A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products

Abstract

ObjectivesTo examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations’ (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products ‘won't work’, following the UK government's decision to ‘wait and see’ until further evidence is available.DesignContent analysis.SettingWe analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012.Outcome measuresThe volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved.Results77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045).ConclusionsWith few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging ‘won't work’ lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria—subject matter, independence and peer-review status—to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.

Standardised tobacco packaging: a health policy case study of corporate conflict expansion and adaptation

“…Production of research Nearly 9 of every 10 research reports (50/57, 88%) were authored by organisations with a financial relationship with TTCs ( figure 3). They presented similar arguments to tobacco company consultation submissions, where they were widely quoted, 55 and to PMI's antistandardised packaging strategy (leaked to the public health nongovernmental organisation, Action on Smoking and Health). 52 53 These were: negative economic, illicit trade, intellectual property and trade and price consequences of standardised packaging; criticism of the policy process; and lack of evidence of effect.…”

“…The sample excluded blog posts, social media entries, correspondence sent in response to requests or enquiries from government departments, and consultation submissions (including associated cover letters), the latter having been analysed at length in other studies. [54][55][56] Data coding Data were coded for actor characteristics and political activity themes (table 1). In terms of inclusion criteria, 'actors' were defined as companies, organisations and groups whom the data showed undertook political activity to oppose, or to facilitate opposition to, standardised packaging.…”

Analysis of the logic and framing of a tobacco industry campaign opposing standardised packaging legislation in New Zealand

“…Drawing on Hatchard et al 's9 methods for examining the relevance of tobacco industry submissions during the UK consultation on standardised packaging, we first examined the subject matter, key messages and arguments communicated by each advertisement. We then critiqued these arguments against Hatchard et al 's categories (standardised packaging will not work; will have unintended consequences, or implementation followed a flawed process).…”

Is the illicit cigarette market really growing? The tobacco industry's misleading math trick: Table 1

“…Studies funded and presented by cigarette manufacturers and their business associations are generally not peer-reviewed or replicable and therefore, do not meet standards of academic research 3. A growing body of evidence suggests that estimates of the illicit cigarette trade levels presented in the industry-commissioned reports are often inflated 4–10…”