Last summer the strategic consultancy, the Future Foundation (FF), claimed to have discovered a new social trend in Britain - a creeping menace they call the 'New Puritans' or 'Neo-Cromwellians'. This movement of moralising killjoys are apparently pushing an 'Assault on Pleasure' in general.

According to FF's proposal for their 'Assault on Pleasure' project, manufacturers of luxury goods may need to rethink their marketing; if advertisers position their products as well-deserved treats, what happens when society decides that such treats are no longer socially acceptable? Furthermore they warn of new and repressive regulation. At least one of FF's clients aims to use the completed report due this spring, as a lobbying resource for use in Brussels.

FF's research is based on very flimsy logic. It notes new legislation, such as the fox-hunting ban, widely held health concerns (e.g. about the effects of smoking and of a poor diet), and environmental worries (about SUVs, long haul flights, etc.) and from these imputes the emergence of a new social trend, the 'Assault on Pleasure'. They seem not to have considered the possibility that these are disparate concerns and issues held by very different people. Nor have they considered any evidence to the contrary, such as the relaxation of drinking hours, the downgrading of the classification of cannabis or the popularity of SUVs.

Are these findings supposed to frighten the FF's corporate sponsors into bankrolling further research, or is it meant to push a corporate PR agenda aimed at discrediting any campaign that threatens corporate profits - everyone from Jamie Oliver to Christian Aid?

The report, written by FF associate, James Murphy, director of the consultancy, Model Reasoning, is simply daft in places. It warns that humble pleasures, including the bacon sandwich and blogging, may find themselves subject to 'incipient regulation' within another five years. Amongst those things likely to be heavily regulated the FF identifies 'biscuits at meetings'. Corporate Watch asked Murphy if he was simply conflating a random set of concerns, and mistaking it for a real social trend.

He disagreed strongly... but was unable to explain the difference. He refused also to explain the supposed threat to biscuit eating and bacon sandwiches. Murphy, formerly of public relations consultancies First & 42nd and Cohn & Wolfe, also denied the suggestion that the project is really a strategic PR offensive designed to belittle the many concerns people have about his corporate clients' activities.

So why the publicity campaign for what is basically a market research and analysis project? Why the media-friendly, sensational language - so artfully vague as to appear meaningful, yet so loosely defined as to smear almost anyone with a concern about public health, animal rights or an environmental issue? Unfortunately Murphy abruptly ended our interview before we could ask these questions.