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.

Options for modifying UK alcohol and tobacco tax: A rapid scoping review of the evidence over the period 1997-2018.

Background: Increased taxation is recognised worldwide as one of the most effective interventions for decreasing tobacco and harmful alcohol use, with many variations of policy options available. This rapid scoping review was part of a NIHR-funded project ('SYNTAX' 16/105/26) and was undertaken during 2018 to inform interviews to be conducted with UK public health stakeholders with expertise in alcohol and tobacco pricing policy. Methods: Objectives: To synthesise evidence and debates on current and potential alcohol and tobacco taxation options for the UK, and report on the underlying objectives, evidence of effects and mediating factors.Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed and grey literature; published 1997-2018; English language; UK-focused; include taxation interventions for alcohol, tobacco, or both. Sources of evidence: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google, stakeholder and colleague recommendations.Charting methods: Excel spreadsheet structured using PICO framework, recording source characteristics and content. Results: Ninety-one sources qualified for inclusion: 49 alcohol, 36 tobacco, 6 both. Analysis identified four policy themes: changes to excise duty within existing tax structures, structural reforms, industry measures, and hypothecation of tax revenue for public benefits. For alcohol, policy options focused on raising the price of cheap, high-strength alcohol. For tobacco, policy options focused on raising the price of all tobacco products, especially the cheapest products, which are hand-rolling tobacco. For alcohol and tobacco, there were options such as levies that take money from the industries to help reduce the societal costs of their products. Due to the perceived social and economic importance of alcohol in contrast to tobacco, policy options also discussed supporting pubs and small breweries. Conclusions: This review has identified a set of tax policy options for tobacco and alcohol, their objectives, evidence of effects and related mediating factors. The differences between alcohol and tobacco tax policy options and debates suggest an opportunity for cross-substance policy learning.

Why we did it: Alcohol and tobacco cause many diseases and deaths. People who drink heavily are more likely to be smokers. People who smoke and drink heavily are more likely to get ill and die sooner. Increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes has been shown to reduce their consumption. Research was needed to understand how and why alcohol and tobacco tax might be changed. This rapid scoping review was undertaken during 2018 as part of a National Institute for Health and Care Research funded project called 'SYNTAX' (16/105/26). Its main purpose was to inform interviews to be conducted with UK public health stakeholders with expertise in alcohol and tobacco pricing policy. Why we did it: We looked at academic papers and policy reports published between 1997 and 2018 that discussed or estimated the effects of changes to tax on alcohol and tobacco. What we found: The results of the review summarise the options for changing alcohol and tobacco taxes that were being considered in the UK, and why. What this means: Some options for changing tax were the same for alcohol and tobacco, but there were also differences between alcohol and tobacco, which reflected differences in how alcohol and tobacco are viewed in society. We used the findings of the review to prepare to speak to alcohol and tobacco tax experts about the options for changing tax on alcohol and tobacco, which we did in 2018.

The Science for Profit Model-How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice.

Science has been at the centre of attempts by major industries, including tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical, to delay progress in tackling threats to human and planetary health by, inter alia, obscuring industry harms, and opposing regulation. Some aspects of this influence are well documented, others remain poorly understood, and similarities between industries remain underexplored. This study, therefore, aims to synthesise the literature to develop an evidence-based typology and model of corporate influence on science in order to provide an overview of this multi-faceted phenomenon. We obtained literature examining corporate attempts to influence science and the use of science in policy and practice from: database searches, bibliographies, expert recommendations, and web alerts; using a modified scoping review methodology (n = 68). Through interpretive analysis we developed the Science for Profit Typology and Model. We identified eight corporate sectors repeatedly engaging in activities to influence science, including: manipulation of scientific methods; reshaping of criteria for establishing scientific "proof"; threats against scientists; and clandestine promotion of policy reforms that increase reliance on industry evidence. The typology identifies five macro-level strategies used consistently across the eight industries, comprising 19 meso-level strategies. The model shows how these strategies work to maximise the volume, credibility, reach, and use of industry-favourable science, while minimising these same aspects of industry-unfavourable science. This creates doubt about harms of industry products/practices or efficacy of policies affecting industry; promotes industry-favoured policy responses and industry products as solutions; and legitimises industry's role as scientific stakeholder. These efforts ultimately serve to weaken policy, prevent litigation, and maximise use of industry products/practices-maximising corporate profitability. We provide an accessible way to understand how and why corporations influence science, demonstrate the need for collective solutions, and discuss changes needed to ensure science works in the public interest.

Conceptualising changes to tobacco and alcohol policy as affecting a single interlinked system.

BACKGROUND: To support a move towards a coordinated non-communicable disease approach in public health policy, it is important to conceptualise changes to policy on tobacco and alcohol as affecting a single interlinked system. For health economic models to effectively inform policy, the first step in their development should be to develop a conceptual understanding of the system complexity that is likely to affect the outcomes of policy change. Our aim in this study was to support the development and interpretation of health economic models of the effects of changes to tobacco and alcohol policies by developing a conceptual understanding of the main components and mechanisms in the system that links policy change to outcomes. METHODS: Our study was based on a workshop from which we captured data on participant discussions on the joint tobacco-alcohol policy system. To inform these discussions, we prepared with a literature review and a survey of participants. Participants were academics and policy professionals who work in the United Kingdom. Data were analysed thematically to produce a description of the main components and mechanisms within the system. RESULTS: Of the people invited, 24 completed the survey (18 academic, 6 policy); 21 attended the workshop (16 academic, 5 policy). Our analysis identified eleven mechanisms through which individuals might modify the effects of a policy change, which include mechanisms that might lead to linked effects of policy change on tobacco and alcohol consumption. We identified ten mechanisms by which the tobacco and alcohol industries might modify the effects of policy changes, grouped into two categories: Reducing policy effectiveness; Enacting counter-measures. Finally, we identified eighteen research questions that indicate potential avenues for further work to understand the potential outcomes of policy change. CONCLUSIONS: Model development should carefully consider the ways in which individuals and the tobacco and alcohol industries might modify the effects of policy change, and the extent to which this results in an unequal societal distribution of outcomes. Modelled evidence should then be interpreted in the light of the conceptual understanding of the system that the modelling necessarily simplifies in order to predict the outcomes of policy change.

Pandemics, vulnerability, and prevention: time to fundamentally reassess how we value and communicate risk?: CITIES, HEALTH and COVID-19: Initial reflections and future challenges.

For over a decade, pandemics have been on the UK National Risk Register as both the likeliest and most severe of threats. Non-infectious 'lifestyle' diseases were already crippling our healthcare services and our economy. COVID-19 has exposed two critical vulnerabilities: firstly, the UK's failure to adequately assess and communicate the severity of non-communicable disease; secondly, the health inequalities across our society, due not least to the poor quality of our urban environments. This suggests a potentially disastrous lack of preventative action and risk management more generally, notably with regards to the existential risks from the climate and ecological crises.

Analysis of submissions to the EU's public consultation on tobacco traceability and security features.

BACKGROUND: The Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products requires all parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation where parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments. In May 2019, the European Union's (EU) T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. METHODS: We identified consultation respondents and investigated any financial links with the tobacco industry and if these were transparent. Respondent's answers to the consultation's multiple-choice questions were collated to explore whether industry-linked respondents held the same policy positions as transnational tobacco companies (TTCs). Associations between policy positions and respondent's financial link status were tested using χ2 and Cranmer's V tests. FINDINGS: Of the 197 consultation respondents identified, 131 (66.4%) had financial links to the industry; 29 (22.1%) were not transparent about these links. A large number of trade associations responded (87), the majority of which (74/87) had financial links to the industry. There was a clear divide in the policy preferences of respondents with and without a financial link. Collectively, respondents with a financial link supported an industry-operated T&T solution. CONCLUSIONS: There was an extensive lobbying effort by the tobacco industry over the EU's T&T system, with TTCs' interests being represented repeatedly through multiple trade associations. The transparency requirements regarding consultation respondents' affiliations with relevant stakeholders (eg, tobacco manufacturers) should be improved for future consultations.

Illicit tobacco trade is 'booming': UK newspaper coverage of data funded by transnational tobacco companies.

BACKGROUND: Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have heavily publicised their argument that standardised tobacco packaging will increase the illicit tobacco trade. Leaked Philip Morris International (PMI) documents suggest that the company may have intended to use third parties to promulgate this argument in the UK. METHODS: We examined articles in UK newspapers (1 April 2013 to 31 March 2015) from LexisNexis for presence and nature of tobacco industry data. We also examined documents released by Freedom of Information requests made to Scottish Councils for evidence of how PMI operationalised its third-party strategy. FINDINGS: Two-thirds of newspaper articles (63%, 99/157) mentioned a PMI consultant; 36% of which did not disclose this industry funding. Most articles mentioned counterfeit tobacco, illicit whites or both (72%, 113/157), while few (4%, 7/157) specifically mentioned tobacco industry illicit tobacco and none explained that the latter can include tobacco-company involvement. Freedom of Information documents revealed that the PMI consultant sought to build relationships with Trading Standards officers, conducted undercover test purchases (UTPs) in illicit tobacco 'hotspots' and may have promoted unrepresentative findings in the media. While the data set featured PMI data predominantly, other TTCs also engaged in third-party techniques to promulgate messages on illicit tobacco. INTERPRETATION: PMI engaged a third party, seemingly with the aim of securing media coverage on illicit tobacco positing that standardised packaging would worsen the problem. The predominant focus of articles which featured industry-funded data and information was on counterfeit tobacco despite official data showing tobacco-industry illicit tobacco as the most prevalent. Other jurisdictions considering the policy should anticipate that third parties will promote the illicit-trade argument.

Tweeting about public health policy: Social media response to the UK Government's announcement of a Parliamentary vote on draft standardised packaging regulations.

BACKGROUND: Standardised tobacco packaging has been, and remains, a contentious policy globally, attracting corporate, public health, political, media and popular attention. In January 2015, the UK Government announced it would vote on draft regulations for the policy before the May 2015 General Election. We explored reactions to the announcement on Twitter, in comparison with an earlier period of little UK Government activity on standardised packaging. METHODS: We obtained a random sample of 1038 tweets in two 4-week periods, before and after the UK Government's announcement. Content analysis was used to examine the following Tweet characteristics: support for the policy, purpose, Twitter-user's geographical location and affiliation, and evidence citation and quality. Chi-squared analyses were used to compare Tweet characteristics between the two periods. RESULTS: Overall, significantly more sampled Tweets were in favour of the policy (49%) in comparison to those opposed (19%). Yet, at Time 2, following the announcement, a greater proportion of sampled tweets opposed standardised packaging compared to the period sampled at Time 1, prior to the announcement (p<0.001). The quality of evidence and research cited in URLs linked at Time 2 was significantly lower than at Time 1 (p<0.001), with peer-reviewed research more likely to be shared in positive Tweets (p<0.001) and in Tweets linking to URLs originating from the health sector (p<0.001). The decline in the proportion of positive Tweets was mirrored by a reduction in Tweets by health sector Twitter-users at Time 2 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Microblogging sites can reflect offline policy debates and are used differently by policy proponents and opponents dependent on the policy context. Twitter-users opposed to standardised packaging increased their activity following the Government's announcement, while those in support broadly maintained their rate of Twitter engagement. The findings offer insight into the public health community's options for using Twitter to influence policy and disseminate research. In particular, proliferation of Twitter activity following pro-public health policy announcements could be considered to ensure pro-health messages are not overshadowed by anti-regulation voices.

Tobacco industry data on illicit tobacco trade: a systematic review of existing assessments.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of tobacco industry-funded data on the illicit tobacco trade (ITT) through a systematic review of existing assessments of industry-funded data on ITT. DATA SOURCES: Papers and reports assessing tobacco industry-funded data on ITT were obtained via searches of 8 academic databases, Google searches and correspondence with ITT experts. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria identified 35 English-language papers containing an original assessment of tobacco industry-funded data. DATA EXTRACTION: Using a coding framework, information was extracted from the assessments regarding the quality of tobacco industry data. Documents were second-coded, achieving 94% intercoder reliability with all disagreements resolved. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 35 assessments reviewed, 31 argued that tobacco industry estimates were higher than independent estimates. Criticisms identified problems with data collection (29), analytical methods (22) and presentation of results (21), which resulted in inflated ITT estimates or data on ITT that were presented in a misleading manner. Lack of transparency from data collection right through to presentation of findings was a key issue with insufficient information to allow replication of the findings frequently cited. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco industry data on ITT are not reliable. At present, the tobacco industry continues to fund and disseminate ITT research through initiatives such as PMI IMPACT. If industry data on ITT cannot meet the standards of accuracy and transparency set by high-quality research publications, a solution may be to tax tobacco companies and administer the resulting funds to experts, independent of the tobacco industry, who use previously developed reliable models for measuring ITT.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES: To 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. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: We 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 MEASURES: The 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. RESULTS: 77/143 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). CONCLUSIONS: With 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.