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

Objectives: To investigate opposition to standardised tobacco packaging in the UK. To increase understanding of how transnational corporations are adapting to changes in their access to policymakers precipitated by Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Design: Case study web-based documentary analysis, using NVivo V.10. Examination of relationships between opponents of standardised packaging and transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) and of the volume, nature, transparency and timing of their activities. Setting: UK standardised packaging policy debate 2011-2013. Participants: Organisations selected on basis of opposition to, or facilitation thereof, standardised tobacco packaging in the UK; 422 associated documents. Results: Excluding tobacco manufacturing and packaging companies (n=12), 109 organisations were involved in opposing standardised packaging, 82 (75%) of which had a financial relationship with 1 or more TTC. These 82 organisations (43 actively opposing the measure, 39 facilitating opposition) were responsible for 60% of the 404 activities identified, including the majority of public communications and research production. TTCs were directly responsible for 28% of total activities, predominantly direct lobbying, but also financially underwrote third party research, communication, mass recruitment and lobbying. Active organisations rarely reported any financial relationship with TTCs when undertaking opposition activities. Conclusions: The multifaceted opposition to standardised packaging was primarily undertaken by third parties with financial relationships with major tobacco manufacturers. Low levels of transparency regarding these links created a misleading impression of diverse and widespread opposition. Countries should strengthen implementation of Article 5.3 of the FCTC by systematically requiring conflict of interest declarations from all organisations participating in political or media debates on tobacco control

Mapping alcohol and tobacco tax policy interventions to inform health and economic impact analyses: a United Kingdom based qualitative framework analysis

Background: Alcohol and tobacco have different policy regimes and there is little understanding of how changes to policy on each commodity might combine to affect the same outcomes or to affect people who both drink and smoke. The aim of this study was to deepen understanding of the policy objectives of UK alcohol and tobacco tax options being considered at the time of the interviews with a set of UK policy participants in 2018, and the factors affecting the implementation and outcomes of the policy options discussed. Methods: Ten tax policy experts were recruited from government arms-length organisations and advocacy groups in England and Scotland (4 alcohol, 4 tobacco, 2 alcohol and tobacco). Alcohol and tobacco experts were interviewed together in pairs and asked to discuss alcohol and tobacco tax policy objectives, options, and the mechanisms of effect. Interviews were semi-structured, supported by a briefing document and topic guide, audio-recorded, transcribed and then analysed deductively using framework analysis. Results: Alcohol and tobacco tax policy share objectives of health improvement and there is a common set of policy options: increasing duty rates, duty escalators, multi-rate tax structures, industry levies and the hypothecation of tax revenue for investment in societal benefits. However, participants agreed that the harms caused by alcohol and tobacco and their industries are viewed differently, and that this influences the impacts that are prioritised in tax policymaking. Working-out how alcohol and tobacco taxes could work synergistically to reduce health inequalities was seen as desirable. Participants also highlighted the importance of avoiding the combined effects of price increases on alcohol and tobacco widening economic inequalities. Conclusions: Impact analyses should consider the combined effects of alcohol and tobacco tax policies on health and economic inequalities, and how the effects of changes to the tax on each commodity might trade-off

A systematic review of the neural correlates of sexual minority stress: towards an intersectional minority mosaic framework with implications for a future research agenda

Background: Systemic oppression, particularly towards sexual minorities, continues to be deeply rooted in the bedrock of many societies globally. Experiences with minority stressors (e.g. discrimination, hate-crimes, internalized homonegativity, rejection sensitivity, and microaggressions or everyday indignities) have been consistently linked to adverse mental health outcomes. Elucidating the neural adaptations associated with minority stress exposure will be critical for furthering our understanding of how sexual minorities become disproportionately affected by mental health burdens. Following PRISMA-guidelines, we systematically reviewed published neuroimaging studies that compared neural dynamics among sexual minority and heterosexual populations, aggregating information pertaining to any measurement of minority stress and relevant clinical phenomena. Results: Only 1 of 13 studies eligible for inclusion examined minority stress directly, where all other studies focused on investigating the neurobiological basis of sexual orientation. In our narrative synthesis, we highlight important themes that suggest minority stress exposure may be associated with decreased activation and functional connectivity within the default-mode network (related to the sense-of-self and social cognition), and summarize preliminary evidence related to aberrant neural dynamics within the salience network (involved in threat detection and fear processing) and the central executive network (involved in executive functioning and emotion regulation). Importantly, this parallels neural adaptations commonly observed among individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the aftermath of trauma and supports the inclusion of insidious forms of trauma related to minority stress within models of PTSD. Conclusions: Taken together, minority stress may have several shared neuropsychological pathways with PTSD and stress-related disorders. Here, we outline a detailed research agenda that provides an overview of literature linking sexual minority stress to PTSD and insidious trauma, moral affect (including shame and guilt), and mental health risk/resiliency, in addition to racial, ethnic, and gender related minority stress. Finally, we propose a novel minority mosaic framework designed to inform future directions of minority stress neuroimaging research from an intersectional lens

Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation:a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging

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