Molinari Economic Institute at the service of the tobacco industry

SUMMARY

• A BAD STUDENT IN THE FRENCH THINK TANKS RANKING
• THE MOLINARI INSTITUTE, PRODUCER OF DOUBT
• AGNOTOLOGY IN THE SERVICE OF CONTROVERSY
• THE REALITY DID NOT HAPPEN: DISQUALIFY THE FACTS, DISCREDIT THE SCIENTISTS
• DISCOURAGE THE LEGISLATOR
• MOLINARI AND TOBACCO
• EXPERTS UNDER INFLUENCE
• THE MOLINARI INDUSTRY, THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY'S FIRING GENE
• SMOKERS, THE STATE'S CASH COWS: WHAT DOES THE STUDY SAY?

  At the end of October 2019, the Institute Economic Molinari (IEM), a think tank of ultra-liberal obedience, published a study entitled: " Fuel and cigarette taxation: how motorists and smokers were transformed into cash cows with 60 billion in taxes ". This study details the structuring of taxes relating to these two products, and the main point of its argument is concentrated on one point: denouncing the tax escalation. The document is structured around a central argument, which consists of saying that price increases on tobacco have no effect on the level of consumption. Based on this principle, price increases can only be motivated by budgetary reasons, and not public health reasons. Thus, smokers would be designated victims of public health policies, starting with the poorest, and the cash cow of the State. However, the postulate of the study is invalidated by the facts: an increase of 10% in tobacco prices mechanically leads to an average drop of 2.5% to 4% in consumption. Better still, the working classes are the first to stop smoking following price increases, while young people are less likely to start smoking. But it is especially edifying to look at the context in which this study was produced. It was published just a few days before the increase in the price of a packet in France. Furthermore, Great Britain has historically been at the forefront of the fight against tobacco in Europe. With Brexit, France is about to become the new European driving force on these issues. The author of most of the IEM's productions on the issue of tobacco is a certain Valentin Petkantchin. The latter is also the author of a number of summary notes for Philip Morris International during the Norwegian and English consultation on plain packaging. The Molinari Institute is publishing this study with the specific aim of discrediting French public policies on tobacco, and delegitimizing the argument for increasing taxes on these products. The context is not insignificant with the arrival of a new European Commission and the possibility of harmonizing upwards the taxation of tobacco products in the Member States in order to reduce tobacco consumption. The Molinari Economic Institute (IEM) is a think tank founded in 2003, and present in Paris, Brussels and Montreal. Created by Cécile Philippe, a doctor in economics, the IEM, openly liberal, presents itself as a " research and education organization¹ ", aiming to favor the economic approach in the analysis of public policies. Consistently, this think tank positions itself in favor of the business world, tax relief, and a reduced role for the State. Nicolas Marques, Director General of the Institute since 2019, sees the think tank as an intermediary between expertise and the general public, and as an element as essential to democratic vitality as to good governance²At the same time, the Molinari Institute displays a " intellectual independence ", notably characterized by its refusal of any public subsidy. This think tank thus presents itself as a think tank with an educational aim, seeking to disseminate the virtues of a deregulated market economy to the general public, while weakening " received ideas that generate the status quo³ ".

A BAD STUDENT IN THE FRENCH THINK TANKS RANKING

Thus, the study carried out in 2017 by the European Think Tank Observatory proposes to evaluate French think tanks on three distinct criteria4. Think tanks are first classified according to the quality of their governance. This is in fact to evaluate "the internal application of managerial practices in the service of an ethical framework". Concretely, the criterion of good governance aims to verify the think tank's capacity to apply the principles of associative democracy. However, in this area, the Molinari Institute pales in comparison. Of the 53 French think tanks listed, the IEM is only ranked 38^th ranking. Then, think tanks are evaluated according to the transparency criterion, in particular with regard to their sources of funding. Transparency is a particularly crucial issue, since it allows us to indicate the possible conflicts of interest that think tanks may face. In fact, it is believed that the degree of transparency of a think tank largely allows us to deduce its real level of independence5. Here again, the Molinari Institute is a bad student, appearing ex aequo in last place in this ranking. And for good reason, the think tank does not provide the slightest information on the terms of its financing, casting doubt on the reality of its "intellectual independence". According to the Corporate Europe Observatory, the oil and gas company Exxon Mobil is said to have secretly funded a number of climate-sceptic think tanks, including the Molinari Economic Institute6. This lack of transparency was then fully assumed by the Institute, considering that the sources of funding were confidential, and that the decision to publish them was up to the donor. Finally, think tanks are evaluated on a criterion of production volume. Considering that the main vocation of a think tank is to participate in the public debate through its ideas and proposals on governance and public policies, it is interesting to draw up a comparison of these organizations in terms of their capacity to publish and disseminate ideas. On this point, the conclusions of the Observatory are clear, since the Molinari Economic Institute comes last in this ranking, with a production volume considered to be " much too weak "Taking into account each of these criteria, the study draws up a definitive ranking of the 53 French think tanks, in which the IEM barely climbs to 47th.^th position, with a score of 23 points out of 100, calling into question its integrity, its legitimacy and its credibility as an incubator of ideas in the public debate.

THE MOLINARI INSTITUTE, PRODUCER OF DOUBT

The Molinari Institute has distinguished itself in particular by its support for Vincent Courtillot, a French geophysicist and spearhead of climate skepticism with Claude Allègre.⁹. In his work, New journey to the center of the Earth⁸, the scientist refutes the conclusions drawn by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The thesis presented is simple: according to Courtillot, general temperature increases are linked to the geological and volcanic activity of the Earth, and there is no evidence of human and industrial responsibility for the current climate upheaval9. This rallying to climate skepticism, far from being anecdotal, on the contrary sums up in itself the positioning and role of a structure like the Molinari Institute. Very regularly, this think tank will take a position on sensitive issues, systematically adopting a controversial and polemical point of view. Here are some examples of different statements by the Molinari Economic Institute¹⁰ :  

Round Up victim of the democracy of the gullible	Cecile Philippe	Article published on June 16, 2016 in Contrepoints
Palm oil: health benefits, environmental and economic	Hiroko Shimizu	Economic note published by the Molinari Institute in September 2012
Advertising of pesticides must be allowed	Cecile Philippe	Article published in Les Echos on April 4, 2005
GMOs: an opportunity for the environment	Gerard Kafadaroff	Opinion piece published in La Tribune on July 17, 2015
The Complete Uselessness of a Soda Tax	Valentin Petkantchin	Opinion piece published in Les Echos on October 18, 2011

Much of the intellectual production and interventions in the public debate of the Molinari Economic Institute finds its explanation in agnotology. Theorized by Robert Proctor, historian of science, this notion refers to a strategy initiated by the tobacco industry, aimed at deliberately spreading doubt about the harmfulness of cigarettes on health, despite the " consensus brought by proven evidence¹¹ " on this subject. Here, whether it is about climate change, the harmfulness of pesticides or the environmental impact of palm oil, the whole point of the think tank comes down first to denying en bloc the existence of scientific evidence on these different questions.

AGNOTOLOGY IN THE SERVICE OF CONTROVERSY

Thus, each time these subjects are addressed by the productions or interventions of the Institute, we can observe a consistency in the argument, through the recurrence of the idea of doubt: Regarding global warming, Cécile Philippe will put forward the idea according to which "It is not scientifically possible to establish with certainty that global warming is linked to human activity¹²". If doubt is an essential methodological principle in science, the Molinari Institute uses it for a completely different purpose: everything is done to suggest the existence of a controversy, where each of the opposing parties would have the same legitimacy to express themselves on the subject. It is this same principle that will lead the director of the IEM to affirm that the causes of global warming are " highly debated ", that the " debate rages ", or even that " the doubt is there » about the harmfulness of Round Up for human health¹³. To deny the existence of a scientific consensus, this think tank does not hesitate, moreover, to mobilize all forms of argumentation, including the most burlesque. Thus, in the article on the authorization of pesticides¹⁴, Cécile Philippe will present a demonstration that is, to say the least, surprising, with little scientific content: “ Insecticides also have health and environmental benefits. Indeed, many insecticides [are] used on lawns, golf courses and agricultural crops […]¹⁵".

To read the full decryption Molinari Economic Institute at the service of the tobacco industry

©Generation Without Tobacco

---

[1] https://www.institutmolinari.org/ [2] https://www.institutmolinari.org/2019/03/09/parce-que-les-idees-menent-le-monde/ [3] https://www.institutmolinari.org/2019/03/10/qui-sommes-nous/ [4] DENGLET, VILAIN, “A power under influence. When think tanks confiscate democracy”, Armand Colin, 2012, 235 p. [5] POLLONI Camille, L'OBS, “Institut Montaigne, Terra Nova, Iris... Who finances think tanks?”, 11/19/2013 https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/rue89-explicateur/20131119.RUE0257/institut-montaigne-terra- nova-iris-qui-finances-the-think-tanks.html [6] European Observatory of Think Tanks, “France of think tanks. Results and analysis of the label ‘think tank and transparent France 2017’”, December 2017 [7] https://portail-ie.fr/analysis/2061/les-think-tanks-francais-des-lobbies-intellectualises [8] Corporate Europe Observatory, “Brussels think tanks persist in funding secrecy ExxonMobil covertly funds EU climate skeptics”, December 2006 http://archive.corporateeurope.org/ThinkTankSurvey2006.html [9] PHILIPPE Cécile, Molinari Economic Institute (IEM), “New Journey to the Center of the Earth”, 02/23/2010 https://www.institutmolinari.org/2010/02/23/nouveau-voyage-au-centre-de-la-terre/ [10] COURTILLOT Vincent, New Journey to the Center of the Earth, Editions Odile Jacob, 2009, 352 p. [11 Video: “Vincent Courtillot: the earth and global warming”, online 11/30/2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z-sawOdF-k [12] All these articles are online on the think tank's website: https://www.institutmolinari.org/ [13] https://www.refletsdelaphysique.fr/articles/refdp/pdf/2014/01/refdp201438p32.pdf [13] Ibid [14] PHILIPPE Cécille, IEM, “Glyphosate, a new illustration of the democracy of the gullible?”, 20/09/2016 https://www.institutmolinari.org/2016/09/20/le-glyphosate-une-nouvelle-illustration-de-la-democratie-des-credules-2/ 16 PHILIPPE Cécile, Les Echos, “Advertising on pesticides must be authorized”, 06/08/2019 https://www.lesechos.fr/2005/04/la-publicite-sur-les-pesticides-doit-etre-autorisee-1065315 [15] The full quote is: "What these associations fail to tell us is that insecticides also have health and environmental benefits. Indeed, many insecticides used on lawns, golf courses and agricultural crops are also used to control termites, rodents in restaurants, fleas and ticks on pets, algae in swimming pools and fungi such as mildew in house paints." (sic) | © National Committee Against Smoking |