Why is the public health lobby so scared of debate?

Tuesday August 2, 2011

Martin Cullip says the fear of balanced debate leads to bad policy making and in the end will be self-defeating

Whether one is fully convinced by anthropogenic global warming claims or not, the most alarming aspect of ‘Climategate’ revelations in November 2009 was that the University of East Anglia had been plotting to avoid revealing data under Freedom of Information legislation. Indeed, it was the very frustration at such refusals which prompted the publication of such a large volume of leaked correspondence.

In a free society, the electorate place their trust in public bodies to act responsibly where studies that carry the potential to influence policy are concerned. If legislation which will impact upon the lives of citizens is being proposed mooted without the evidence being tested rigorously from all angles, it is arguably an abuse of power and taxpayer money.

It is becoming apparent, however, that obfuscation tactics are increasingly being considered perfectly valid when restrictions on social freedoms are proposed by government.

For example, the tobacco control community has long advocated a ‘no platform’ standpoint towards cigarette manufacturers. This is being replicated by anti-alcohol and obesity campaigners as illustrated, in May, by the withdrawal of health groups from governmental policy discussions over the issue of industry representation.

The Salt Association has long complained that they are routinely ignored by politicians and that research is misrepresented by vested interests along pre-ordained lines. The general approach in all lifestyle areas leans towards avoidance of debate at all costs via ad hominem attacks against industry concerned rather than honest debating of conflicting evidence.

In June the University of Stirling was upbraided by the Information Commissioner for refusing to reveal details of a project focussing on plain packaging of cigarettes on the basis that it was an unreasonable interference on their time. The claim was absurd considering their defence was conducted over nearly a year and involved detailed submissions under five different aspects of the Freedom of Information Act. Simply releasing the requested information would have saved them considerable time compared with their preferred option of doggedly refusing it.

Likewise, in New York where a ‘soda tax’ is being considered, soft drinks manufacturers are taking legal action over the withholding of information requests by public health departments who, they argue, are demonizing fizzy drinks in advertising campaigns based on shoddy science.

At some point, this widespread denial of debate, the guarded secrecy of publicly-funded data, instant dismissal of contributions from respective industries, and failure to allow scrutiny of policy-driving evidence should all be seriously questioned.

Robust peer review and transparency must be a cornerstone of any policy initiative designed to alter the free choices of the public. The recent behaviour of vested public health interests begs the question as to what exactly it is that they are desperate to hide.

Without such openness, the only conclusion to draw is that governments are pursuing courses of action, and railroading them through, whether studies prove that it is in the interests of the public or not. This approach can only result in bad or counter-productive law, which brings with it the added danger of damage to the credibility of any policy which restricts prices, choice, display or availability of any consumer product.

If self-styled public health bodies wish to be taken at their word, it’s time they accepted that debate from dissenting voices is desirable in a free society, not something to be avoided by any underhand means at their disposal.

Their current reticence to act in an open manner smacks of a win-at-all-costs mentality which is puerile, cliquey, and in no way conducive to the wider interests of the population.