Background

Neil McKeganey founded the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at the University of Glasgow in 1994 to carry out research on Scotland’s drug problem. Its projects were funded by UK research councils and the UK government, among others. In 2011, the Centre became entirely independent of the University¹ and was renamed the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) in November 2015.²

In 2016, the University confirmed it was not in any way affiliated with the CSUR and McKeganey no longer held any position there, honorary or otherwise.³

On its website, until early 2021, the CSUR describes itself as “a specialist agency undertaking research within the substance use field within the U.K., E.U., and the U.S.”⁴ As of June 2021, it stated:

Centre for Substance Use Research Ltd is a “multi-disciplinary research agency providing behavioural science support to companies submitting applications for PMTA, MRTP and TPD approval.”⁵

PMTA, Pre-Market Tobacco Applications, and MRTP, Modified Risk Tobacco Product applications, are specific to the US,⁶ and the TPD, Tobacco Products Directive, to the European Union.

Staff

The website states that “The team within CSUR comprises post-doctoral researchers in behavioural science, experts in marketing, cyber security, and media.”⁷

Neil McKeganey is Director of CSUR (also referred to as CSURES as of February 2021).⁷

Christopher Russell, previously Deputy Director of CSUR,⁸ was listed as a Special Advisor of CSUR in 2023.⁹ He has been a director of Russell Burnett Research and Consultancy Ltd since 2019,¹⁰ which has “received funding from e‑cigarette/tobacco product manufacturers” to conduct research relating to nicotine and tobacco products.¹¹

McKeganey and Russell have been listed as speakers at tobacco industry events including the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF)¹²¹³¹⁴ and the Tobacco Science Research Conference.¹⁵

Russell was also listed as a speaker at the 2023 ‘New Approaches’ conference, held at the Harvard Club of New York City, in the same week as the United Nations General Assembly. ¹⁶

For a list of staff see the CSUR website.

Relationship with the Tobacco Industry

Image 1: CSUR funding (Source: CSUR website, accessed June 2021)

CSUR has undertaken work for tobacco companies including Philip Morris International (PMI), British American Tobacco (BAT), Nicoventures, a subsidiary of BAT, Imperial Brands and Fontem Ventures, a subsidiary of Imperial (see Image 1).

CSUR also works with JUUL Labs, in which Altria has a share, and has received funding from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (see below for details).¹⁷ CSUR has published multiple academic papers which declare support from either tobacco companies or tobacco company subsidiaries.¹⁸¹⁹

Opposed Plain Packaging in the UK

In 2014, McKeganey helped BAT oppose the introduction of Plain Packaging in the UK. McKeganey prepared a 82 page report for BAT which was included in BAT’s submission to the UK’s second public consultation on plain packaging in 2014.²⁰²¹ In the report, McKeganey supports BAT’s view that there is no evidence to suggest that plain packaging will reduce smoking prevalence, and that packaging is not “a factor that influences people’s decisions to start, stop, or re-start smoking”.²⁰²¹

In May 2016, dismissing the legal challenges to the UK’s plain packaging legislation brought by the big four tobacco companies, the High Court of Justice’s ruling criticised McKeganey’s findings and the methodology they were based on:²¹

“What I find unacceptable is the preparation of a report which by its total refusal to engage with any of this contramaterial simply conveys the impression that it does not exist and that the best way to refute it is to ignore it. Yet, at the same time and inconsistently, Professor McKeganey accepts that the principles of transparency and openness are “foundational tablets of the scientific enterprise”. Had Professor McKeganey confronted head-on the contrary evidence, including that from the tobacco companies, then it is hard to see how he could have advanced the opinions that he did; at the very least he would have been compelled to provide a proper rationale for why his opinion could be sustained in the light of this inconsistent evidence.”

Work with JUUL Labs

More recently, McKeganey and CSUR have been working for e-cigarette company JUUL Labs. Altria has held a 35% share in JUUL since December 2018. A number of outputs written with CSUR are published on the JUUL Labs website.²² Others are listed on the CSUR website.¹⁸ Some have been co-authored by PinneyAssociates, which also works with JUUL Labs and tobacco companies.²²

In March 2019, JUUL Labs promoted a study by CSUR (funded by JUUL) which found that the JUUL e-cigarettes “dramatically” cut adult smokers’ cigarettes consumption.²³ This paper was published in the Journal of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, which has been described as a “predatory journal”.²⁴²⁵

In 2021, CSUR contributed a paper to a special issue of the American Journal of Health Behavior, sponsored by JUUL Labs.²⁶²⁷ The paper was co-authored with JUUL Labs and PinneyAssociates. There was criticism of the journal, which defended the publication of the special issue.²⁸

Received Funding from the Foundation for A Smoke-Free World

The Foundation for A Smoke-Free World (FSFW), which is wholly funded by Philip Morris International, awarded two grants to CSUR in May 2018 totalling US$189,004. One grant for US$96,063 was provided to “develop a centre of excellence in behaviour research related to smoking cessation”, another for US$92,941 was provided for research on the “determinants and impact of switching to reduced risk products”.²⁹

In 2022 CSUR received another grant from FSFW of US$154,564 to “Develop a protocol for an intervention trial to assess the long-term health effects of switching from combustibles to tobacco harm reduction products among Type 2 diabetic smokers in Bangladesh”.³⁰

Advocacy and research organisation PROGGA, expressed concerns around the study, stating “The timing of this campaign is particularly concerning, as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is currently working on amending the tobacco control law, which could potentially ban e-cigarettes and vaping altogether”.³¹

“Flagship” Studies

Annual Study on E-cigarette Use

CSUR’s website stated that in 2021 it would be conducting the first of an annual study of “Real-World ENDS Use”, stating that:

“What has been missing in this [ENDS, or e-cigarette research] are studies assessing the relative impact of different brands and types of ENDS devices. In 2021 CSURES [sic] will undertake research assessing 9 of the top ENDS devices on sale in the U.K. comparing the relative rates with which these devices are enabling adult smokers in the US and U.K. to quit and reduce their cigarette consumption”.³²

Tobacco Products Prevalence Study

In 2021, CSUR launched a study on prevalence and patterns of use of different e-cigarette brands and products in the US.³³ Its website stated that the study aimed “to estimate the prevalence and patterns of use of 20 ENDS brands and over 200 ENDS devices sold in the United States. This research is designed to provide ENDS manufacturers with population-level use data on their products for submission to FDA in seeking PMTA approval.”³³

In 2023, the study was expanded to include heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches.³⁴ Brands monitored in the study include those owned by JTI, Altria, BAT and Imperial Brands.

Paper on single-use e-cigarettes

CSUR received funding from BIDI (Kaival Brands), towards the publication of a paper on the prevalence of the use of single use, or ‘disposable’ e-cigarettes in the US.³⁵ The paper was cited by Bidi Vapour in a press release published in July 2023, which stated that its ‘disposable’ products were “not implicated in the recent growth in the use of disposable e-cigarettes by U.S. youth”.³⁶ PMI began marketing Kaival’s single use e-cigarette, outside of the US, in July 2022, as VEEBA, later renamed VEEV NOW.³⁷

• For details see E-cigarettes: Tobacco Company Interests in Single Use Products

TobaccoTactics Resources

• JUUL Labs
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Centres of Excellence
• PinneyAssociates

Relevant Links

• CSUR website

References

The post Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Links to tobacco industry

Funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

ACK Consultants received US$47,753 and US$ 100,000 in 2018 and 2019 respectively from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), an organisation wholly funded by Philip Morris International (PMI). These grants were awarded towards promoting “alternative livelihoods for tobacco farmers in developing countries”. ^{39 40}

In 2020, ACK Consultants received US$ 63,800 from FSFW ⁴¹ to “Conduct a Virtual Global Conference on “15 Years of FCTC” ⁴¹. The event took place in September 2020 and its official programme described the speakers as the “left-behind voices in tobacco control”. It’s worth noting that most of the speakers have received funding from the FSFW. ⁴²

The grant awarded to ACK Consultants in 2020 was one of the fifteen grants awarded by the FSFW during 2020 towards influencing policy change and the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. ⁴¹

Staff

ACK Consultants is run by two registered members: Alex Klein and Hasina Yasmin Hossain. Klein was listed in 2020 as the Editor in chief of the publication Drugs and Alcohol Today. This publication has also featured issues about tobacco and harm reduction, including FSFW funded research. ^{43 44}

Tobacco Tactics resources

Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Foundation for a Smoke-Free World grantees

Philip Morris International

References

The post ACK Consultants appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

The four global accounting firms, Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Ernst & Young (EY) and KPMG – collectively known as the “Big Four” – are multinational networks of professional services firms. In 2019, they audited all of the companies in the FTSE 100.⁴⁵ The majority of their revenue, however, comes from other services, such as tax advice, management consulting, corporate finance and legal services.⁴⁶

A spate of corporate scandals involving audit failures have led to renewed calls for the break-up of the Big Four into separate audit and consulting firms. Concerns have been raised about their lack of skepticism and independence from company management if, at the same time, they are seeking lucrative consultancy work from the same companies. The UK’s Financial Reporting Council has ordered them to split their audit work by 2024 but resisted calls to break them up.⁴⁷

Serving the Tobacco Industry

The Big Four have been employed by the tobacco industry as both auditors and advisors for many decades. While some of the services provided are technocratic, providing help on IT systems for instance, other work concerns issues of public interest. This includes: helping devise strategies to oppose tobacco control regulations, providing seemingly independent evidence to win public policy debates, and advising on corporate responsibility to shift public perceptions of tobacco companies.

Work for the tobacco industry has generated multi-million dollar fees. For example, from 1994 – 1998 KPMG generated revenues of approximately $47million from consulting and information technology engagements with one tobacco company, Philip Morris (PM). ⁴⁶ In 2019 British American Tobacco (BAT) paid KPMG over £24million as its external auditors.⁴⁸

Despite public statements of social purpose – PwC’s is to “build trust in society and solve important problems”⁴⁹ – the actions of the Big Four demonstrate they serve the commercial interests of the tobacco companies and themselves.

• See Big Tobacco, Big Tax Avoidance: STOP briefing on how the tobacco industry avoids paying its fair share of tax

Audit Work for the Tobacco Industry (and associated organisations)

Auditing of tobacco companies by the Big Four generates multi-million dollar fees, although these are overshadowed by much larger consulting fees earned from the industry. PwC has acted as external auditor to more of the world’s biggest tobacco companies for longer.

Notes on the table: mergers among the Big Four in the 1980s/1990s make clear timelines on tobacco auditing difficult; we are unable to provide a figure we are confident on for Deloitte’s JTI fee

Non-Audit Services for the Tobacco Industry

Positioning tobacco as ‘responsible’ to ‘regain influence’

For many decades the Big Four have helped controversial companies, including tobacco, improve their reputations. The consultancies provide advice on devising and implementing strategy, giving notional external verification of industry claims (“whilst being aware of any potential conflicts of interest,” as PwC notes⁵⁰) and promotion through corporate social responsibility awards.

In the late 1990s, as the tobacco industry’s denial campaign was exposed and the companies found themselves facing both growing skepticism among policy-makers and an increased threat of regulation, the industry sought to win back trust – and a seat at the table – by repositioning themselves as ‘responsible’.

Ernst & Young advised British American Tobacco (BAT) to “take the lead” in positioning itself as a trusted adviser to governments by taking a “responsible and long term perspective on issues” and providing politicians with “accurate, measured and fair” information.⁵¹ Once trust is established with government “lobbying is much easier”, EY wrote.

BAT’s aim to rebrand itself to “regain influence and control of its future”⁵² was later developed by KPMG and PwC (BAT’s independent auditor at the time), with both pitching to work on its corporate responsibility programme. PWC put its estimated costs at $2-3million.⁵³

KPMG’s recommendations focused on BAT taking voluntary action on public health issues, such as curbing underage smoking, and working with governments to “guide legislation”.⁵² The firm was clear that BAT did not need “to get out of the tobacco industry”.⁵⁴ The goal was to shift perceptions so that BAT was seen as “the responsible company within a controversial industry”. ⁵²

This strategy was apparent in the late 1990s in the tobacco industry’s campaign to counter the threat posed by the World Health Organisation’s proposed Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC),⁵⁵ which saw BAT take a lead in promoting an alternative voluntary regulatory regime.⁵⁶ KPMG proposed to help ensure that BAT’s proposals became a “powerful tool” rather than a “spoiling tactic, which backfires on BAT”.⁵⁵

Producing Information to Support Tobacco Lobbying

The Big Four have all produced tobacco-funded reports that have been used to support industry lobbying against tobacco control regulations and are often directed at persuading policymakers and the media.

They have also conducted studies for tobacco industry allies and proxies, such as Ernst & Young for the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (see ‘Potential for conflicts of interest’ below), providing useful third party endorsement for tobacco lobbying positions.

However, rather than being “accurate, measured and fair”, as EY counselled,⁵⁷ the quality of much of the information produced in these reports has been heavily criticised (see ‘Criticism of Big Four work for the tobacco industry’, below). It has, however, earned the Big Four many millions over decades.

Studies on the Negative Economic Impact of Tobacco Regulation

Tobacco companies have long argued that the economic benefits of the industry outweigh the negatives of what their products. Consultants from the Big Four have helped the industry develop strategies around this argument with some – KPMG in the 1970s and 1980s⁵⁸ and PWC in the 1990s – producing multiple reports to bolster this case.⁵⁹

A 1997 EY ‘route map’ for BAT stated that these studies have proved a “valuable lobbying tool” for the industry.⁶⁰

Studies Exaggerating the Illicit Trade in Tobacco to Fight Regulation

Another issue that the tobacco industry has used to push back against regulation is that it will drive the trade in illicit tobacco. Again, Big Four firms have provided multiple studies to support these claims.

Philip Morris International (PMI), for example, funded KPMG to quantify the scale of the illicit trade in Europe, beginning in 2006;⁶¹ BAT funded reports by PwC in the 2000s that detailed the supposedly growing problem of Australia’s illegal tobacco market;⁶² and in a 2010 report for BAT, Ernst & Young claimed that the true level of illicit tobacco consumption in New Zealand was three times higher than previously thought, and that a tobacco tax hike could push it higher.⁶³

Illicit Tobacco Studies used to Oppose Plain Packaging Around the World

Many of these reports by the Big Four on the illicit trade have been presented to policy makers to argue against the introduction of standardised, or plain packaging, regulations, particularly in Australia and the UK which have led on the issue. Plain packaging, the industry claimed, will make counterfeiting easier.

Ahead of the regulation’s introduction in Australia in 2011, for example, Deloitte published multiple industry-commissioned reports on the illicit trade and plain packaging in the country, as well as an international study on the “intended and unintended consequences” of plain packaging for BAT.⁶⁴ When the UK government consulted on plain packaging in 2012, BAT⁶⁵, Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International (JTI)⁶⁶ and PMI⁶⁷ submitted as evidence claims from Deloitte’s reports.

Big Four firms have also been employed to produce studies that undermine plain packaging once it is introduced, with EY disputing in a report for BAT plain packaging’s role in curbing tobacco consumption⁶⁸ and KPMG examining the regulation’s link to smuggling.⁶⁹

Criticism of Big Four Work for the Tobacco Industry

Potential for Conflicts of Interest

There is clear potential for conflicts of interest from the Big Four providing consultancy services to firms they audit.⁷⁰ Audits provide shareholders with an independent opinion of a company’s financial position, and as such it should not be influenced by any other, potentially more financially beneficial relationship with company management. The Big Four, however, regularly provide other services to organisations that they audit.

Ernst & Young, for instance, is the external auditor for the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World,⁷¹ which describes itself as an independent scientific organisation but is solely funded by PMI.

In 2018 a consultancy arm of Ernst & Young was commissioned to produce a report for the Foundation – a report that promoted a message supportive of PMI’s lobbying⁷² and which was criticised as an exercise in “market research for PMI”⁷³ – and in 2019 the Foundation gave the auditing firm a grant of over US$1million for a further study.⁷¹

Criticism of Quality of Big Four Reports for Tobacco

Reports by Big Four firms designed to provide credible, third party support for the tobacco industry’s lobbying have been heavily criticised by governments, academics, NGOs and even rival firms for their: flawed methodology, bias, exaggeration, use of unsupported assumptions, and for referencing other industry-funded, rather than independent research.

A 2005 economic impact study by PwC, for example, which was used to oppose a smoking ban in New Jersey, was not based on hard data, but rather “a series of unsupported assumptions,” according to analysis by Stanton Glantz, Professor of Medicine at University of California⁷⁴ “Grossly exaggerated”, “one-sided” and “flawed” was how rival firm Arthur Anderson described a previous tobacco economic impact study by Price Waterhouse.⁷⁵

The Big Four’s reports on the potential for regulation to increase the illicit trade in tobacco have also been slated. Claims made in Deloitte’s reports on the illicit trade and plain packaging in Australia, were described by the country’s Minister in charge of customs issues, Brendan O’Connor, as “baseless”.⁷⁶ He accused the lobby of scaremongering to protect profits.

Analysis by academics at the University of Bath of KPMG’s studies into the EU’s illicit trade concluded that it employed flawed methodology and used only industry-validated data.⁶¹ Regardless, PMI presented its findings in its evidence to the UK government’s consultation on plain packing.⁷⁷

KPMG’s research on the impact of Australia’s plain packaging law on smuggling were also damned by the Australian Government as inaccurate. “Like previous illicit trade reports commissioned by the tobacco industry”, it said, KPMG “substantially exaggerates” the size of the illicit market.⁷⁸

Ernst & Young’s warnings that a proposed tax increase would lead to higher levels of illicit tobacco consumption in New Zealand were described as “fundamentally flawed” in analysis by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, and “of no value in informing debate on policy measures to reduce tobacco consumption”.⁷⁹ Despite this assessment, and Ernst & Young’s extensive work for tobacco companies, the New Zealand Ministry of Health appointed the firm to review its tobacco taxation policy in 2018.⁸⁰

Criticism of Corporate Responsibility Work for Tobacco

Corporate responsibility programmes by tobacco companies have been widely criticised as public relations exercises designed to secure political influence and fend off tougher regulation. The WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is clear that the goal of these activities by the industry are “to distance its image from the lethal nature of the product it produces and sells or to interfere with the setting and implementation of public health policies.”⁸¹

For more information see: CSR Strategy

Controversies outside of the tobacco industry

The Big Four have all been embroiled in numerous ethical and legal controversies dating back decades. From the lack of racial diversity in their recruitment practices⁸² to being too close to organisations to offer a meaningfully independent service.

Audit Failures

All of the Big Four firms have been investigated and fined multiple times for the poor quality of audits and concerns have been raised about their lack of skepticism and independence from company management.

Recent high profile scandals include: Deloitte’s “serious audit failings” in the case of technology firm, Autonomy;⁸³ KPMG’s alleged negligence in its audits of outsourcing firm Carillion;⁸⁴ PwC’s accounts of retailer BHS and the potential conflict with its consulting earnings, which were eight times its audit fees;⁸⁵ Scandals involving Ernst & Young’s audit practice in 2020 led Forbes to ask “whether EY is more concerned about keeping clients happy than providing full and accurate audits”.⁸⁶

Marketing Tax Avoidance Schemes

The Big Four firms have a history of developing and marketing complex tax avoidance schemes. A 2015 UK Parliamentary inquiry concluded that PwC’s activities, for example, represented the promotion of tax avoidance “on an industrial scale”.⁸⁷

Criticised For Being too Close to Governments

The Big Four have long been influential voices in politics in Britain and around the world. Their access is in part a product of the many lucrative government contracts awarded to them, including multi-million pound contracts issued in 2020 without competitive tender as part of state responses to the COVID-19 crisis.⁸⁸

Big Four firms have also donated millions to political parties in the UK; the revolving door between government and the Big Four includes many former UK ministers; and hospitality has been used to cement relationships. People like EY’s UK chief, Steve Varley, who is also a UK Treasury advisor⁸⁹ enjoy unrivalled access to government. Meanwhile the audit companies second staff to the government which helps them gain an inside track.⁹⁰

Role in Health Privatisation

The Big Four have been involved in the privatisation of public assets and services, providing advice to both governments looking to sell off and outsource services and corporations seeking to profit from the process. KPMG, for example, has been involved in efforts to restructure the National Health Service (NHS) in England. In 2010, KPMG’s head of health, Mark Britnall, told a conference of private sector executives that future NHS changes would show “no mercy” to the NHS and offer a “big opportunity” to the for-profit sector.⁹¹

Clients Accused of Corruption

KPMG has been embroiled in the scandal centred on the relationship between former South African president, Jacob Zuma and the powerful Gupta brothers. Partners at KPMG’s South Africa office audited a Gupta-owned company involved and approved the firm to treat as a business expense spending on a lavish family wedding, which four KPMG partners attended. KPMG lost multiple clients in South Africa over its involvement.⁹²

TobaccoTactics Resources

• Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging
• Deloitte
• Ernst and Young (EY)
• Hiring Independent Experts
• KPMG
• PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
• Tobacco Smuggling
• Tobacco Industry Arguments Against Taxation

References

The post Big Four Global Accounting Firms appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Just Managing Consulting is a grantee of the PMI funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).

People

The main author of the company’s reports is Daniel Malan,⁹³⁹⁴ an Assistant Professor of Business Ethics at Trinity College Dublin.⁹⁵ Previously, Malan had spent 10 years at KPMG, an accountancy firm with a longstanding relationship with the tobacco industry, followed by 15 years at the University of Stellenbosch.⁹⁶

Links to the tobacco industry

In May 2017, Just Managing Consulting produced a report for the Africa Harm Reduction Alliance (AHRA). The AHRA is co-founded by Delon Human, a South African doctor with a history of collaborating with British American Tobacco (BAT) on tobacco harm reduction. The AHRA report – “Where there’s no smoke, is there still fire? Ethical aspects of Tobacco harm reduction” – argued for tobacco harm reduction and discusses the role of the tobacco industry in producing harm reduction products.⁹⁴

Funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-free World

Since January 2020 it has received FSFW grants amounting to a total of US$ 87,350 for a series of projects:

• US$20,000 for a project titled “Public Health and Government Investment in Tobacco” ^{97 98}
• US$38,250 for the production of a report on “government ownership in tobacco companies”, titled “Contradictions and Conflicts”⁹⁸
• US$29,100 for a report titled “A theory of Change for State-owned Tobacco Enterprises” ⁹⁸

In 2020, Just Managing Consulting produced a report for the FSFW, titled “Contradictions and Conflicts”, launched as part of the lead up to the Tobacco Transformation Index. The report outlined how state ownership of tobacco companies creates a “conflict of interest” with the WHO FCTC. The report advocated for tobacco harm reduction in partnership with state owned tobacco industries.⁹³

Malan appeared on the FSFW podcast with Dereck Yach in September 2020⁹⁹ and was a keynote speaker at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum 2020 in his capacity as an Assistant Professor at Trinity College Dublin.¹⁰⁰

TobaccoTactics Resources

Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees
Harm Reduction
Influencing Science

References

The post Just Managing Consulting appeared first on TobaccoTactics.

Signals Analytics  describes its work as assisting companies by using artificial intelligence “to extract data from external sources – such as blog posts, product reviews, and patents – and transform that data into accessible, usable, and relevant insights for your business.”¹⁰¹

Founded in 2009, the company has its headquarters in New York, USA, with an office in Netanya, Israel, and employs over 130 people.¹⁰²

Signals Analytics primary product, the Signals Playbook, is a cloud-based data intelligence platform.¹⁰³ The platform was recently used to study COVID-19, monitoring drugs that are being tested and tracking vaccine development.¹⁰³

The company lists Procter & Gamble, Nestle, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Roche, and Mars among its clients.¹⁰⁴ It is reportedly financed by Sequoia Capital, Qumra Capital, Pitango Growth, and TPY Capital.¹⁰⁵

The founders of Signals Analytics, Gil Sadeh and Kobi Gershoni, served in Israeli military intelligence units.¹⁰⁶

Relationship with the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

In March 2019, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), which is wholly funded by Philip Morris International (PMI), awarded a US$1.6 million contract to Signals Analytics to develop a “Nicotine Ecosystem Intelligence Platform and Smoking Cessation Playbook” through 2022.¹⁰⁷

FSFW’s 2019 Annual Filings records that the contract value increased to US$2,130,000.¹⁰⁸ According to FSFW’s March 2019 board meeting minutes, Signals Analytics’ work would cover: “Data gaps in cessation rates and bring together timely data on epidemiology, product availability and public and private perceptions of nicotine”.¹⁰⁷

The Foundation described Signals Analytics’ work as “to apply cutting-edge data analytics to nicotine and its links to cessation, harm reduction and even cognitive enhancement”. It would build a business intelligence platform that would “identify, investigate and track signals, trends and opportunities in the nicotine and smoking cessation spheres”.¹⁰⁷

In practice, this entails monitoring discussions on social media and other forums, which, as the company stresses, often precede reports published in official channels such as the media or academic journals.¹⁰⁹¹¹⁰

Addressing the board in March 2019, President of FSFW, Derek Yach, described Signals Analytics’ data platform as crucial to delivering evidence of how companies are supporting nicotine industry transformation or indeed, impeding it.¹⁰⁷

FSFW’S 2019 Annual Tax Return reported that a second phase of the platform is under development to establish an “early warning system” that will identify and analyse “adverse events related to vaping”.¹⁰⁸

That same year, a former Market Research Supervisor and Consumer Insights Executive at PMI Israel joined Signal Analytics as a Consultant, according to LinkedIn.¹¹¹ The Consultant reportedly analyses “millions of data points (Big Data) to identify growth opportunities and support Fortune 500 clients’ [of which PMI is one] marketing and innovation decisions.” It is unknown if the same consultant is engaged in the FSFW contract.

Meanwhile, Dr Shlomi Madar, Vice President of Healthcare Solutions for Signals Analytics, has been a guest on Derek Yach’s podcast.¹¹²

EVALI and Signals Analytics

EVALI is the name for severe lung illness cases related to the use of e-cigarette and vaping products and was first identified in 2019.

As of 28 February 2020, a total of 2,807 hospitalized EVALI cases and 68 deaths were reported in the USA.¹¹³

Signals Analytics built a data-analysis platform to extract, classify and analyse information from social media to find out what had driven EVALI reporting and the wider ramifications for the industry. It also looked to predict further such outbreaks by early identification of reporting trends.

The company found that vaping-users routinely shared their experiences on social media and on online forums for various reasons, for example seeking advice to reporting lesser-known symptoms.¹¹⁰

A Signals Analytics’ research paper published in April 2020 highlighted the company’s use of its proprietary, AI-driven approach in this project.¹¹⁰ Pini Matzner, senior data scientist at Signals Analytics, said: “The platform detected early public reporting of seizures associated with cannabidoil (CBD) vaping almost a year before official reports were released”.¹¹⁰ Matzner delivered a presentation on advanced analytics at the 2020 Global Forum on Nicotine.¹¹⁴ The Forum is run by Knowledge-Action-Change Limited (K-A-C), which is a private organisation founded by Gerry Stimson. It is also funded by the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW).

The FSFW used Signals Analytics’ research on EVALI to supports its own arguments on the regulation of next generation products and is making use of the company’s methodolgy.¹¹⁵¹¹⁶

Interest in China

In March 2019, the FSFW reported that Signals Analytics had been contracted to analyse three language groups: English, Japanese and Mandarin.¹⁰⁷ In November 2019, China moved to ban vaping in public and online sales of e-cigarettes following public health concerns, jeopardising one of the industry’s largest markets, with over 7.4 million e-cigarette users.¹¹⁷ FSFW has made additional moves towards China in 2019, contracting the PR firm MarketKonnect, a subsidiary of APCO, to coordinate its activities in the country.

Relevant Links

• Signals Analytics website

Tobacco Tactics Resources

• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World
• Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Grantees

References

The post Signals Analytics appeared first on TobaccoTactics.