Deconstructing Social Constructionist Theory in Tobacco Policy: The Case of the Less Hazardous Cigarette

Abstract

Scholars in tobacco control have utilized a social construction approach to test and explain tobacco control policy and advocacy. Some recent tobacco control policy research has contended that Philip Morris's support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of tobacco (including purportedly reducing the harm of cigarettes) is to obtain the social construction goal of a socially responsible company. However, the primary motivation for Philip Morris's support of proposed FDA regulation and harm reduction for cigarettes was to maintain the company's market stability and profitability implemented by U.S. political process and institutions. In tandem with this, Philip Morris also sought political stability, a new company image, and federal preemption of conflicting and costly state requirements for harm reduction and tobacco ingredients. Social construction theory did not explain Philip Morris's motivation for seeking FDA regulation of tobacco. Only by reducing tobacco industry markets and customer use will there be a significant reduction in tobacco consumption.

Harm reduction in U.S. tobacco control: Constructions in textual news media

“…Two additional studies examined harm reduction within tobacco industry documents, casting skepticism toward the sincerity of tobacco companies (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014). Peeters and Gilmore (2014) analyzed 455 litigation documents from four tobacco transnational companies spanning 1971-2009, and found that the phrase "harm reduction" entered the industry vernacular in 1999 and began to be used publically in 2002 following an influential report published by the Institute of Medicine.…”

“…Peeters and Gilmore (2014) analyzed 455 litigation documents from four tobacco transnational companies spanning 1971-2009, and found that the phrase "harm reduction" entered the industry vernacular in 1999 and began to be used publically in 2002 following an influential report published by the Institute of Medicine. Givel (2011) analyzed 99 Federal tobacco policy documents spanning 2004-2008, during which Phillip Morrisat odds with other major tobacco companies -began supporting legislation (the eventual FSPTCA) embodying tobacco harm reduction. Both studies conclude the term harm reduction was used disingenuously by the tobacco industry to rehabilitate their public image, regain access to policymakers, and ensure profits (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014).…”

“…Givel (2011) analyzed 99 Federal tobacco policy documents spanning 2004-2008, during which Phillip Morrisat odds with other major tobacco companies -began supporting legislation (the eventual FSPTCA) embodying tobacco harm reduction. Both studies conclude the term harm reduction was used disingenuously by the tobacco industry to rehabilitate their public image, regain access to policymakers, and ensure profits (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014).…”

“…Five were uncovered for this review; three examined tobacco harm reduction products-snus, e-cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco (Bell & Keane, 2012;Timberlake et al, 2011;Wackowski, Lewis, Delnevo, & Ling, 2013), and two examined the discursive use of harm reduction in tobacco industry and policy documents (Givel, 2011;Peeters & Gilmore, 2014).…”

Nonpunctuated and Sweeping Policy Change:Bhutan Tobacco Policy Making from 1991 to 2009

“…Punctuated equilibrium theory predicts that long‐term patterns of policy change consist of relatively incremental policy change, followed by a short and explosive policy change, which is followed by new incremental public policy change (Baumgartner & Jones, ). By contrast, social policy realism theory in several recent scholarly articles has explained public policy as reflecting complex long‐term policy output patterns, which may or may not be punctuated even if there is an attempt to do so (Givel, , , , ). Policy outputs in this article are government actions or inaction that occur or not in the form of legislation, executive orders or written mandates, and judicial decisions.…”