Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation: a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging
View abstract on PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) misrepresented evidence to oppose standardized packaging (SP) regulations. Their critiques lacked rigor, aiming to delay or weaken public health policies.
Area Of Science
- Public Health Policy
- Tobacco Control Research
- Industry Influence on Regulation
Background
- Standardized packaging (SP) for tobacco products is a key tobacco control measure.
- Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) opposed SP, claiming insufficient evidence for its implementation.
- Government responses to consultations on SP were delayed, citing the need for more evidence.
Purpose Of The Study
- To analyze how TTCs used evidence in their submissions to oppose SP.
- To examine the strategies TTCs employed to critique and undermine the evidence base for SP.
Main Methods
- Purposive selection and analysis of two TTC submissions.
- Verification-oriented cross-documentary method to assess study usage.
- Interpretive analysis with constructivist grounded theory for conceptual significance of critiques.
Main Results
- TTCs argued the SP evidence base was flawed, but used misquotation and 'mimicked scientific critique'.
- Critiques demanded methodological perfection, rejected pluralism, and used a litigation model.
- Companies engaged in 'evidential landscaping' to promote alternative evidence and exclude relevant data.
Conclusions
- TTCs' claims that SP lacks public health benefits are unfounded.
- Regulatory tools like stakeholder consultation can be exploited by corporations to obstruct public health policies.