Is the increasing policy use of Impact Assessment in Europe likely to undermine efforts to achieve healthy public policy?

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 478-487

  Smith, Katherine E ^a   Fooks, Gary ^a   Collin, Jeff ^b   Weishaar, Heide ^b   Gilmore, Anna B ^a,c  

^a University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH IMPACT; HEALTH POLICY; LITERATURE REVIEW; POLICY APPROACH; PUBLIC HEALTH;

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EUROPE;

EID: 77953731096     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: 14702738     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2009.094300     Document Type: Article

References (149)

1. Welsh Assembly Government, Eurohealthnet. Health impact assessment and government policymaking in European countries. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government, 2003.
2. Jacob K, Hertln J, Hjerp P, et al. Improving the practice of impact assessment. http://web.fu-berlinde/ffu/evia/EVIA-Policy-Paper.pdf 2008;(accessed 6th Jan 2009).
3. Radaelli CM. Regulatory impact assessments - a new European governance? In: Vass P, ed. Regulatory review 2004/2005. Bath: Centre for the Study of Regulated Industries, University of Bath School of Management, 2005.
4. Krieger N, Northridge M, Gruskln S, et al. Assessing health impact assessment: multidisciplinary and international perspectives. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:659-662
5. Parry JM, Kemm JR. (on behalf of all participants of the evaluation of health impact assessment workshop). Criteria for use in the evaluation of health impact assessments. Public Health 2005;119:1122-1129
6. Parry J, Stevens A. Prospective health impact assessment: pitfalls, problems, and possible ways forward. BMJ 2001;323:1177-1182
7. Löfstedt RE. The swing of the regulatory pendulum in Europe: from precautionary principle to (regulatory) impact analysis. J Risk Uncertain 2004;28:237-260
8. Radaelli CM. Whither better regulation for the Lisbon agenda? J Eur Public Policy 2007;14:190-207.
9. Radaelli CM. Diffusion without convergence: how political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. J Eur Public Policy 2005; 12:924-943
10. Radaelli CM. Evidence-based policy and political control: what does regulatory impact assessment tell us? European consortium for political research: 11-16 April 2008. France: University of Rennes, 2008.
11. Curtis S. How can we address health inequality through healthy public policy in Europe? Eur Urban Reg Stud 2008;15:293-305.
12. Mindell J, Boaz A, Joffe M, et al. Enhancing the evidence base for health impact assessment. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:546-551
13. Michaelson J. Rethinking regulatory reform: toxics, politics, and ethics. Yale Law J 1996;105:1891-1925
14. Kopp RJ, Krupnlck AJ, Toman M. Cost-benefit analysis and regulatory reform: an assessment of the science and the art. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1997: Discussion Paper 97-19:1-60.
15. Majone G. Risk regulation in the European union: between enlargement and internationalization. Florence, Italy: European University Institute, 2003.
16. British Medical Association. Health and environmental impact assessment. An integrated approach. London: Earthscan Publications, 1999.
17. McCarthy M, Biddulph JP, Utley M, et al. A health Impact assessment model for environmental changes attributable to development projects. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:611-616
18. Mindell J, Joffe M. Health impact assessment in relation to other forms of impact assessment. J Public Health Med 2003;25:107-112 (Pubitemid 36763536)
19. Wright J, Parry J, Scully E. Institutionalizing policy-level health impact assessment in Europe: is coupling health impact assessment with strategic environmental assessment the next step forward? Bull World Health Organ 2005;83:472-477
20. World Health Organisation. Primary health care now more than ever. Geneva: WHO, 2008.
21. Hübel M, Hedin A. Developing health impact assessment in the European union. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:463-464
22. Davenport C, Mathers J, Parry J. Use of health impact assessment in incorporating health considerations in decision making. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:196-201.
23. Brownell KD, Warner KE. The Perils of ignoring history: big tobacco played dirty and millions died. How Similar is Big Food? Milbank Q 2009;87: 259-294
24. Freudenberg N, Galea S. The impact of corporate practices on health: implications for health policy. J Public Health Policy 2008;29:86-104.
25. Wiist WH. Public health and the anticorporate movement: rationale and recommendations. Am J Public Health 2006;96:1370-1375
26. Freudenberg N, Galea S. Corporate practices. In: Galea S, ed. Macrosocial determinants of population health. New York: Springer Science, 2007:71-104.
27. Smith KE, Fooks G, Collin J, et al. "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 2010 7(1): http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000202.
28. Smith KE, Collin J, Fooks G, et al. Manufacturing 'Better Regulation' - Corporate influence and policy change in the EU. Under review at Regulation & Governance (submitted Oct 2009).
29. Hirschhorn N, Bialous SA. Second hand smoke and risk assessment: what was in it for the tobacco industry? Tob Control 2001;10:375-382.
30. (British American Tobacco) ETS Pilot Study. Source: British American Tobacco. Bates range: 700875991-700876043. 95/12/07. 1995: http://legacy. library.ucsf. edu/tid/kwj63a99 (accessed 24 Jul 2008).
31. (British American Tobacco) EU Issues. British American Tobacco. Bates range: 322122073-322122107. Unknown. 1996: http://bat.llbrary.ucsf.edu//tid/ pwt63a99(accessed 05 Jun 2008).
32. (British American Tobacco) Shaping the Regulatory Environment: Advertising and public smoking. Source: British American Tobacco. Bates range: 322121140-322121143 http://batlibrary.ucsf.edu/Aid/xnz82a99 (accessed 23 May 2008); Undated.
33. European Commission. Communication from the commission on impact assessment COM[2002] 276 final. Brussels %3ca href= http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0276:FIN: EN:PDF (accessed 30 Dec 2008): Europa 2002.
34. European Commission. Impact assessment guidelines SEC[2005] 791. http://ec. europa.eu/governance/impact/docs/SEC2005-791-IA%20guidelines-annexes. pdf (accessed 02 Sep 2008). Europa 2005.
35. European Commission. Impact assessment guidelines [draft version 27/05/2008]. http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/consultation/docs/ia- guidelines-draft-text-final-en.pdf (accessed 07 Oct 2008): Europa 2008.
36. European Commission. Impact assessment guidelines SEC[2009] 92. Brussels: Europa: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission-guidelines/docs/iag- 2009-en.pdf (accessed 01 Apr 2009) 2009.
37. Kelman S. Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. AEI Journal on Government and Society Regulation 1981:33-40.
38. Lock K, McKee M. Health impact assessment: assessing opportunities and barriers to intersectoral health improvement in an expanded European Union. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2005;59:356-360
39. Torriti J. Impact assessment in the EU: a tool for better regulation, less regulation or less bad regulation? J Risk Res 2007;10:239-276
40. Froud J, Ogus A. 'Rational' social regulation and compliance cost assessment. Public Adm 1996;74:221-237
41. Commission of the European Communities. Draft resolution of the council concerning the action programme for SME (COM 86 [445] Final) .Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 1986.
42. Franz J, Kirkpatrick C. Integrating sustainable development into European policymaking: the role of impact assessments. J Environ Assessment Policy Management 2007;9:141-160
43. European Communities. Treaty of Amsterdam amending the treaty on European union, the treaties establishing the European communities and certain related acts. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and Europa, 1997. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/topicsAreaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf (accessed 07 Oct 2008).
44. Meuwese A. informing the EU legislator through impact assessments. Frontiers of regulation: assessing scholarly debates and policy challenges. Bath: University of Bath, 2006. http://acoustics2005.bath.ac.uk/cri/pdf/ecpr- pdf/14-Meuwese1> .pdf (accessed 20 Jan 2009).
45. Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation. Final report. Brussels http://ec.europa. eu/governance/impact/docs/key-docs/mandelkern-report-en.pdf (accessed 30 Dec 2008): Europa2001.
46. Commission of the European Communities. Communication: a sustainable Europe for a better world: a European union strategy for sustainable development, COM [2001] 264 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2001.
47. Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission - Simplifying and improving the regulatory environment COM [2001] 726 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2001. %3ca href= http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?url=COM:2001:0726:FIN: EN:PDF (accessed 29 Aug 09).
48. European Commission. Communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament, better regulation for growth and jobs in the European union. (SEC [2005] 97 Final). Brussels: European Commission, 2005. http://www.eu2005. lu/en/actualites/documents-travail/2005/04/18bettereglet/ com2005-0097en01.pdf (accessed 06 Jan 2009).
49. EU Presidencies. Joint initiative on regulatory reform, a letter from the EU Presidencies of Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the UK, 26th January 2004. 2004. http:/www.finance.govie/documents/pressreleases/2004/janmcc12462.pdf (accessed 06 Jan 2009).
50. EU Presidencies. Advancing regulatory reform in Europe - a joint statement of the Irish, Dutch, Luxembourg, UK, Austrian and Finnish Presidencies of the European Union. 2004 http:/www.hm-treasury.govuk/d/advancing-regulatory- reform-in- europe.pdf (accessed 06 Apr 2009).
51. European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Ensuring a high level of health protection A practical guide. Brussels: European Commission, 2001 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph-overview/Documents/ key07-en. pdf (accessed 16 Jan 2009).
52. Abrahams D, Pennington A, Scott-Samuel A, et al. European policy health impact assessment - a guide. Brussels: Health and Consumer Protection DirectorateGeneral of the European Commission, 2004. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ ph-projects/2001/monitoring/fp-monitoring-2001-a6-frep-11-en.pdf (accessed 16 Jan 2009).
53. Salay R, Lincoln P. Health impact assessments in the European Union. Lancet 2008;372:860-861
54. Hervey T, McKee M, Gilmore A. Public health policies. In: Mossialos E, Permanand G, Baeten R, et al., eds. Health systems governance in Europe: the role of EU law and policy. Cambridge University Press; In press.
55. Lee N, Kirkpatrlck C. Evidence-based policy-making in Europe: an evaluation of European Commission integrated impact assessments. impact Assessment Project Appraisal 2006;24:23-33.
56. Wilkinson D, Ferguson M, Bowyer C, et al. Sustainable development in the European commission's integrated impact assessments for 2003. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2004.
57. Ståhl T. Is health recognised in the EU's policy process? An analysis of the European commission's impact assessments. Eur J Public Health http://eurpub.oxfordjournals. org/cgi/reprint/ckp082v1:1-6.
58. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:35.
59. Marshall BK, Picou JS. Postnormal science, precautionary principle, and worst cases: the challenge of twenty-first century catastrophes. Sociol Inq 2008;78:230-247
60. Tenbensel T. Does more evidence lead to better policy? The implications of explicit priority-setting in New Zealand's health policy for evidence-based policy. Policy Studies 2004;25:189-207.
61. Levitt R. GM crops and food. Evidence, policy and practice in the UK: a case study. ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 20; 2003.
62. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S, Frankel S. How policy informs the evidence - "Evidence based" thinking can lead to debased policy making. BMJ. [Editorial]. 2001;322:184-185
63. Tennoy A, Kværner J, Gjerstad KI. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 2006;24:45-56.
64. Hanley N. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policymaking. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 2001;19:103-118
65. O'Connell E, Hurley F. A review of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative methods used in health impact assessment. Public Health 1997;123:306-310
66. Pijnenburg B. EU lobbying by ad hoc coalitions: an exploratory case study. J Eur Public Policy 1998;5.
67. Kaeding M. Determinants of transposition delay in the European union. J Public Policy 2006;26:229-253
68. Wood C, Dipper B, Jones C. Auditing the assessment of the environmental impacts of planning projects. J Environ Planning Management 2000;43:23-47.
69. Frank RH. Why is Cost-benefit analysis so controversial? In: Adler MD, Posner EA, eds. Cost-benefit analysis legal, economic and philosophical perspectives. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001:74-94.
70. Coglianese C. Litigating within relationships: disputes and disturbance in the regulatory process. Law Soc Rev 1996;735:749-750
71. Coglianese C, Zeckhauser R, Parson E. Securing truth for power: informational strategy and regulatory policy making. Berkeley, CA: The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress), 2004. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/254 (accessed 22 Dec 2008).
72. Helm D. Regulatory reform, capture, and the regulatory burden. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 2006;22:169-185
73. European Information Service. Chemicals strategy: parliament hurls scathing criticism at REACH impact report. Brussels: European Information Service, 2004. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi-0199-293613/CHEMICALS- STRATEGY-PARLIAMENT-HURLS-SCATHING.html (accessed 30 Dec 2008).
74. German Federal Environment Agency. Methodological problems of assessing the economic impacts of EU chemicals policy: summary results of the conference of experts at the Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency) on 06.02.2003. Berlin: German Federal Environment Agency, 2003. www.umweltdaten.de/uba- infopresse/hintergrund/stoffpol-e.pdf (accessed 30 Dec 2008).
75. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/ EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 And of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/ EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, [2006].
76. Commission of the European Communities. Commission Staff Working Paper: "regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restrictions of chemicals(REACH), establishing a European chemicals agency and amending directive 1999/45/EC and Regulation (EC) {on persistent organic pollutants}" extended impact assessment (COM[2003] 644 final). Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2003. http://ec. europa.eu/enterprise/reach/docs/reach/eia-sec- 2003-1171-en.pdf (accessed 13 Jan 2009).
77. Greenpeace. New EU chemical law alive, but not kicking. Greenpeace, 2006. http:// www.greenpeace.org/internationat'news/eu-reach-chemical-law-vote131206 (accessed Jan 2009).
78. Mercer Management Consulting. Study of the impact of the future chemicals policy - 4 examples of the impacts of the regulation proposal on downstream industries. 2004. http://www.cefic.be/files/Publications/Mercer-study-2004. doc(accessed 14 Jan 2009).
79. The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC). Business impact study sectoral fact sheets. CEFIC, 2002. http:/www.cefic.be/files/Publications/ Sectoral-Fact-Sheets.doc (accessed on 14 Jan 2009).
80. Little AD. Economic effects of the EU Substances Policy. 2002.http://www. chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/BDI%20Report.doc (accessed 6th Aug 2009).
81. European Commission. Memorandum of understanding between the European Commission side (DG Enterprise and DG Environment) and industry (UNICE/ CEFIC) to undertake further work concerning the impact assessment of REACH. Brussels: European Commission, 2004. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/docs/reach/memo- of-underst-on-ia-2004-03-03-en.pdf (accessed 14 Jan 2009).
82. Enviro Tex GmbH, Private Institute for Product Safety and Environment, CAST Consulting. Analysis of the potential impacts of Reach on European textile supply chains (final report). Enviro Tex GmbH & Private Institute for Product Safety and Environment & CAST Consulting, 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/reach/docs/reach/text-final-report-051216-en.pdf (accessed 14 Jan 2009).
83. KPMG Business Advisory Services. REACH - further work on impact assessment - a case study approach (final report). KPMG, 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/docs/reach/kpmg-final-repor t-en.pdf (accessed 14 Jan 2009).
84. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Implementation of REACH in the New European member states - part one: overview of the chemical and speciality sector in the new member states. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies & DG Joint Research Centre, 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/reach/docs/reach/ipts-final-report-part-1-en.pdf (accessed 14 Jan 2009).
85. EUROPA Press Release. Reach: High Level Group meets to assess new impact studies (IP/05/495]. European Commission, 2005. http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/ 495&format=HTML&aged= 0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed 14th January 2009).
86. European Commission Directorate for Enterprise and Industry. Extended impact assessment of the new chemicals policy - further work on impact assessment on REACH. Brussels: Europa, 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ reach/reach/archives/impact-assessment/ (accessed 14 Jan 2009).
87. European Environmental Bureau, Worldwide Fund for Nature. Business Impact Assessments and the Work by KPMG for UNICE and CEFIC. EEB & WWF, 2005.www.eeb.org/activlties/chemlcals/20050113-EEB-WWF-KPMG-brief-final.pdf (accessed 31 May 2009).
88. Contiero M. Toxic Lobby. How the Chemicals Industry is Trying to Kill REACH. Brussels: Greenpeace international, 2006. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/ content/ international/press/reports/toxic-lobby-how-the-chemical.pdf (accessed 13 Jan 2008).
89. DiGangi J. The precautionary principle - REACH and the long arm of the chemical industry. Multinational Monitor 2004;25:1-11.
90. International Chemical Secretariat. Cry wolf - predicted costs by industry in the face of new regulation. Göteborg: The International Chemical Secretariat, 2004. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/crywolf0404b.pdf (accessed on 10 Apr 2009).
91. Hahn RW, Burnett JK, Chan Y-HI, Mader EA, Moyle PR. Assessing the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analyses: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies 2000.
92. Sunstein CR. The cost-benefit state the future of regulatory protection. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2002.
93. Tolchin SJ. Cost-benefit analysis and the rush to deregulate: the use and misuse of theory to effect policy change. Policy Stud Rev 1984;4:212-218
94. Lave LB. Benefit-cost analysis - do the benefits exceed the costs? In: Hahn RW, ed. Risks, costs and lives saved: getting better results from regulation. New York: Oxford University Press USA, 1996:104-134
95. Miller D, Patassini D, eds. Beyond benefit cost analysis: accounting for non-market values in planning evaluation. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005.
96. Sayers BM, Bailey NTJ, Fliedner TM, et al. The disability adjusted life year concept: a comment. Eur J Public Health 1997;7:113.
97. La Puma J, Lawlor EF. Quality-adjusted life-years - ethical implications for physicians and policymakers. JAMA 1990;263:2917-2921
98. Morrow RH, Bryant JH. Health policy approaches to measuring and valuing human life: conceptual and ethical issues. Am J Public Health 1995;85:1356-1360
99. Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness In numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ 1999;8:25-39.
100. Sayers BM, Fliedner TM. The critique of DALYs: a counter-reply. Bull World Health Organ 1997;75:383-384
101. Arnesen T, Nord E. The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ 1999;319:1423-1425
102. Lyttkens C. Time to disable DALYs? Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:195-202.
103. Anand S, Hanson K. Disability adjusted life years: A Critical Review. in: Anand S, Peter F, Sen A, eds. Public health, ethics and equity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006:183-200.
104. European Commission. Part III: annexes to impact assessment guidelines. Brussels: European Commission, 2009.
105. Broome J. Cost-benefit Analysis and Population. In: Adler MD, Posner EA, eds. Cost-benefit analysis legal, economic and philosophical perspectives. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. p. 117-122
106. Chichilnisky G. The costs and benefits of benefit-cost analysis. Environment and Development Economics 1997;2:202-205
107. Martuzzi M, Bertollini R. The precautionary principle, science and human health protection. Hum Ecolog Risk Assessment 2005;11:63-68
108. Veerman JL, Barendregt JJ, Mackenbach JP. Quantitative health impact assessment: current practice and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:361-370
109. Sen A. The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. In: Adler MD, Posner EA, eds. Costbenefit analysis legal, economic and philosophical perspectives. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001:95-116.
110. European Commission. Together for health: a strategic approach for the EU 2008-2013 COM[2007] 630 final. Brussels: Europa, 2007 http://ec.europa.eu/ health/ph-overview/Documents/strategy-wp-en.pdf (accessed on 06 Jan 2009).
111. Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the commission on the precautionary principle COM[2000] 1. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, 2000. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health-consumer/library/pub/ pub07-en.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2009).
112. European Environment Agency. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency, 2001.
113. Peel J. The precautionary principle in practice: environmental decision-making and scientific uncertainty. Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press, 2005.
114. Allio L, Ballantine B, Meads R. Enhancing the role of science in the decision-making of the European Union. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2005;44:4-13.
115. European Policy Centre Risk Forum. Enhancing the role of science in the decision-making of the European Union (EPC Working Paper 17). Brussels: The European Policy Centre, 2005. http://www.epc.eu/TEWN/pdf/668109152- EPC%20Working%20Paper%2017%20Enhancing%20the%20role%20of%20science%20in %20EU%20decision%20making%20(revised).pdf (accessed on 25 Aug 2008).
116. Taylor G, Millar M. 'The appliance of science': the politics of European food regulation and reform, public policy and administration 2002;17:125-146
117. Freudenburg WR, Gramling R, Davidson DJ. Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): science and the politics of doubt. Sociol Inq 2008;78:2-38.
118. Christiansen T. The European commission: administration in turbulent times. In: Richardson J, ed. European union - power and policymaking. 2nd edn. Routledge: London: 95-114.
119. Balanyá B, Doherty A, Hoedeman O, et al. Europe Inc: Regional B Global Restructuring and the rise of corporate power. London: Pluto Press, 2000. (in association with the Corporate Europe Observatory).
120. Diethelm P, McKee M. Lifting the smokescreen tobacco industry strategy to defeat smoke free policies and legislation. Brussels: European Respiratory Society and institut National du Cancer (INCa), 2006.
121. Gilmore A, McKee M. Tobacco-control policy in the European union. In: Feldman E, Bayer R, eds. Unfiltered: conflicts over tobacco policy and public health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004:219-254
122. Hastings G, Angus K. The influence of the tobacco industry on European tobaccocontrol policy. Tobacco or health in the European union Past present and future. Luxembourg: The ASPECT Consortium, European Commission Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, 2004:195-225.
123. Neuman M, Glantz S. Tobacco industry attempts to subvert European union tobacco advertising legislation. San Francisco, CA: Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, 2002.
124. World Health Organisation. Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control. Geneva: WHO, 2008. http:/www.who.int/tobacco/resources/publications/ Tobacco %20Industry%20Interference-FINAL.pdf (accessed 6 Jan 2009).
125. Zeltner T, Kessler DA, Martiny A, et al. Tobacco company strategies to undermine tobacco control activities at the World Health Organization - report of the committee of experts on tobacco industry documents, http://www.who.int/ tobacco/media/en/who-inquiry.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2008). WHO 2000.
126. Pesendorfer D. EU environmental policy under pressure: Chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals? Env Polit 2006;15:95-114.
127. Parry J, Wright J. Community participation in health impact assessments: intuitively appealing but practically difficult. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:388.
128. Jones MG. Social impact assessment: more than ever a business need. International Association for impact Assessment, 2002. http://www.iaia.org/modx/ assets/files/Bi1%20pdfpdf (accessed 16 Jan 2009).
129. Marshall R. It's good to talk: the importance of consultation in SIA. International Association for Impact Assessment, 2002. http://www.iala.org/modx/ assets/files/Bi1%20pdfpdf (accessed 16 Jan 2009).
130. European Policy Centre. Regulatory impact analysis: improving the quality of EU regulatory activity. Brussels. 2001: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/ contrib-epc-en. pdf (accessed on 25 Aug 2008).
131. Enterprise Directorate-General (European Commission). Business impact assessment pilot project Final report - lessons learned and the way forward (Enterprise Papers No 9]. Brussels, 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ library/enterprise-papers/pdf/enterprise-paper-09-2002.pdf (accessed on 25 Aug 2008).
132. European Commission. Press release: pilot project on business impact assessment (BIA). Brussels: 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/ better-regulation/impact-assessment/bia/ppbia-en.htm (accessed on 25 Aug 2008).
133. Commission of the European Communities. Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission (COM[2002] 704 final). 2002. %3ca href=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=COM:2002:0704:FIN: EN:PDF (accessed on 26 Aug 2008).
134. Dorzia P. Letter from JTI (Japan Tobacco Industry) dated 12th June 2008. In: To European Affairs Office and copied to Health Attachés of all the Member States and the European Commission. Brussels 2008.
135. World Health Organization. Framework convention on tobacco control. 2003: http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO-FCTC-english.pdf (accessed on 16 Aug 2008).
136. Pramanik A. Letter from imperial tobacco to the house of lords, dated 28th April 2009. Bristol: Imperial Tobacco, 2009.
137. World Health Organization. Elaboration of guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC/COP/3/A/Conf. Paper No.11]. Durban, South Africa: Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 2008.
138. Smith KE, Gilmore A, Fooks, et al. Tobacco industry attempts to undermine Article 5.3 and the 'good governance' trap. Tobacco Control 2009;18(6): 509-511
139. McGarity T. Reinventing rationality: the role of regulatory analysis in the federal bureaucracy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
140. Hahn RW. Reviving regulatory reform a global perspective. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press, 2000.
141. Hahn RW, Litan RE. Improving regulatory accountability. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise institute for Public Policy Research and the Brookings Institution, 1997.
142. OECD. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best practice in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD, 1997.
143. Jacobs S. Current trends in regulatory impact analysis: the challenges of mainstreaming RIA into policy-making. Jacobs and Associates, 2006, http://www. regulatoryreform.com/pdfs/Current%20Trends%20and%20Processes%20in%20RIA%20- %20May%202006%20Jacobs%20and%20Associates.pdf (accessed 01 Jun 2009).
144. Gruning T, Gilmore AB, McKee M. Tobacco industry influence on science and scientists in Germany. Am J Public Health 2005;96:20-32.
145. Coen D. Lobbying in the European union briefing paper. Brussels: DirectorateGeneral internal Policies Policy Department C Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs, 2007.
146. Greenwood J. Interest Representation in the European Union 2nd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
147. Brown G. The road to full employment: economic reforms for a more flexible and dynamic Britain and Europe Speech made by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown on 10th March 2003; Centre for European Reform at Church House, London. 2003. http://www.hm-treasury.govuk/press-36-03.htm (accessed on 01 Apr 2009).
148. Blair T. Speech on compensation culture given at University College London on 26 May 2005. London: 2005. http:/www.number10.govuk/Page7562 (accessed on 01 Apr 2009).
149. Bekker MPM, Putters K, van der Grinten TED. Exploring the relation between evidence and decision-making - a political-administrative approach to health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:139-149