IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0182612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Collin
  • Sarah E Hill
  • Mor Kandlik Eltanani
  • Evgeniya Plotnikova
  • Rob Ralston
  • Katherine E Smith

Abstract

Background: Public health’s terms of engagement with unhealthy commodity industries (alcohol, tobacco and ultra-processed food and drinks) have become increasingly contested in policy and research. We sought to identify approaches that could attract consensus support within and across policy domains. Methods: Using snowball sampling, we undertook an online survey of 335 health researchers, advocates and policymakers, in 40 countries, assessing responses to stated principles, claims and recommendations for engaging with unhealthy commodity industries in relation to key policy and research initiatives. Results: Most respondents identified a fundamental conflict between industry interests and public health objectives for all three industries, with agreement greatest in relation to tobacco and weakest for food. This pattern was replicated across diverse questions regarding potential forms of engagement, including in rejecting voluntarism and partnership approaches to health policy. While awareness of tobacco industry tactics to influence policy and research was higher than for alcohol and food, most respondents rejected the view that the influence of the latter was less significant for public health. Proposals that health and research organisations should divest their funds attracted less support with respect to food, while restricting publication of industry-funded research in academic journals was the issue that most divided opinion. Respondents reported most difficulty in answering questions about the food industry. Conclusions: The strong consensus around restricting interactions with the tobacco industry supports increased implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s conflict of interest provisions. There is strong support for the extension of such practices to the alcohol industry, challenging current norms. More mixed responses indicate a need for greater clarity in defining the food industry, and for research analyzing links, similarities and differences across different types of unhealthy commodity producers. Partnership approaches to addressing non-communicable diseases seem incapable of attracting widespread support across public health, challenging practice in many contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Collin & Sarah E Hill & Mor Kandlik Eltanani & Evgeniya Plotnikova & Rob Ralston & Katherine E Smith, 2017. "Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0182612
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182612
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0182612&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0182612?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Selda Ulucanlar & Gary J Fooks & Jenny L Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2014. "Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. World Health Organization, 2009. "Tobacco Industry Interference with Tobacco Control," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt98w687x5, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    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. Rima Nakkash & Ahmed Ali & Hala Alaouie & Khalil Asmar & Norbert Hirschhorn & Sanaa Mugharbil & Iman Nuwayhid & Leslie London & Amina Saban & Sabina Faiz Rashid & Md Koushik Ahmed & Cecile Knai & Char, 2020. "Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(7), pages 1133-1145, September.
    2. Katherine Cullerton & Jean Adams & Oliver Francis & Nita Forouhi & Martin White, 2019. "Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Tatiane Nunes Pereira & Gisele Ane Bortolini & Roberta de Freitas Campos, 2023. "Barriers and Facilitators Related to the Adoption of Policies to Reduce Ultra-Processed Foods Consumption: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-27, March.
    4. Townsend, Belinda & Schram, Ashley & Labonté, Ronald & Baum, Fran & Friel, Sharon, 2019. "How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.

    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. Carters-White, Lauren & Chambers, Stephanie & Skivington, Kathryn & Hilton, Shona, 2021. "Whose rights deserve protection? Framing analysis of responses to the 2016 Committee of Advertising Practice consultation on the non-broadcast advertising of foods and soft drinks to children," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Marie A. Bragg & Brian Elbel & Marion Nestle, 2020. "Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Jenny L Hatchard & Joao Quariguasi Frota Neto & Christos Vasilakis & Karen A Evans-Reeves, 2019. "Tweeting about public health policy: Social media response to the UK Government’s announcement of a Parliamentary vote on draft standardised packaging regulations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Marwah M. Hassounah & Abdulmohsen H. Al-Zalabani & Mohammed D. AlAhmari & Afraa A. Murriky & Anwar M. Makeen & Abdullah M.M. Alanazi, 2020. "Implementation of Cigarette Plain Packaging: Triadic Reactions of Consumers, State Officials, and Tobacco Companies—The Case of Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Mikael Karlsson, 2019. "Chemicals Denial—A Challenge to Science and Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-9, September.
    6. Lencucha, Raphael & Drope, Jeffrey & Labonte, Ronald, 2016. "Rhetoric and the law, or the law of rhetoric: How countries oppose novel tobacco control measures at the World Trade Organization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 100-107.
    7. MacKenzie, Ross & Mathers, Annalise & Hawkins, Benjamin & Eckhardt, Jappe & Smith, Julia, 2018. "The tobacco industry’s challenges to standardised packaging: A comparative analysis of issue framing in public relations campaigns in four countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(9), pages 1001-1011.
    8. Rosemary Hiscock & Nicole H Augustin & J Robert Branston & Anna B Gilmore, 2020. "Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Florentine Petronella Martino & Peter Graeme Miller & Kerri Coomber & Linda Hancock & Kypros Kypri, 2017. "Analysis of Alcohol Industry Submissions against Marketing Regulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    10. Justin O. Parkhurst, 2016. "Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 373-393, December.
    11. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0182612. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.