Taking Out The Trash

Letter to the editor: it's not just the BNF

Here is a letter sent to the British Medical Journal for publication following on from my story about the British Nutrition Foundation. (see previous post).

Dear Editor

 

British Nutrition Foundation

 

Phil Chamberlain's BMJ article  expressing concern about the British Nutrition Foundation is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and balanced.

It would though be a mistake to suppose that the BNF is the only body of its type whose work influences UK food and nutrition policy and therefore the national food supply - and what's in the shops. The global International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), which has a branch in Europe, and the European Food Information Council (EUFIC) are set up in much the same way as the BNF. Their websites give some information about the sources of their funding and their governing councils.

Organisations like this are characterised by the UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition as BINGOs, an amusing acronym which stands for 'Business Interest NGOs'. As such, BINGOs are classified with the food, drink and associated industries, their explicit representative organisations, and their corporate affairs and public relations consultants.

It's important to stress that the public interest issue is not industry as such, but that section of the food manufacturing and associated industries whose profits depend on products which, consumed in typical quantities, are harmful to public health.

Geoffrey Cannon

Rio de Janeiro

Fronting for the food industry?

The British Medical Journal has just published an article by me looking at the activities of the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF).

The BNF is a key independent charity that has influence on food policy in the UK and is often used by the government for advice and to publish web sites and other information to the public. It also has strong links to the food industry and there have been complaints that its stated aims of being objective and scientific are undermined by these connections.

The Independent published a version of the BMJ story as well.

Update: Thanks to The Gym Monkey for this list of BBC pages quoting the BNF.

A couple of people have been in touch with extra information following publication. One that intrigued me highlighted the role of a company called Fallon Currie Consulting. They are fronted by Ailbhe Fallon who is speaking at a conference on sweeteners organised by the BNF. The conference aims to "separate fact from fiction" and has a generous industry presence

Other speakers include Prof Tom Sanders, whose has done a lot of research for Tate & Lyle, and Prof Nick Finer. You can see Prof Finer talking on this video about aspartame and sweeteners. It's on a website called the Aspartame Information Service. A Whosis search shows that it was set up by Fallon Currie for the makers of this sweetener, Ajinomoto. You can contact the information service via a post box whose postcode is SW1E 5WQ. Fallon Currie's head office is at SW1E 5DD.

Needless to say both Ajinomoto and Tate & Lyle fund the British Nutrition Foundation. While the Foundation's web site and and annual reports acknowledge their links and fairly chart their work, Fallon Currie's online presence remains curiously opaque.

They seem to do independent-looking web sites for food industries well, though. Take the International Glutamate Information Service - another Fallon Currie creation but this time on behalf of MSG industry.

I've heard no comment from either the BNF or any of its supporters about these articles in the Independent and the BMJ but was warned today by one researcher familiar with this area: "Brace yourself for a shoal of letters from top profs saying the BNF is AOK and that good understanding with industry is vital bla bla."

I do think it fair, though, to include a lengthy explanation about the work of that BNF that I was sent by Sara Stanner, its science programme manager. For reasons of space this could not be included in full in the articles.

Q: In almost all its publicity the foundation makes clear its commitment to objective, science-based research. This independence is obviously important to the foundation.

I'd be interested in your views on how the BNF maintains its independence despite its industry funding. Does the foundation not come under pressure from donors to concentrate on certain areas or ignore other ones? Do you think that having such close links with industry (in terms of the amount of money food manufacturers give you and the number of staff and trustees who work or have worked for the private sector) damages your credibility as an independent charity?

A: We are certain that if we were viewed as unable to provide advice that is authoritative and independent of our funding sources, then we would not attract donations from industry or enjoy the rich collaboration and support we receive from the nutrition, academic and education communities.

BNF provides a forum for people and organisations who share an interest in nutrition science to come together to encourage enhanced standards in food provision. Our members tell us that they appreciate access to a 'sounding board' which provides an honest, informed, no frills opinion of what they are doing or proposing to do.

Certainly, if we feel their plans are misguided, we tell them and we regularly challenge their thinking and help them to identify ways to reformulate in line with best practice, e.g. portion size, energy density, nutrient composition. We do this in a way that places our advice in the context of the available scientific evidence, food law and food policy. But the scientific evidence base is the most important driver of the advice we provide. We work in a similar way, in fact, with government officials and their departments (in the work they commission us to do, we do not lobby) and in our responses to consultations.

As you will have seen the Foundation attracts funding (won in open competition) from a variety of sources, including contracts with the European Commission, national government departments and agencies; a wide range of food producers and manufacturers, retailers and food service companies; grant providing bodies, trusts and other charities. We obtain no funding by right. The donations we receive from food and drink companies are used at ‘arms length’ and in a generic sense to supplement the funding we secure from the other sources referred to above (including contracts in which we are collaborating with university departments across Europe) to deliver a free information service to health professionals, journalists, teachers and indeed the general public (you will have seen our two websites www.nutrition.org.uk and www.foodafactoflife.org.uk). You should also look at our recent podcasts (http://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/Search.aspx?search=podcast), especially episode 5 of the Eatwell plate series on foods high in fat, sugar and salt, and the most recent one on healthy eating. We interact with many sectors, including government and our peers in academia, education and the health professions, and believe that this enriches the information and resources we provide.

Our ability to protect our independence is strengthened by this diversity in funding and centres on our strong governance. This governance (comprising principally our Board of Trustees and Council) is organised to secure our independence and to ensure we meet our charitable objectives. It is broad based but heavily weighted towards the academic community and involves many leading high ranking experts in nutrition and health, education and communications, of international standing, who receive no payment and generously give up their time to ensure that the Foundation delivers messages based on the accurate interpretation of nutrition science.  We also have a Royal patron.

The work that both our education and science teams produces is testament to our ability to produce evidence-based information without pressure from our supporters, who recognise that our independence is our most valued asset. This work is guided by education committees representing the four constituent countries of the UK and various advisory committees comprising scientists with expertise in human nutrition. Strange as it may seem we are not pressurised, commercially or politically, to be selective in the repertoire of nutrition topics we address, as will be evident from our websites and the topics we cover in our publications and podcasts. A fundamental principle of our work is that we do not endorse or in any way promote individual products or companies; this is made clear at the outset and the Foundation reserves the right to withdraw membership. All applications for membership are scrutinised by our Trustees in a structured manner approved by our Council and all members are required by signature to abide by our objects and values in their interactions with us.

Incidentally, you refer to ‘the number of staff and trustees who work or have worked for the private sector’, suggesting that this is a dominant theme in the expertise we have available to us and that such experience is detrimental to good judgement. A number of our nutrition scientists undertook work experience placements with food companies during their degrees (which you will find is a common practice in human nutrition degrees and these graduates are usually in high demand as these placements typically go to talented students and they also develop a level of maturity from this experience which is attractive to employers), and another was employed by a trade association many years ago.

Our view is that we are fortunate in attracting scientific staff of a very high calibre from all walks of human nutrition, which enriches the work we do and ensures we are able to provide a mature and balanced view on nutrition issues. You also mention our Trustees - to ensure diversity in the expertise available among our Trustees, our Articles of Association that not more than two of our Trustees (out of a total of 12) can be Industrial Governors (i.e. from the food industry). Details are provided in our Annual Report.

Q: Do you think that these industry links are adequately signposted so people are aware of them? By people I mean anyone who interacts with the foundation whether in government, NGOs, academics, teachers, consumers etc. For instance, it is extremely rare in press reports where the foundation may talk about a particular company for the report to mention that that firm is a member of the foundation. Of course, that might be an oversight on behalf of the writer, but it does seem to be a common oversight. The membership list is published on your web site but do you feel there is proper disclosure on other material you publish to demonstrate possible conflicts of interest?

A: Picking up on your example, we base our communications about diet and nutrition on generic foods and food groups. We would not give any comment on specific brands either in our resources or to the media (I am not sure which press reports you are referring to).  If we engage in any piece of project work that involves support from one of our member companies (or any other industry link), we always clearly acknowledge this (for example, we thank anyone who has given us support towards a conference during the event and in all related literature and we include a conflict of interest statement in any paper we write that has received financial support or even been encouraged as a topic for us to review by one of our member companies).

We have clear statements about our funding on both of our websites and in our Annual Reports, as well as a list of all of the companies that have provided us with any financial support during the year. You make an interesting point though and we shall give consideration to this, as part of our on-going review of our policies. But in our experience, most people that we talk to are aware that we get funding from different sources, including industry and government.

As I am sure you will realise from exploring our website and activities, we are passionate about what we do and the role we believe we have in supporting and guiding consumers (including children) to improve the dietary choices they make, through the use of nutrition science encouraging and supporting the food industry to improve nutrition standards for the public good, and also providing tools and resources that teachers and health professionals can use in their work. We are proud of our track record of ‘telling it how it is’.

Blacklisting outlawed

Apologies for the long delay in posting. Work got in the way.

So I haven't been able to formally say that the regulations outlawing blacklisting have now been approved and are law.

There has been a lot of criticism that they are drawn too narrowly to work effectively. Alan Ritchie at the UCATT said:

“The Government has entirely rejected all UCATT submissions and attempts to have the regulations amended to ensure that blacklisting was stamped out. Fortunately for Lord Young blacklisting doesn’t occur in the House of Lords but ordinary construction workers are not so privileged.”

 

UCATT have argued that the regulations were deficient as they did not make blacklisting a specific criminal offence and only prevented workers from being blacklisted for undertaking, the narrowly defined, “trade union activities”. The Government has given the green light to employers to blacklist workers for undertaking unofficial industrial action, which could include stopping work due to safety fears or a refusal to undertake voluntary overtime.

 

The regulations also fail to grant an automatic right to compensation for any worker who discovers that they have been blacklisted. If a blacklist is discovered workers will not be automatically told that they had been blacklisted.

 

Mr Ritchie, added: “Cynical construction employers will recognise the weakness of the regulations and could continue to blacklist workers. They know that they are unlikely to get caught and if they do they will merely get a slap on the wrist. UCATT will continue to campaign to have the regulations overhauled so that they are truly effective in stamping out this despicable practice once and for all.”

But at least the default position of employers that there is no evidence of blacklisting has been removed. It has been proved to take place and it makes it harder to dismiss allegations in the future.

Meanwhile it seems a sanctioned register of staff to be denied employment appears to have gone belly-up. The National Staff Dismissal Register might still be advertised online but apparently employers aren't taking up the offer. Unless people know otherwise, in which case let me know.

Union says government plans to deny compensation to poisoned workers

Below is a press release from UCATT which I thought worth putting out. I've subbed it down a little but otherwise it is their words and their interpretation of what sounds liks a shocking situation.

Construction union UCATT have described proposals, which would deny compensation to pleural plaques victims as “disgraceful”.

The decision not to compensate pleural plaques victims is due to the Government’s unwillingness to pay compensation to public sector workers exposed to asbestos whilst employed in former nationalised heavy industries, such as shipbuilding.

The Government’s liability is claimed to be £35 million per annum, but this is a diminishing liability due to the historic nature of the exposure.

Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of UCATT, said: “The State employed these workers and exposed them to asbestos now the State must pay their compensation. A failure to do so is morally indefensible.”

The Government is only planning to compensate plaques victims who had already lodged a legal case before the Law Lords banned compensation for pleural plaques in October 2007.

There are £30 million worth of legally stayed pleural plaques cases. These include many cases where insurance companies would have been liable to pay compensation. Instead the Government is proposing to use public funds to pay compensation.

Mr Ritchie added: “The Government is intending to pay compensation, from an already severely overstretched public purse, to pleural plaques victims when it is the insurers who are liable. Why on earth are the insurers not being made to pay?”

The Government’s decision is in stark contrast to that of the Scottish Parliament, who last year passed a law allowing pleural plaques victims in Scotland to receive full compensation.

A formal announcement on the Government’s pleural plaques plans is expected to be made by Jack Straw the Justice Secretary shortly.

In an attempt to head off widespread criticism of its plans the Government is proposing funding of a National Centre for Asbestos Related Disease (NCARD), a register for pleural plaques sufferers and faster payments for mesothelioma victims. The Government are also considering establishing an Employer Liability Insurance Bureau, to compensate victims of fatal asbestos conditions such as mesothelioma, if no insurer can be identified.

Mr Ritchie, said: “This is the opposite of social justice, which Labour was founded on.”

The Government is basing their evidence that pleural plaques victims should not be compensated on a report commissioned by the Chief Medical Officer and written by Professor Robert Maynard, an expert in air pollution who had never met a pleural plaques sufferer.

Note: In October 2007 the Law Lords overturned over 20 years of civil law and ruled that pleural plaques could no longer be compensated. In July 2008 the Government launched a consultation exercise to examine whether the Law Lords ruling should be overturned. Despite repeated promises that the Government would respond to the consultation, no announcement has yet been made.

Droning on

Last year I wrote about how various police forces were spending thousands on the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Yesterday The Guardian carried a report revealing much more about how forces in the South East are planning to make much greater use of UAVs. Fit Watch has a commentary on this story.

Their use in Iraq and Afghanistan has acted as a useful test bed for their deployment in the UK. While civil aviation rules still have some catching up to do it is likely that a quiet and, relatively, cheap bit of kit promoted as crime-fighting tool is unlikely to meet much public opposition.  Of course the capabilities of UAVs (some serious snooping power) and worries about their reliability are unlikely to be highlighted.

The 2012 Olympics are probably going to see some stage managed use of UAVs to smooth their widespread adoption.

blacklisting hearings part deux: legislation delayed

A Parliamentary committee scrutinising new blacklisting legislation has delayed its decision for a week and will look again at the issue. Update: Ucatt has now issued a press release on this which I've pasted in at the end.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments sat yesterday (in private) and decided to sit again next Wednesday before publishing its report. It followed lobbying by unions of committee members pointing out that the draft wording of the new regulations may contravene the Human Rights Act.

The committee's secretary told me:

The Committee considered this instrument yesterday and will return to the subject next week.  A report will be published stating the Committee's decision, usually on the Tuesday after the meeting.

The JCSI only considers the technical aspects of SIs. Briefly, the Committee ensures the SI has been properly legally worded as Parliament has ordered.  We are not allowed to consider the policy behind it or merits (lines 62-64, Standing Order 151). Further clarification about the work of the JCSI and its terms of reference (Standing Order 151) can be found here.

The regulations will still need to be approved by both houses before becoming law.

Meanwhile Mick Dooley's employment tribunal hearing against Balfour Beatty has ended and a judgement due within four weeks. Dooley is claiming unfair dismissal saying he was blacklisted. He had a file held on him by the Consulting Association - the secret vetting agency set up by construction companies. Beatty denies the claim. Update: short report on this from the useful Panopticon blog)

This is the Blacklist Support Group's commentary on the hearing giving their view of the key points:

1. Balfour Beatty used the Consulting Association file as part of their bundle. They relied on it time and again in their evidence arguing that only official TU activity is covered by the legislation. The BB argument was that if they did dismiss Mick, it was because he was a well known trouble maker involved in unofficial wildcat strikes and all the info in his file proved it. And therefore they had a fair reason to dismiss.

 

The judge said he thought the file was"ghastly" and repeatedly asked their barrister whether they were relying on this file which was already considered illegal under the Data Protection Act? BB repeatedly said yes.

 

2. BB accepted that their HR managers attended meetings at the Consulting Association and that they paid a membership subscription fee.

 

3. The judge accepted the need for the Human Rights Act to be taken into account by the tribunal. The only opposition to this point made by Balfour Beatty was that it was out of time.

Mick argued that the file had entries on it in 2001. The judge said that by relying on the file as evidence TODAY as part of the ET process that this meant that the HRA applied to it today.

4. Mick repeated his allegations about the security forces involvement

Judgement is reserved. Judge said should have a result within 4 weeks. Win or Lose it should be very interesting to read the written judgement.

And this is only the first of dozens of such cases scheduled to take place.

Ucatt press release

Construction union UCATT has won a delay in the implementation of blacklisting laws, due to concerns that the current proposals fail to stamp out the practice. The delay in the implementation of the regulations is a significant victory in UCATT’s campaign to win justice for blacklisted construction workers.

UCATT wrote to and directly contacted members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments expressing their grave concerns that the current regulations will fail to end blacklisting. When the committee met on Wednesday 20 January to consider the regulations, a decision was made to delay ratifying the regulations for a week, as the committee was concerned that the proposals do not comply with human rights obligations.

Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of UCATT, said: “The pause in the parliamentary process is welcome. Outlawing blacklisting is a fundamental issue for UCATT. The Government now has the opportunity to rethink and redraft regulations which as they stand are entirely inadequate to stamp out blacklisting.”

As they stand the regulations do not make blacklisting a criminal offence, despite a Government promise in 1999 this would be the case. The regulations also only cover blacklisting of workers undertaking the limited definition of “trade union activities” and specifically rules out protecting workers involved in unofficial industrial action, including stoppages due to safety concerns or a refusal to undertake voluntary overtime.

Nor do the regulations provide for automatic compensation to any worker who is found to have been blacklisted and if an illegal blacklist was discovered the affected workers would have no automatic right to be informed of the fact. The regulations also allow for certain circumstances, which would permit companies to legally draw up lists of trade unionists for recruitment practices, which could result in backdoor blacklisting.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights also raised concerns about the weakness of the blacklisting regulations in December 2009. The committee criticised the regulations for being incompatible with the Government’s human rights commitments and that the proposals failed to provide an adequate remedy for workers who had previously been blacklisted.

Mr Ritchie, added: “There is growing disquiet about the weakness of the blacklisting regulations. It is vital that the Government listens to these genuine concerns and acts accordingly.”

Blacklisting hearings

Construction worker Mick Dooley continues his employment tribunal against Balfour Beatty today claiming unfair dismissal because he was being blacklisted. Balfour deny the claim.

The Mirror carries a report where Dooley alleges that Special Branch were involved in the blacklisting scandal. Update: The Guardian also reports on the case

It's not reported here but Dooley has previously told me of the lengths to which it appears someone or company was prepared to go to disrupt this union activist. That includes sending pornography to his house and having women leave messages on his answer phone suggesting he was having an affair.

The tribunal is, I believe, due to finish tomorrow.

Meanwhile the regulations outlawing blacklisting which have been proposed by the government were laid before parliament on January 5 and are due to be debated today by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments - pretty much the only chance there will be for a debate on this issue.

A list of the committee members is here.It has 14 members (seven MPs and seven peers), a majority of whom are Labour/Lib Dems. It is chaired by the Conservative MP David Maclean whose voting record shows him having voted against gay rights, the hunting ban and action to tackle climate change. I can find little evidence of any empathy with trade unions. However he did try and bring in a law which would have watered down the Freedom of Information Act.

Unions and lawyers say the new rules are full of holes, but the government has not changed the wording since they were outlined in November.

Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of the construction union UCATT, said: “The blacklisting regulations are fundamentally flawed. It is deeply disappointing that the Government has failed to listen to the genuine concerns of trade unionists and have failed to make the appropriate amendments to the regulations."

The regulations need to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament before they can be enacted into law.

Two from Tribune

I've got two news stories in Tribune this week....

Watchdog attacks UK jail overcrowding

A European anti-torture watchdog has criticised overcrowded conditions in Britain’s jails. The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture was set up to monitor abuses of the European Convention on Human Rights and carries out spot checks on detention centres right across Europe.

For their British inspection, investigators visited a number of prisons and found what they call a culture of “chronic overcrowding”.

Read more

Blacklisting report fails human rights test, says parliamentary report

A hard-hitting report published by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has criticised the government’s proposed regulations aimed at outlawing blacklisting.

The report – called Any of our Business? Human Rights and the UK Private Sector – examines how businesses need to take account now of human rights legislation.

In what must have been a very late addition to the report, it also raises concerns about new laws on blacklisting. And the report emphasises evidence from Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College, London, and construction union UCATT that the Government’s proposals do not go far enough.

It says: “We doubt the compatibility of the government’s blacklisting proposals with the UK’s international human rights obligations. We recommend that the government provide a full explanation of its argument that the proposals are compatible.

“This should include a response to the criticism of the Institute of Employment Rights that these proposals fail to provide an adequate remedy for those individuals who have already been affected by blacklisting.”

And it promises: “In the light of the Government’s explanation, we anticipate revisiting this issue.”

Read more

Meanwhile the first employment tribunal arising from the blaclisting scandal is due to start on January 18 in London where Balfour Beatty is defending a claim by Ucatt activist Mick Dooley. The tribunal is scheduled to last four days.

Hacks on screen

And a happy new year to you too.

Something light and frothy to keep the hard frost at bay. I asked people on Twitter for suggestions on films about journalists I could recommended to my first year journalism students.

Below is, in no particular order, what came through. Feel free to let me have your choices and comments. A list of journalism films from the Washington Post has barely any of those mentioned below. You pays your money etc etc. It seem that films broadly fall into two categories; the journalist as single-handed (generally male) hero or the cyincal or embittered hack doomed to come to a sticky end.

If I had to pick out my favourites then Defence of the Realm possibly just edges All The President's Men and both are a short nose ahead of Salvador and Network. There's a trailer of the Brit conspiracy thriller below to whet your appetite / remind you.

ATPM is the better training film. Dustin Hoffman as Carl Bernstein gives a masterclass in interviewing which is far more useful (and usual) than Reford's somewhat overwrought underground meetings with the legendary Deep Throat. And the quality of the film is clear in the casting of the excellent Hal Holbrook for that role. There is strength in depth in this movie.

Despite all that it must be a generational thing because the 1980s setting of Defence of the Realm resonates stronger than the wider collars in the Washington Post newsroom.

I wonder too if your choice of favourites indicates how you feel about journalism overall? Does liking the marvellous His Girl Friday suggest a more whimsical attitude? What could you infer from an appreciation of Fear and Loathing? Bad things happen to good people in most of mine. Hmmmm.

Of course if we widened the scope to television we could then include series 5 of The Wire but that's a whole other genre.

And the nominations are:

The Killing Fields
Salvador
The Quiet American (and more on Graham Greene here)
Citizen Kane
The Aviator
Veronica Guerin
Frost/Nixon
The Year of Living Dangerously
The Day the Earth Caught Fire
Das schreckliche Mädchen (The Nasty Girl)
His Girl Friday
Ace In the Hole
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Broadcast News
Goodnight and Good Luck (more on Edward R Murrow here)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
All The President’s Men
Defence of the Realm
The Sweet Smell of Success
Network
Welcome to Sarajevo
The Lost Honour of Katharina  Blum
Cry Freedom

Blacklisting proposals fail human rights test, says parliamentary report

A report released today by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights criticises the government's proposed regulations aimed at outlawing blacklisting.

The report, Any of our Business? Human Rights and the UK Private Sector, looks at how businesses need to take account of human rights legislation and concerns.

In what must have been a very late addition to the report, it raises concerns about new laws on blacklisting.

The report emphasises evidence from UCATT as well as Prof Keith Ewing that the proposals do not go far enough.

It says:

"We doubt the compatibility of the Government’s blacklisting proposals with the UK’s international human rights obligations. We recommend that the Government provide a full explanation of its argument that the proposals are compatible. This should include a response to the criticism of the Institute of Employment Rights, that these proposals fail to provide an adequate remedy for those individuals who have already been affected by blacklisting."

And it promises:

"In the light of the Government’s explanation, we anticipate revisiting this issue."

A PDF copy of the report can be downloaded here.

Several Labour MPs have been pressing for the committee to investigate blacklisting so that those involved can be properly scrutinised and regulations drawn as effectively as possible.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said:

“This report backs up TUC concerns that UK industrial relations laws – including the proposed regulations on blacklisting – are out of line with international human rights standards.

“The blacklisting regulations need rethinking, and the Government needs to come up with a new strategy on human rights at work, at home and where British companies operate abroad.”

Yesterday an Early Day Motion was put which called on the government to ammend its proposals in order to ensure blacklisting can effectively be outlawed.

The government says the regulations will need to go before both houses of parliament and aims to have them on the statuate book in the New Year.