Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging

English version České info

Background:
Standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products is an innovative tobacco control measure opposed by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) whose responses to the UK government's public consultation on SP argued that evidence was inadequate to support implementing the measure. The government's initial decision, announced 11 months after the consultation closed, was to wait for ‘more evidence’, but four months later a second ‘independent review’ was launched. In view of the centrality of evidence to debates over SP and TTCs' history of denying harms and manufacturing uncertainty about scientific evidence, we analysed their submissions to examine how they used evidence to oppose SP.

Methods and Findings:
We purposively selected and analysed two TTC submissions using a verification-oriented cross-documentary method to ascertain how published studies were used and interpretive analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques. The companies' overall argument was that the SP evidence base was seriously flawed and did not warrant the introduction of SP. However, this argument was underpinned by three complementary techniques that misrepresented the evidence base. First, published studies were repeatedly misquoted, distorting the main messages. Second, ‘mimicked scientific critique’ was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected methodological pluralism, adopted a litigation (not scientific) model, and was not rigorous. Third, TTCs engaged in ‘evidential landscaping’, promoting a parallel evidence base to deflect attention from SP and excluding company-held evidence relevant to SP. The study's sample was limited to sub-sections of two out of four submissions, but leaked industry documents suggest at least one other company used a similar approach.

Conclusions:
The TTCs' claim that SP will not lead to public health benefits is largely without foundation. The tools of Better Regulation, particularly stakeholder consultation, provide an opportunity for highly resourced corporations to slow, weaken, or prevent public health policies.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging. PLoS Med 11(3): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. Smokefree Partnership (2010) The origin of EU Better Regulation - The Disturbing Truth. Brussels: the Smokefree Partnership.

2. SmithKE, FooksG, CollinJ, WeishaarH, MandalS, et al. (2010) “Working the system”—British American Tobacco's influence on the European Union Treaty and its implications for policy: An analysis of internal tobacco industry documents. PLoS Med 7 (1) e1000202 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000202.

3. DBIS. Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2013) Better Regulation Framework Manual. London: DBIS.

4. HM Treasury (2003) The green book: Appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO.

5. McCambridgeJ, HawkinsB, HoldenC (2013) Industry use of evidence to influence alcohol policy: A case study of submissions to the 2008 Scottish government consultation. PLoS Med 10 (4) e1001431 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001431.

6. Crowe K (2013) Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics: Sugar Association's intent to use science to defeat critics uncovered by dentist. CBC News. Available: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-industry-s-secret-documents-echo-tobacco-tactics-1.1369231. Accessed 12 March 2014.

7. Al-AwqatiQ (2006) Evidence-based politics of salt and blood pressure. Kidney International 69: 1707–1708.

8. Oreskes N, Conway E (2010) Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

9. HirschhornN (2000) Shameful science: four decades of the German tobacco industry's hidden research on smoking and health. Tobacco Control 9: 242–247.

10. FriedmanLC, DaynardRA, BanthinCN (2005) Howe tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom. American Journal of Public Health 95: S16–S20.

11. OngEK, GlantzSA (2001) Constructing “sound science” and “good epidemiology”: Tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. American Journal of Public Health 91: 1749–1757.

12. MichaelsD, MonfortonC (2005) Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment. American Journal of Public Health 95: S39–S48.

13. FrancisJA, SheaAK, SametJM (2006) Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses. Tobacco Control 15: 68–76.

14. SmithKE, FooksG, CollinJ, WeishaarH, GilmoreA (2010) Is the increasing policy use of Impact Assessment in Europe likely to undermine efforts to achieve healthy public policy? J Epidemiol Community Health 64 (6) 478–487 Available: http://jech.bmj.com/content/64/6/478.full.pdf.

15. BeroLA (2005) Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports 120: 200–208.

16. SchotlandMS, BeroLA (2002) Evaluating public commentary and scientific evidence submitted in the development of a risk assessment. Risk Analysis 22: 131–140.

17. TongEK, GlantzSA (2007) Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease. Circulation 116: 1845–1854.

18. WagnerW (2005) The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality. American Journal of Public Health 95: S99–S106.

19. WyniaMK (2005) Judging public health research: Epistemology, public health and the law. American Journal of Bioethics 5: 4–7.

20. GruningT, GilmoreAB, McKeeM (2006) Tobacco industry influence on science and scientists in Germany. American Journal of Public Health 96: 20–32.

21. BeroLA, MontiniT, Bryan-JonesK, MangurianC (2001) Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions. Tobacco Control 10: 329–336.

22. Physicians for a smoke-free Canada website. Timeline of events related to plain packaging. Available: http://www.smoke-free.ca/plain-packaging/history.htm. Accessed 6 November 2013.

23. Australian Government (2011) Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011: An Act to discourage the use of tobacco products, and for related purposes.

24. FooksG, GilmoreAB (2013) International trade law, plain packaging and tobacco industry political activity: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Tobacco Control Published Online First: 20 June 2013. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050869.

25. TobaccoTactics.org. Australia: Challenging Legislation. Available: http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Australia:_Challenging_Legislation. Accessed 11 November 2013.

26. House of Commons (2013) Plain packaging of tobacco products. In: Section HA, editor. London: House of Commons Library.

27. BBC (2013) Government rejects Labour's cigarette ‘U-turn’ claim. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23281804. Accessed 12 March 2014.

28. Sparrow A (2013) Anger as plain cigarette packaging plans put on hold by ministers. The Guardian. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/12/plain-cigarette-packaging-anger-ministers. Accessed 12 March 2014.

29. BBC (2013) Cigarette packaging: Ministers launch fresh review. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25126673. Accessed 12 March 2014.

30. Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, McNeill A, Hinds K, et al. (2012) Plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. Stirling: Public Health Research Consortium. Available: http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Final_Report.pdf.

31. Hatchard JL, Fooks GJ, Evans-Reeves KA, Ulucanlar S, Gilmore AB (2013) A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products. BMJ Open 4 (2) e003757. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003757.

32. British American Tobacco (BAT) (2012) UK Standardised Packaging Consultation: Response of British American Tobacco UK Limited. Available: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO8WZC5E/$FILE/medMD8WZC6J.pdf?openelement.

33. Japan Tobacco International (JTI) (2012) Response to the Department of Health's consultation on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. Available: http://www.jti.com/how-we-do-business/key-regulatory-submissions/.

34. British American Tobacco (BAT) (2012) UK Standardised Appendix A, Report of Dr. Jonathan Klick. Appendix A. Available: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO8WZC5E/$FILE/medMD8WZC6J.pdf?openelement.

35. British American Tobacco (BAT) (2012) UK Standardised Appendix B, Report of Mr. Stephen Gibson. Appendix B. Available: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO8WZC5E/$FILE/medMD8WZC6J.pdf?openelement.

36. Keegan W (2008) Analysis of consumer survey evidence relevant to the UK Department of Health consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control. New York. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/7613/4122/2707/Keegan_analysis_uk_DoH.pdf.

37. Keegan W (2009) Analysis of consumer survey evidence relevant to the UK Department of Health consultation on the future of tobacco control: supplemental report. New York. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/4113/4122/2720/Keegan_analysis_uk_DoH_suppl.pdf.

38. Keegan W (2010) Analysis of consumer survey evidence relevant to DG SANCO's proposal to increase the size of health warnings on tobacco packaging. New York. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/1813/4122/2695/Keegan.pdf

39. Devinney T (2010) Analysis of consumer research evidence on the impact of plain packaging for tobacco products. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/3313/3164/0525/Devinney.pdf.

40. Devinney T (2012) Analysis of consumer research evidence on the impact of plain packaging for tobacco products (updated to 2012). Available: http://www.jti.com/files/9813/4149/4426/Prof_Devinney.pdf.

41. Steinberg L (2010) Adolescent decision making and the prevention of underage smoking. Philadelphia, PA. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/2013/4122/2619/Steinberg.pdf.

42. Dhar R, Nowlis S (2010) Report on the consumer behaviour and decision making of cigarette smokers. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/8413/4122/2636/Dhar_Nowlis.pdf.

43. Lilico A (2008) Economic analysis of a display ban and/or a plain packs requirement in the UK: a report from Europe Economics. London. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/2513/3164/0608/Lilico_display_ban_req_uk.pdf.

44. Lilico A (2010) Economic analysis of restrictions on the display of tobacco products - 2009 Canadian annual smoking data. Geneva. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/5513/3164/0566/Lilico_restrictions_CASD.pdf.

45. Cave M (2010) ‘Better Regulation’ and certain tobacco control measures. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/8813/4122/2664/Cave.pdf.

46. Gervais D (2010) Analysis of the compatibility of certain tobacco product packaging rules with the TRIPS agreement and the Paris Convention. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/8513/4122/2680/Gervais.pdf.

47. Chaudhry P, Zimmerman A (2012) The impact of plain packaging on the illicit trade in tobacco products. Available: http://www.jti.com/files/5113/4150/5828/Impact_on_illicit_trade.pdf.

48. HammondD, DoxeyJ, DanielS, Bansal-TraversM (2011) Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 13: 579–588 Available: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/7/579.short.

49. ThrasherJF, RousuMC, HammondD, NavarroA, CorriganJR (2011) Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and “plain” cigarette packaging: Evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States. Health Policy 102: 41–48 Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21763026.

50. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory Life: the construction of scientific facts. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

51. Bloor D (1991) Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

52. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transactions.

53. Charmaz K (2009) Shifting the grounds: constructivist grounded theory methods. In: Morse JM, Noerager Stern P, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, et al., editors. Developing Grounded Theory. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. pp. 127–193.

54. Department of Health Tobacco Programme (2013) Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products: Summary report. London: Department of Health.

55. Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2008–9) Opinions Survey Report No 40: Smoking related behaviour and attitudes 2008–09. London: ONS. Available: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/index.html?newquery=*&newoffset=50&pageSize=50&nscl=Health+and+Social+Care&content-type=Report&content-type-orig=publicationContentTypesOriginal&sortBy=pubdate&sortDirection=DESCENDING&pubdateRangeType=last5yrs&applyFilters=true.

56. MunafoMR, RobertsN, BauldL, LeonardsU (2011) Plain packaging increases visual attention to health warnings on cigarette packs in non-smokers and weekly smokers but not daily smokers. Addiction 106: 1505–1510 Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21401767.

57. Department of Health (2008) Consultation on the future of tobacco control. London: Department of Health. Available: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsestoconsultations/DH_091382.

58. Centres for Review and Dissemination (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: University of York. Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf.

59. Cochrane Collaboration (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Available: http://handbook.cochrane.org/front_page.htm. Part two. Accessed 31 January 2014.

60. BenziesKM, PremjiS, HaydenKA, SerrettK (2006) State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 3 (2) 55–61.

61. White C, Hammond D (2011) The impact of cigarette package design and plain packaging on female youth in Brazil: brand appeal and health-related perceptions. Public Health in Canada: Innovative partnerships for action, Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) 2011 Conference. Montreal, Canada: CPHA.

62. HammondD, DanielS (2011) UK plain pack study among young women. Under review with peer-reviewed journal

63. Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Rey J (2010) Demarketing cigarettes through plain cigarette packaging. Actes du Congres International de l'AFM. Le Mans, France.

64. Moodie C, Hastings G, Thomas J, Stead M, Angus K, et al. (2011) Protocol for plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. Available: http://phrc.lshtm.ac.uk/papers/PHRC_006_Protocol.pdf.

65. US Food and Drug Administration (2011) Required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements; Final Rule. Federal Register 76 (120) Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM339834.pdf.

66. US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2012) Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2012/.

67. Yates SJ (2004) Doing social science research. London: Sage Publications.

68. Terre Blanche MJ, Durrheim K, Painter D (2006) Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

69. ESRC Framework for research ethics. Available: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Framework-for-Research-Ethics_tcm8-4586.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2014.

70. National Patient Safety Agency. Information sheets and consent form – guidance for researchers and reviewers. Available: http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/information-sheet-and-consent-form-guidance.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2014.

71. Silverman D (2009) Qualitative Research: theory, method and practice. London: Sage Publications.

72. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A (2008) Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews; Chapter 20, In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.

73. SussmanS, GranaR, PokhrelP, RohrbachLA, SunP (2010) Forbidden fruit and the prediction of cigarette smoking. Substance Use & Misuse 45: 1683–1693.

74. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

75. KrimskyS (2005) The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. American Journal of Public Health 95: S129–S136.

76. National Cancer institute (2008) The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. Tobacco Control Monograph Series No 19. Available: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/19/m19_complete.pdf.

77. FriedenTR (2010) A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health 100: 590–595.

78. Department of Health (2012) Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products. London: Department of Health.

79. Imperial Tobacco (2006). Available: https://www.imperial-tobacco.com/files/financial/presentation/011206/ubs_transcript.pdf. Accessed 27 February 2014.

80. WakefieldM, MorleyC, HoranJK, CummingsKM (2002) The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control 11: I73–I80.

81. CummingsKM, MorleyCP, HoranJK, StegerC, LeavellNR (2002) Marketing to America's youth: evidence from corporate documents. Tobacco Control 11: I5–I17.

82. KotnowskiK, HammondD (2013) The impact of cigarette pack shape, size and opening: evidence from tobacco company documents. Addiction 108: 1658–1668.

83. Proctor R, Schiebinger L (2008) Agnotology - the making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

84. TobaccoTactics.org. PMI's Anti-PP Media Campaign. Slide 37. Available: http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/PMI%E2%80%99s_Anti-PP_Media_Campaign. Accessed 06 March 2014.

85. TobaccoTactics.org. PMI's Anti-Plain Packaging Lobbying Campaign. Slide 52. Available: http://tobaccotactics.org/index.php/PMI%27s_Anti-Plain_Packaging_Lobbying_Campaign. Accessed 06 March 2014.

86. NeffRA, GoldmanLR (2005) Regulatory parallels to Daubert: Stakeholder influence, “sound science,” and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. American Journal of Public Health 95: S81–S91.

87. GodleeF, MaloneR, TimmisA, OttoC, BushA, et al. (2013) Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry. BMJ 347: f5193.

88. McGarity T, Wagner WE (2008) Bending science: how special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

89. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

90. JasanoffS (2008) Representation and re-presentation in litigation science. Environmental Health Perspectives 116: 123–129.

91. de CamargoKRJr (2012) How to identify science being bent: The tobacco industry's fight to deny second-hand smoking health hazards as an example. Social Science & Medicine 75: 1230–1235.

92. JasanoffS (1996) Research subpoenas and the sociology of knowledge. Law and Contemporary Problems 59: 95–118.

93. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2006) Scientific advice, risk and evidence based policy making. Seventh Report of Session 2005–6 Volume 1. London: The Stationery Office Ltd.