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

BMJ Open

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Hatchard, Jenny L ^a   Fooks, Gary J ^a   Evans Reeves, Karen A ^a   Ulucanlar, Selda ^a   Gilmore, Anna B ^a  

^a UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; CONTENT ANALYSIS; GOVERNMENT; PACKAGING; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; QUALITY CONTROL; TOBACCO; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; UNITED KINGDOM; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; HUMAN; STANDARDS;

COMMERCE; HUMANS; PRODUCT PACKAGING; TOBACCO INDUSTRY; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84896894278     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003757     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Australian Government. Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011: an act to discourage the use of tobacco products, and for related purposes. 2011.
2. UK Government. Healthy lives, healthy people: a tobacco control plan for England. London: HM Government, 2011.
3. Department of Health. Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products. London: Williams Lea, 2012.
4. Department of Health Tobacco Programme. Consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products: summary report. London: UK Government, 2013.
5. Department of Health. 'Consultation stage impact assessment questions'. London: UK Government, 2012.
6. Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart RB. The emergence of global administrative law. Law Contem Probl 2005;68:15-61. (Pubitemid 43109406)
7. Hahn RW, Litan RE. Counting regulatory benefits and costs: lessons for the US and Europe. J Int Econ Law 2005;8:473-508. (Pubitemid 41442825)
8. Gibbons M, Parker D. Impact assessments and better regulation: the role of the UK's regulatory policy committee. Public Money Manage 2012;32:257-64.
9. Wiener JB. Better Regulation in Europe. Curr Legal Probl 2006;59:447-518.
10. Radaelli CM. Rationality, Power, Management and Symbols: Four Images of Regulatory Impact Assessment. Scand Polit :164-88.
11. Fooks G, Gilmore AB. International trade law, plain packaging and tobacco industry political activity: the trans-pacific partnership. Tob Control 2013. Published Online First 20 Jun 2013.
12. Smith K, Fooks G, Collin J, et al. Is the increasing policy use of Impact Assessment in Europe likely to undermine efforts to achieve healthy public policy? J Epidemiol Community Health 2010;64:478-87.
13. Cabinet Office UK Government. Consultation principles . London: UK Government; 2012.
14. Radaelli C. Better regulation in Europe: between public management and regulatory reform. Public Adm 2009;87:639-54.
15. Yackee JW, Yackee SW. A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the US bureaucracy. J Polit 2006;68:128-39. (Pubitemid 43448402)
16. Obradovic D, Alonso Vizcaino JM. Good governance requirements concerning the participation of interest groups in EU consultations. Common Mark Law Rev 2006;43:1049-85. (Pubitemid 44966033)
17. Radaelli CM. Regulating rule-making via impact assessment. Governance-Int J Policy Adm I 2010;23:89-108.
18. Davies HN, Nutley SM. Evidence-based policy and practice: moving from rhetoric to reality. Interdisciplinary Evidence-Based Policies and Inidcator Systems Conference; July 2001 . CEM Centre University of Durham, 2001.
19. Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Evidence-based policy-making: a critique. Perspect Biol Med 2009;52:304-18.
20. Jacobs C. The evolution and development of regulatory impact assessment in the UK. In: Kirkpatrick C, Parker D. eds. Regulatory Impact Assessment: towards better regulation? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2007:106-31.
21. World Health Organisation. Framework convention on tobacco control. Switzerland: WHO Library, 2003.
22. Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep 2005;120:200-8.
23. Drope J, Chapman S. Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: A review of internal industry documents. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:588-94. (Pubitemid 32662062)
24. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the center for indoor air research. J Health Polit Policy Law 1996;21:515-42. (Pubitemid 26196462)
25. Hong MK, Bero LA. Tobacco industry sponsorship of a book and conflict of interest. Addiction 2006;101:1202-11. (Pubitemid 44025320)
26. Smith K, Gilmore AB, Fooks G, et al. Tobacco industry attempts to undermine article 5.3 and the "good governance" trap. Tob Control 2009;18:509-11.
27. Imperial Tobacco. Bad for business; bad for consumers; good for criminals: standardised packaging is unjustified, anti competitive and anti business, a reponse to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging. 2012.
28. Japan Tobacco International Ltd. Response to the Department of Health's consultation on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. 2012.
29. Philip Morris Limited. Standardised tobacco packaging will harm public health and cost UK taxpayers billions: a response to the Department of Health's Consultation on standardised packaging. 2012.
30. British American Tobacco. UK Standardised Packaging Consultation: Response of British American Tobacco UK Ltd. 2012.
31. Boaz A, Ashby D. Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based policy and practice. ESRC Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Queen Mary, University of London; 2003.
32. Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, et al. A plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. Stirling: Public Health Research Consortium, 2012.
33. Freeman B, Chapman S, Rimmer M. The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction 2008; 103:580-90. (Pubitemid 351389284)
34. Carter SM. From legitimate consumers to public relations pawns: the tobacco industry and young Australians. Tob Control 2003;12(Suppl 3):iii71-8. (Pubitemid 39481537)
35. Krugman DM, Quinn WH, Sung Y, et al. Understanding the role of cigarette promotion and youth smoking in a changing marketing environment. J Health Commun 2005;10:261-78. (Pubitemid 40853980)
36. Hoek J, Gendall P, Maubach N, et al. Strong public support for plain packaging of tobacco products. Aust N Z J Public Health 2012;36:405-7.
37. Perry C. The tobacco industry and underage smoking: tobacco industry documents from the Minnesota litigation. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999;153:935-41. (Pubitemid 29416564)
38. Siegel M. 'Economic impact of 100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances'. In: Program PMR. Smoking and restaurants: a guide for policy makers. Berkeley, CA: University of California/UCSF, 1992;26 - 30.
39. Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, et al. 'Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry '. Tob Control 2003;12:13-20. (Pubitemid 39456685)
40. Barnes D, Bero LA. Scientific quality of original research articles on evironmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control 1997;12:19-26. (Pubitemid 127685481)
41. Bero L, Montini T, Bryan-Jones K, et al. Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions. Tob Control 2001;10:329-36. (Pubitemid 33720604)
42. Montini T, Mangurian C, Bero LA. Assessing the evidence submitted in the development of a workplace smoking regulation: the case of Maryland. Public Health Rep 2002;117:291-8. (Pubitemid 35351238)
43. Hillman A, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1362-5.
44. Miller PG. Research independence matters for practitioners and researchers in the addictions. J Groups Addict Recovery 2008; 3:47-59.
45. Neilsen K, Glantz SA. A tobacco industry study of airline cabin air quality: dropping inconvenient findings. Tob Control 2004;13:i20-9. (Pubitemid 39456629)
46. Albert M, Laberge S, McGuire W. Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: the views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. Higher Educ 2012;64:661-76.
47. Bero L. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Late lessons from early mornings: science, precaution and innovation. Luxembourg: European Environment Agency, 2013.
48. Garne D,Watson M, Chapman S, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with the tobacco industry. Lancet; 365:804-9.
49. Jarman H. Attack on Australia: tobacco industry challenges to plain packaging. J Public Health Policy 2013;34:375-87.
50. Philip Morris International. UK Corporate Affairs Update. February 2012.
51. Philip Morris International. UK Corporate Affairs Update. March 2012.
52. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet 2013; 381:670-9.
53. Jernigan DH. Global alcohol producers, science, and policy: the case of the international center for alcohol policies. Am J Public Health 2012;102:80-9.
54. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Peer review in scientific publications. London: Stationery Office Ltd., 2011.
55. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, et al. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 2011.
56. Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Carter SM, et al. Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:1056-63.
57. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Folse SB, et al . Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;72:1056-63.