Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation

a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK government consultation on standardised packaging

Selda Ulucanlar, Gary J. Fooks, Jenny L. Hatchard, Anna B. Gilmore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 crossdocumentary 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.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere1001629
Pages (from-to)1-15
Number of pages15
JournalPLoS Medicine
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Mar 2014

Cite this

@article{7af509e1850b4b84a77adb5d1e03f60f,
title = "Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation: a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK government consultation on standardised packaging",
abstract = "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 crossdocumentary 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 wasthat 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.",
author = "Selda Ulucanlar and Fooks, {Gary J.} and Hatchard, {Jenny L.} and Gilmore, {Anna B.}",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "1--15",
journal = "PLoS Medicine",
issn = "1549-1277",
publisher = "Nature Research",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation

T2 - a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK government consultation on standardised packaging

AU - Ulucanlar, Selda

AU - Fooks, Gary J.

AU - Hatchard, Jenny L.

AU - Gilmore, Anna B.

PY - 2014/3/25

Y1 - 2014/3/25

N2 - 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 crossdocumentary 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 wasthat 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.

AB - 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 crossdocumentary 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 wasthat 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.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629

DO - 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 1

EP - 15

JO - PLoS Medicine

JF - PLoS Medicine

SN - 1549-1277

IS - 3

M1 - e1001629

ER -