[Intl-tobacco] New Zealand: Tobacco firms fund campaign against ban (fwd)

[Robert Weissman]

Tobacco firms fund campaign against ban
by NICHOLAS MALING
Source: Independent Newspapers Ltd. / STUFF , Sunday, 12/31/00

A campaign run by the Hospitality Association to prevent a ban on smoking
in bars, cafes and restaurants is being partly funded by the tobacco
industry.

The Tobacco Institute, a lobby group for the industry, has funded some of
the Hospitality Association's pamphlets and the association recently
invited the head of the institute to be the only speaker on the science of
cigarette smoke at a forum for bar and restaurant owners.

The news is the latest in a public relations battle between anti-smoking
activists and the Hospitality Association over the proposed ban.

The association argues a ban will harm the hospitality sector and has been
writing to MPs promoting ventilation and self regulation as the best
alternatives to protect staff and customers from second-hand smoke.

Association chief executive Bruce Robertson is unrepentant about the
funding, citing a parallel example of government funding for anti-smoking
group Ash, which is pushing for the bar smoking ban proposed by Health
Minister Annette King.  "Certainly, I have sought funding to assist with
production costs of informational brochures . . I make no apologies for
doing that," he said.

"All of us that are voluntary groups have limited resources and we use
those resources where we can, that doesn't compromise our position. Just
as I wouldn't expect the fact that Ash are getting funding from the
Government should compromise their position either."

But the anti-smoking lobby is striking back, circulating a pamphlet among
MPs detailing the links between the hospitality and tobacco industries.
Among the allegations is funding by the Tobacco Institute of a series of
pamphlets compiled by the Hospitality Association promoting ventilation of
smoke in bars and restaurants. The funding was less than $10,000,
Robertson said.

He also confirmed the attendance of Michael Thompson, executive director
of the Tobacco Institute, at a recent forum organised by the hospitality
industry.


Thompson was the only speaker in a section of the forum on the science of
minimising the impact of tobacco smoke, despite requests by anti-smoking
activists to present an alternative view.

King has written to Robertson complaining about the forum.

"While it is of course your choice who you invite to speak at such fora .
. . I am curious as to why you chose to rely on the tobacco industry to
speak on the science of (second-hand smoking).

"I note that there was no participation at your forum by a representative
of an agency such as the Ministry of Health, the Wellington School of
Medicine or other organisation with a health and research focus," the
letter, obtained by the Sunday Star-Times, reads.

Robertson said in hindsight the conference should have had another
scientific point of view represented, although there were owners of
non-smoking bars on the panel Thompson was part of and alternative views
put forward.

"On the one hand the tobacco (industry's) research is saying there are no
issues (with environmental smoke) and the people that are running the
research on the other side, have a clear mandate that they want it
stopped. Frankly, I'm seeing research on both sides," he said.

He denied the association was being influenced by the tobacco industry.
"Our position has got absolutely nothing to do with the tobacco industry's
position, although on this occasion it does coincide."

While the association was opposed to the ban, it recognised there were
staff and patrons who found smoking a discomfort.

"If we can get some funding from the tobacco institute to improve the
environment, that seems to be a sensible thing to do," he said.

Ash executive director Trish Fraser said her organisation, one of those
promoting the ban, received funding from the Government for contracts to
specific services like education about smoking.