports were funded by Philip Morris International (PMI).

SEATCA published critiques of both reports. The first, More Myth than Fact provided an expert review of the methodology of the Asia-11 report, questioning the reliability and accuracy of the estimates of illicit consumption. The second, A Critique of the ITIC/OE Asia-14 Illicit Tobacco Indicator 2013, pointed out that the report failed to provide scientifically sound and unbiased information. The figures and statistics used in the report were products of either incorrect or unverified/unverifiable estimation methods, applied to often questionable data from multiple, disparate sources.

It appears that PMI wants to steer governments away from WHO FCTC Article 5.3, which aims to protect public health policies from tobacco industry interference, and would rather governments participate in industry sponsored programs and adopt its recommendations on tobacco taxation.

In November 2014, the ITIC organized a briefing for governments attending the sixth session of the FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP6) in Moscow hoping to dissuade them from their decision to adopt Article 6 guidelines on tobacco tax. However, the Framework Convention Secretariat (FCS) was able to caution governments in a timely manner about this ITIC meeting by issuing a Note Verbale in September 2014.

In February this year, SEATCA’s Executive Director received a letter from ITIC’s President inviting her to a ‘roundtable discussion’, particularly “an experts’ meeting of professional economists” which SEATCA declined.

In March, the FCS issued a second Note Verbale on tobacco industry interference on the tracking and tracing systems, again making reference to the ITIC.

Dr Johns wrote to an internationally renowned Thai tobacco control leader requesting them to urge SEATCA to meet with him about the critiques of ITIC reports.

However, SEATCA has a policy of not engaging with the tobacco industry or its representatives. Dr Johns made another effort by phone and email, and failing to secure a meeting hand-delivered the letter in April. Because SEATCA does not engage with the tobacco industry or individuals or organisations representing it, it decided to publish an open letter in response to Dr Gary John and the ITIC.

Among the many accusations the ITIC makes is that SEATCA “sees itself as an instrument of the World Health Organization and its Framework Convention Secretariat”.

This statement undermines the credibility of the many international and regional non-governmental groups that work closely with inter-governmental organisations.

SEATCA is a civil society alliance that works independently of the WHO and FCS. Like many other tobacco control NGOs, SEATCA has observer status with the FCTC COP.

Observer status with the COP does not make SEATCA an instrument of the COP.

SEACTA is an NGO in a developing country which carries out its activities in countries in the Southeast Asian region. ITIC’s letter, with its intimidating tone, appears aimed at bullying SEATCA in its efforts to expose the tactics of PMI and its representatives. This type of intimidation has a larger impact in a developing country setting as it aims to discredit a tobacco control NGO that works closely with governments.

The ITIC’s attack on a tobacco control NGO is another example of an old tried and tested tactic of the tobacco industry. Attempts at intimidation or silencing NGOs in any form must be exposed and stopped.⇓⇓⇓⇓

Mary Assunta

Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance

mary.assunta@cancer.org.au

ITIC Founding Co-Chairmen

Jul 17th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Download (PDF, 416KB)

Industry-funded International Tax and Investment Center responds to criticism by attempting to muddy the waters

Jun 24th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

The tobacco industry is under attack. In just two weeks, in May 2016, its tactic of challenging any law that threatens its profits, took a big hit. The arbitration panel, that tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI) had hoped would overturn standardised packaging legislation in Australia, published its full ruling that the company’s self-serving claims were inadmissible. Just days later, all four major tobacco companies lost their challenges against both the European Union’s Tobacco Products Directive and standardised packaging legislation in the UK.

This means that from 20 May 2017 EU member states must ensure that health warnings cover 65% of the tobacco pack and are free to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products. The UK, France and Ireland, which have already enacted standardised packaging legislation, will now go ahead with this brand removal. Further afield Canada, New Zealand, Hungary and Norway are due to follow suit and other countries which have expressed an interest will be buoyed by the way the industry’s legal and trade challenges to plain packs are being soundly rejected. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) slogan for World No Tobacco Day 2016 was “Get Ready for Plain Packaging” recognising that the removal of branded tobacco packaging is “going global.”

Each jurisdiction to consider standardised packaging legislation has received sustained attacks from tobacco companies, using both their own voices and those of third parties which they fund. By commissioning and publicising research reports and opinions from seemingly independent experts, tobacco companies have created not only the impression of a large network of opposition but of an illusory body of evidence, particularly in relation to the industry argument that standardised packaging will increase the illicit tobacco trade.

PMI private documents, leaked to Action on Smoking and Health (UK), revealed that “broad third-party media engagement” and “high profile opinion pieces” would be used to raise awareness of such arguments among “decision makers and the general public” as part of its attempt to prevent standardised packaging in the UK. These documents also revealed that PMI intended to use the International Tax and Investment Centre (ITIC) as one of its key “media messengers”. Since 2012, PMI has paid ITIC (in collaboration with global advisory firm, Oxford Economics) to produce annual reports on the illicit trade in Asia. These claimed that illicit trade is increasing in the region but have been accused of being methodologically flawed. When publicly available routine data was used in an attempt to replicate ITIC’s findings in Hong Kong, illicit levels were found to be under half of what ITIC had estimated.

Key to the industry’s use of third parties is its attempt to shift the paradigm by presenting third parties as ‘independent experts’ and their research as ‘trustworthy and rigorous’ while simultaneously positioning public health academics as ‘advocates’ and ‘zealots’ and their research as ‘advocacy’. This presentation of corporate pawns as informed moderates producing quality work and public health researchers as misguided fundamentalists producing poor quality work is a public relations tactic employed for decades by corporations in relation to environmental and health issues.

Over the last few weeks this tactic has been adopted by the tobacco industry third party, ITIC, in a series of letters sent to Non-Governmental Organisations (South East Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), ASH (UK), EU SmokeFree Partnership), the University of Bath in the UK, and the Editors of Tobacco Control, all of whom had criticised ITIC’s activities, some in letters, reports and webpages. ITIC’s letters made three inter-related claims, each of which we explore in the paragraphs below.

First, that public health research should be seen as advocacy while, by contrast, ITIC’s research (none of which appears to be peer-reviewed) should be seen as high quality. For example, in his letter to the University of Bath the President of ITIC, Daniel Witt, claimed: “We have become increasingly concerned about how the integrity of reputable institutions and individuals is maligned by overzealous advocacy ….. and ….by what passes for academic research when it is clearly constructed to fulfil an advocacy agenda”.

This denigration of public health research has been strongly criticised by independent experts. In her 2006 verdict in an extortion case against the tobacco industry in the United States Judge Gladys Kessler noted: “Much of the Defendants’ [i.e. the tobacco industry’s] criticisms of Government witnesses focused on the fact that these witnesses had been long-time, devoted members of “the public health community.” To suggest that they were presenting inaccurate, untruthful, or unreliable testimony because they had spent their professional lives trying to improve the public health of this country is patently absurd”.

The recent high court ruling on the challenges made by British American Tobacco, PMI, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco to UK standardised packaging legislation made a similar point, citing Sir Cyril Chantler’s 2015 review of the evidence: “Chantler … rejected the criticism made by the tobacco companies that those that advised the Government were biased against the industry. Conversely, he articulated scepticism about the methodological efficacy of research results generated by the tobacco companies. He also criticised the tobacco companies for adopting unrealistic criticisms of the output of existing researchers…”

This ruling drew upon two peer-reviewed papers, one confirming the poor quality of industry evidence in comparison to public health evidence on standardised packaging and the other paper showing how BAT and JTI went about distorting and misrepresenting public health evidence.

ITIC’s second claim is that it is not a lobby group. Yet based on widely accepted definitions of lobbying, ITIC’s own descriptions of its activities, and the global health communities’ observations of its behaviour, ITIC clearly acts as a lobbying organisation.

Indeed, it has persistently boasted of its lobbying success. in 1995, ITIC produced a document which outlined how “ITIC has developed trusted, advisory relationships with key, senior-level policy makers…..[which]…provide channels for private sector expertise to reach the Government before, during and after the official policy-making process. This combination…… provides ITIC and its sponsors a ‘seat at the policy-making table’”. And in 2004, Daniel Witt, ITIC’s President noted: “ITIC is a public policy organization actively work ing to change public policy in a pro-investment direction.” Although ITIC claims to be an “independent, non-profit research and educational organization” it receives tobacco company funding and has industry representatives on its Board of Directors. Outputs such as the Asia-11 and Asia-14 illicit trade indicator studies, commissioned by PMI and published by ITIC along with global advisory firm Oxford Economics, have been critiqued by Dr Hana Ross (on behalf of SEATCA) for opaque methodology and “unverifiable” results that were “inconsistent with results from other studies” in the region (for more on this issue, read here). In 2014, ITIC was blasted by the WHO for its underhand attempt to destabilise the proposed guidelines on tobacco tax and price policy by convening a meeting with Parties and Observers to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) immediately prior to the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6).

Finally, in each letter, ITIC’s President, Daniel Witt argues that public health organisations ought to engage with ITIC given its tax expertise. This position displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the FCTC’s Article 5.3 which aims to protect policy making from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. It also displays a fundamental lack of understanding of public attitudes to ITIC. For example, the World Bank withdrew from an ITIC event in India, following a letter from the Institute of Public Health in the country, similarly, following a letter from ASH (UK), the UK Department for International Development (DfiD) asked ITIC to remove its name, from its list of sponsors on ITIC’s website as DfiD has never been a sponsor, and the WHO has urged all governments not to engage with ITIC.

SEATCA and the University of Bath have respectively published and sent to ITIC detailed rebuttals of ITIC’s letters to them. These rebuttals and the aforementioned high court rulings are unlikely to deter ITIC from trying to influence tobacco control policies such as standardised packaging across the globe and undermining Article 5.3 of the FCTC. But the more people who reject engagement with ITIC, the harder it will be for ITIC to boast that it can get its tobacco industry clients a “seat at the policy making table”.

ITIC: A Foundation Directly Sponsored by Transnational Tobacco Companies

Jun 12th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.fctc.org/media-and-publications/fact-sheets/alternative-livelihoods-and-environment/1246-itic-a-foundation-directly-sponsored-by-transnational-tobacco-companies

The International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) is a U.S.-based non-profit research and education organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. ITIC describes itself as an independent clearinghouse for best practices in taxation and investment policy that provides “its sponsors a seat at the policymaking table.”

ITIC’s main sponsors are large multinational corporations from the oil, alcohol and tobacco industries. ITIC’s sponsors include all of the leading transnational tobacco companies, and its Board of Directors includes representatives from BAT, PMI, JTI and Imperial Tobacco.

Internal tobacco industry documents made public through U.S.-based litigation settlements in 1998 disclose that ITIC has long played a role in facilitating the tobacco industry’s access to government officials. For example, a 1997 internal R.J. Reynolds memo describes ITIC’s role in assisting RJR and PMI in favourable tax reform in Russia.

ITIC provides advice to governments on tobacco tax issues. They hold workshops and meetings and provide technical advice through paid experts. They sponsor reports on illicit trade, producing illicit trade estimates with poorly defined methodology and often exaggerated rates of illicit trade. ITIC uses their workshops, contacts and research to push for tax systems and rates that benefit the industry over public health.

Tobacco funded ITIC attacking SEATCA

May 27th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Currently, the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) is holding its 13th Annual Asia-Pacific Tax Forum in Jakarta, Indonesia. Civil society organisations working in the area of tobacco control have shown since years the close links between ITIC and the tobacco industry. Now ITIC employed a lawyer to intimidate the reputable Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance SEATCA with a letter full of false accusations and misinformation.

https://www.unfairtobacco.org/en/meldungen/tabak-finanzierte-itic-attackiert-seatca/

Campaign against tobacco control organisation

The Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance SEATCA has a long history of closely monitoring the tobacco industry and also the International Tax and Investment Center ITIC.

Lately, in October 2015, SEATCA reviewed ITIC’s ASEAN Excise Tax Reform Manual, which has been heavily promoted among government officials. The review critisized particularly the chapter on tobacco which shows inherent contradictions and an apparent negligence of international best practices on tobacco taxation.

Last month, SEATCA received a letter from Dr. Gary Johns on behalf of ITIC, accusing them of disseminating false information and lacking transparency.

Interestingly, he uses Germany1 as an example, suggesting that Germany would assess the work of ITIC as not violating Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). But there is no trace of Germany taking any official position vis-à-vis the ITIC and its lobbying.

Nevertheless, Germany is not a tobacco control champion at all – it is the biggest exporter of cigarettes in the world and at the bottom of the European tobacco control scale. The country lacks advertising bans and hasn’t substantially increased tobacco taxes for years – showing its negligence of one of the most effective tobacco control measures. So, Germany cannot be drawn upon as an exemple of effective implementation of the WHO FCTC.

Two examples of ITIC’s interference

When in November 2014 delegates of the FCTC Parties met in Moscow for the Conference of the Parties (COP), they were about to adopt guidelines for the FCTC article 6 on tax and price measures. A day before the meeting kicked off, ITIC hosted a private briefing to “ensure there is a balanced approach to important excise taxation issues“ and invited tax officials of the COP delegations. In response, the FCTC secretariat issued a note verbale to remind FCTC Parties about their commitments made under FCTC article 5.3.2 Finally, the guidelines on Article 6 were adopted as proposed – despite the ITIC intervention.

In May 2015, amidst political debates about stronger tobacco control measures in India, ITIC co-organized the Asia Pacifc Tax Forum in New Delhi. The World Bank initially was set to sponsor the event and to participate. As the chief guest to the opening ceremony the Indian Minister of State for Finance was listed as were key government tax officials. After public health experts raised their concern about the tobacco funding of ITIC, the World Bank as well as the Minister withdrew their participation and financial support.

What is the ITIC?

The International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) describes itself as an independent clearinghouse for best practices in taxation and investment policy that facilitates “a ‘neutral table’ engagement“3 with the public, private and academic sector.

ITIC’s main sponsors are large multinational corporations from the oil, alcohol and tobacco industries, including representatives from all leading transnational tobacco companies4 on its Board of Directors. Internal tobacco industry documents5 disclose its role in facilitating the tobacco industry’s access to government officials.

In November 2014, the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Dr. Margaret Chan, stated in her address to the COP of the FCTC in Moscow about the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC):

„Please, do not be fooled by them6. Their agenda, at least, is easy to see: to undermine your power, your efforts to adopt the robust, expert-driven proposed guidelines on tobacco tax and price policy.“

Tobacco tax is a health policy

Tobacco taxation is not just another tax burden to consumers, nor is it just another revenue for governments. Tobacco taxation is a health policy. Scientific research published in 2012 comes to the conclusion:

„Significant increases in tobacco taxes are a highly effective tobacco control strategy and lead to significant improvements in public health.“

Thus, tobacco taxation is a tool for preventing premature deaths from tobacco use. Consequently, the 180 parties, that have embraced the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), have committed themselves to use tax and price measures to achieve their principle aim: „to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke“.

Health policies such as tobacco taxation must be protected from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. Four tobacco multinationals are sitting on the ITIC board of directors. How can ITIC claim to have no vested interests?

Statement on ITIC in Support of SEATCA

Together with the Philippines, Netherlands, India, and the European Commission ↩
Article 5.3 provides that health policies must be protected from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. ↩
Text altered from an ealier website version talking about “providing its sponsors a seat at the policy making table“. ↩
BAT, PMI, JTI and Imperial Brands (IB) ↩
These documents were made public through U.S.-based litigation settlements in 1998. ↩
ITIC ↩

Agenda Susupan Industri Rokok dalam International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC)

May 27th, 2016
by Editor.
No comments yet

Today, the 13th Annual Asia-Pacific Tax Forum was initiated by the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) opened in Jakarta. Institutions which claims itself as a research and education nonprofit institution that is independent claims will bring tax reform in Indonesia. But in fact, behind the ITIC approach to the Indonesian government, to infiltrate the hidden agenda of the tobacco industry.

In 2015, ITIC met with Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla. During the meeting, President of ITIC Daniel Witt gave the book Excise Tax in ASEAN: A Guide to Reform Ahead of AEC 2015 to the Vice President. Witt says that the book discusses among others the implementation of customs clearance for cross-border trade, for example excise for commodities such as cigarettes, alcohol, and so on. This book has also been given to the Finance Minister Bambang Brodjonegoro. This is the initial step approach kepemerintah ITIC Indonesia.

The first thing that must be asked is whether the independent ITIC? In fact, on the board of directors ITIC stands four major tobacco industry, Philip Morris (PMI), Japan Tobacco International (JTI), British American Tobacco (BAT) and Imperial Tobacco. Two years after being founded, ITIC revealed that they provide access or support in policy making for the sponsor,
including the transnational tobacco companies.

ITIC has been lobbying various nations to oppose the tobacco tax policies. They make a tax manual which essentially facilitate the investment climate but tucked inside a chapter on tobacco tax. Their will is clear, namely that the government did not raise high taxes on cigarettes, something which is contrary to international rules, including the World Bank.

In May 2015, the World Bank withdraw financial backing for the 12st Annual Asia-Pacific Tax Forum in New Delhi, India, which is being organized by ITIC. The World Bank refused to give support and the Indian government did not send top officials to the forum. All done for the protection of society by giving exemption on tobacco products.

On this occasion, Dr. Doug Bettcher, head of WHO’s Communicable Diseases said, “ITIC has published numerous false endorsements tobacco industry excise tax, investment, and the illegal trade in tobacco products. ITIC has used their international conference to lobby government officials on the taxation of tobacco. ”

Therefore, in his statement, Bettcher also said that WHO urge all countries not to get involved with the institution also took the academics and the schools in making kebijakan.Namun this economy, at this time, it seems the Indonesian government, in this case the Ministry of Finance, middle fooled by ITIC in the same holding of the forum.

In order to improve the investment climate, the government should be consistent with the dignity of Excise Act, namely controlling consumption through an increase in tobacco excise rates. ITIC strongly pro an increase in tobacco taxes, they will weaken the government’s intention to scare the increase of illegal cigarettes.

In addition, the establishment of a sovereign government tax rates, rather than follow the direction of ITIC who have an interest to increase its business in the ASEAN markets, particularly in Indonesia.

“What do ITIC in countries that approached actually just a camouflage for the hidden agenda that infiltrated the cigarette industry bigwigs. This is one of their strategies in order to perpetuate its business, and the way they are very subtle. Government officials, especially in Kementeri Finance, the potential to be affected. This is very dangerous for tobacco control efforts in an attempt protection of people, “said Kartono Mohamad, Chairman of the Tobacco Control Support Center (TCSC) as well as Advisory Board Member National Commission on Tobacco Control.

This is supported by the economist who is also Vice Chairman of the Institute of Demography, University of Indonesia, Abdillah Ahsan, who said, “The government should be careful on the recommendations given ITIC. The state could be used as a tool by the tobacco industry to make profits through tobacco control policies are weak, especially the tax policy is very effective to reduce consumption. ”

The government must be aware that the ITIC sponsored by tobacco companies multinational has a hidden agenda to influence the economic policies taken by the government, especially on the issue of tobacco control, as in the case of tax / cigarette taxes, given what has been done ITIC countries other. Therefore, the government should not make a commitment on the ITIC. Tax reform is a record that should be reviewed, especially in the Tobacco Tax Section as it will sacrifice the people who become the target market for the benefit of cheap cigarettes industry. @ ANDI Digul

← Earlier Posts