IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v119y2015i1p57-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Old wine in new bottles: Tobacco industry's submission to European Commission tobacco product directive public consultation

Author

Listed:
  • Hiilamo, Heikki
  • Glantz, Stanton A.

Abstract

Between September and December 2010 the European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General (DGSANCO) held a public consultation on a possible revision of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC). We used content analysis of the tobacco industry's and related parties’ 300 submissions to the public consultation to determine if tobacco industry and its allies in Europe are prepared to reduce harm of the tobacco products as their public statements assert. The industry submission resorted to traditional tobacco industry arguments where illicit trade and freedom of choice were emphasized and misrepresented the conclusions of a DGSANCO-commissioned scientific report on smokeless tobacco products. Retailers and wholesalers referred to employment and economic growth more often than respondents from other categories. The pattern of responses in the submission differed dramatically from independent public opinion polls of EU citizens’ support for tobacco control policies. None of the major tobacco manufacturers or their lobbying organizations supported any of the DGSANCO's proposed evidence based interventions (pictorial health warnings, plain packaging or point-of-sale display bans) to reduce harms caused by cigarette smoking.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiilamo, Heikki & Glantz, Stanton A., 2015. "Old wine in new bottles: Tobacco industry's submission to European Commission tobacco product directive public consultation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 57-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:1:p:57-65
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851014002863
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nixon, M L & Mahmoud, L & Glantz, Stanton A. Ph.D., 2004. "Tobacco industry litigation to deter local public health ordinances: the industry usually loses in court," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt3217s0k3, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    2. Ibrahim, J.K. & Glantz, S.A., 2007. "The rise and fall of tobacco control media campaigns, 1967-2006," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(8), pages 1383-1396.
    3. McDaniel, Patricia & Malone, Ruth E, 2005. "Understanding Philip Morris's pursuit of US government regulation of tobacco," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt35p0r9x2, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    4. Katherine E Smith & Gary Fooks & Jeff Collin & Heide Weishaar & Sema Mandal & Anna B Gilmore, 2010. "“Working the System”—British American Tobacco's Influence on the European Union Treaty and Its Implications for Policy: An Analysis of Internal Tobacco Industry Documents," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patricia A McDaniel & Ruth E Malone, 2020. "Tobacco industry and public health responses to state and local efforts to end tobacco sales from 1969-2020," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-25, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily Savell & Anna B Gilmore & Gary Fooks, 2014. "How Does the Tobacco Industry Attempt to Influence Marketing Regulations? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    2. Hadii M. Mamudu & Fenose Osedeme & Crystal Robertson & Mary Ann Littleton & Daniel Owusu & Liang Wang & Donley T. Studlar, 2020. "A Qualitative Study to Explore Perception of Impacts of Preemption of Tobacco Regulation on Counties in Appalachian Tennessee," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Ernesto M. Sebrié & Verónica Schoj & Mark J. Travers & Barbara McGaw & Stanton A. Glantz, 2012. "Smokefree Policies in Latin America and the Caribbean: Making Progress," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Apollonio, Dorie E. & Glantz, Stanton A. & Bero, Lisa A., 2014. "Term limits and the tobacco industry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-5.
    5. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Givel, Michael, 2007. "Motivation of chemical industry social responsibility through Responsible Care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 85-92, April.
    7. Gary Fooks & Anna Gilmore & Jeff Collin & Chris Holden & Kelley Lee, 2013. "The Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and Political CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 283-299, January.
    8. Weishaar, Heide & Amos, Amanda & Collin, Jeff, 2015. "Best of enemies: Using social network analysis to explore a policy network in European smoke-free policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-92.
    9. Tess Legg & Jenny Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2021. "The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-24, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:1:p:57-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.