British Museum Ditches Tobacco Sponsorship Amid Growing Criticism
The British Museum has abruptly ended its 15-year partnership with Japan Tobacco International (JTI), a move welcomed by critics who have long argued that the deal was "deeply troubling" due to JTI's involvement in the tobacco industry. The decision comes after reports revealed that the UK government had raised concerns about the sponsorship, citing potential breaches of international guidelines.
The pressure group Culture Unstained submitted a freedom of information request earlier this year, which shed light on correspondence between government officials and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The department reportedly warned the Department for Health and Social Care that the deal could be in conflict with the World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control.
The decision to end the sponsorship deal coincided with the removal of JTI's name from the museum's website, a move seen as an attempt by the firm to rebrand itself. However, critics argue that such agreements only serve to legitimize the tobacco industry and perpetuate its deadly products.
Experts, including Dr Allen Gallagher of the University of Bath, have long warned about the dangers of such partnerships, stating that they enable the tobacco industry to use cultural institutions as a tool for improving its public image. Labour MP Dr Simon Opher has also spoken out against the deal, saying that it was a "clear breach of WHO guidelines" and that no public body should be legitimizing an industry that profits from harm.
The British Museum's decision marks another high-profile episode in the ongoing controversy surrounding sponsorship of cultural institutions in the UK. The museum had previously faced criticism for signing a £50m deal with BP, which was widely seen as "astonishingly out of touch". While the museum has defended its partnerships, protests and criticism have continued to mount.
The move is also significant, as it comes after the Museums Association adopted a code of ethics that expects museums to transition away from sponsorship by organizations involved in environmental harm or human rights abuses. The decision demonstrates growing pressure on cultural institutions to prioritize their values and ensure that they are not inadvertently supporting industries that perpetuate harm.
The British Museum has abruptly ended its 15-year partnership with Japan Tobacco International (JTI), a move welcomed by critics who have long argued that the deal was "deeply troubling" due to JTI's involvement in the tobacco industry. The decision comes after reports revealed that the UK government had raised concerns about the sponsorship, citing potential breaches of international guidelines.
The pressure group Culture Unstained submitted a freedom of information request earlier this year, which shed light on correspondence between government officials and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The department reportedly warned the Department for Health and Social Care that the deal could be in conflict with the World Health Organization's framework convention on tobacco control.
The decision to end the sponsorship deal coincided with the removal of JTI's name from the museum's website, a move seen as an attempt by the firm to rebrand itself. However, critics argue that such agreements only serve to legitimize the tobacco industry and perpetuate its deadly products.
Experts, including Dr Allen Gallagher of the University of Bath, have long warned about the dangers of such partnerships, stating that they enable the tobacco industry to use cultural institutions as a tool for improving its public image. Labour MP Dr Simon Opher has also spoken out against the deal, saying that it was a "clear breach of WHO guidelines" and that no public body should be legitimizing an industry that profits from harm.
The British Museum's decision marks another high-profile episode in the ongoing controversy surrounding sponsorship of cultural institutions in the UK. The museum had previously faced criticism for signing a £50m deal with BP, which was widely seen as "astonishingly out of touch". While the museum has defended its partnerships, protests and criticism have continued to mount.
The move is also significant, as it comes after the Museums Association adopted a code of ethics that expects museums to transition away from sponsorship by organizations involved in environmental harm or human rights abuses. The decision demonstrates growing pressure on cultural institutions to prioritize their values and ensure that they are not inadvertently supporting industries that perpetuate harm.
Just another example of the tobacco industry trying to slink its way out of responsibility 
. I mean, who needs a sponsorship deal from a company that's literally killing people? 
The fact that it took the British Museum 15 years to figure this one out is just wild 
. What's next, partnering with Big Pharma or fossil fuel companies? 
At least they're trying to rebrand themselves, but let's be real, it's not like a simple website update can erase the damage 
. It's about time cultural institutions started prioritizing their values and avoiding industries that perpetuate harm 
.
. I think it's cool that experts and critics have been sounding the alarm about these types of deals for ages, and finally, someone is listening 
. It just goes to show how influential these partnerships can be, and how they can affect our values as a society 
. What do you guys think? Should more museums and cultural institutions follow suit? 
just heard about the British Museum ditching tobacco sponsorship lol what's next gonna be the NHS accepting donations from vape companies tho? 
it's like, come on guys we already know how toxic those industries are and now they're gonna try to buy off museums with a bunch of empty promises? 
! Finally, the British Museum is doing what everyone knew they should've done ages ago - ditching those shady tobacco sponsors 
. Newsflash: tobacco is NOT entertaining, it's deadly! 
And to think they were worried about breaching WHO guidelines? Please, that was just the tip of the iceberg 
.
It's not too much to ask. I'm so glad Culture Unstained is always holding people in power accountable 
. The Museums Association adopting that code of ethics was a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised how long it took them to get on board 
.
! But, I do think we should be looking at more than just individual partnerships when it comes to these deals... like what kind of policies or regulations can be put in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? The Museums Association's new code of ethics is a good start, but what about holding institutions accountable for their actions? 
. been saying this for ages, tobacco sponsorship is so not cool 
. i hope other museums follow suit 
. we need more institutions that care about doing what's right, not just looking good on paper 
.
and honestly, I'm not sure how legit that sounds. 
plus, £50m from BP? that's still a pretty big stain on their reputation 
gotta respect the culture group Culture Unstained for keeping it real about this whole deal 
the whole thing just seems so dodgy to me, like they were just using it as an excuse to make a quick buck 
it's all about setting boundaries and doing what's right for your values and community, you know? the museum was basically just letting the tobacco industry use them as a PR tool, which is just not cool 
. The museum was basically doing what some people thought they should do in the first place: listen to criticism and make a change 
.
. I mean, it's not like the British Museum was just randomly deciding to cut ties with JTI, there were already concerns and warnings out there 
. But for the museum to actually listen and make a change shows that they're willing to have a rethink and prioritize what's important 
.
. It's a step in the right direction, but there's still work to be done