Tobacco Industry Engagement in the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee E-Cigarettes Inquiry

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK

Abstract

Background 
A now extensive literature has documented political strategies of health-harming industries (HHIs), but little is known about their engagement with parliamentary select committees. Recent investments by trans-national tobacco corporations (TTCs) in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has raised concerns that industry actors may be using these to re-engage policy-makers in ways precluded by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 5.3.
 
Methods 
This article examines tobacco industry engagement with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) inquiry into e-cigarettes. It draws on a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with committee members and support staff (n = 4) triangulated against written and oral evidence submissions.
 
Results 
TTCs featured prominently in the STC inquiry via written and oral submissions. Opportunities existed for industry engagement, and potential influence, at each stage of the process. There was an absence of oral testimony from those sceptical about the potential health benefits of ENDS. The governance mechanisms in place for select committees appear inadequate for protecting committee work from industry influence. As it relates to TTCs, this has implications for the UK’s commitments under FCTC Article 5.3, yet understanding of the FCTC and the requirements of Article 5.3 compliance within the committee were limited.
 
Conclusion 
The governance of select committees requires urgent reform in order to balance norms of openness and participation with the need to protect their work from power of economic actors with conflicts of interest (COI). This is particularly the case in relation to TTCs and adherence to FCTC Article 5.3. These findings are of relevance to other select committees whose work affects the interests of HHIs. Further research is needed on other committees and sectors.

Keywords

References

  1. Lacy-Nichols J, Nandi S, Mialon M, et al. Conceptualising commercial entities in public health: beyond unhealthy commodities and transnational corporations. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1214-1228. doi:1016/s0140-6736(23)00012-0
  2. Gilmore AB, Fabbri A, Baum F, et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet. 2023;401(10383):1194-1213. doi:1016/s0140-6736(23)00013-2
  3. Hird TR, Gallagher AWA, Evans-Reeves K, et al. Understanding the long-term policy influence strategies of the tobacco industry: two contemporary case studies. Tob Control. 2022;31(2):297-307. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057030
  4. Mialon M. An overview of the commercial determinants of health. Global Health. 2020;16(1):74. doi:1186/s12992-020-00607-x
  5. Kenworthy N, MacKenzie R. Case Studies on Corporations and Global Health Governance: Impacts, Influence and Accountability. Pickering & Chatto Publishers; 2016.
  6. Savell E, Fooks G, Gilmore AB. How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. Addiction. 2016;111(1):18-32. doi:1111/add.13048
  7. Smith KE, Savell E, Gilmore AB. What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies. Tob Control. 2013;22(2):144-153. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050098
  8. Brandt AM. Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(1):63-71. doi:2105/ajph.2011.300292
  9. McCambridge J, Mialon M. Alcohol industry involvement in science: a systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(5):565-579. doi:1111/dar.12826
  10. Benton M, Russell M. Assessing the impact of parliamentary oversight committees: the select committees in the British House of Commons. Parliam Aff. 2012;66(4):772-797. doi:1093/pa/gss009
  11. Hawkins B, Oliver K. Select committee governance and the production of evidence: the case of UK e-cigarettes policy. In: Fafard P, Cassola A, de Leeuw E, eds. Integrating Science and Politics for Public Health. Cham: Springer; 2022:187-208. doi:1007/978-3-030-98985-9_9
  12. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 2003. https://fctc.who.int/publications/i/item/9241591013. Accessed August 13, 2024.
  13. Chapman S. Quit Smoking Weapons of Mass Distraction. Sydney University Press; 2022.
  14. Fairchild AL, Bayer R, Lee JS. The e-cigarette debate: what counts as evidence? Am J Public Health. 2019;109(7):1000-1006. doi:2105/ajph.2019.305107
  15. McNeill A, Brose L, Calder R, Robson D, Bauld L, Dockrell M. E-cigarette regulation in the United States and the United Kingdom: two countries divided by a common language. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(11):e26-e27. doi:2105/ajph.2019.305346
  16. Smith KE, Ikegwuonu T, Weishaar H, Hilton S. Evidence use in e-cigarettes debates: scientific showdowns in a 'wild west' of research. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):362. doi:1186/s12889-021-10396-6
  17. Hawkins B, Ettelt S. The strategic uses of evidence in UK e-cigarettes policy debates. Evid Policy. 2019;15(4):579-596. doi:1332/174426418x15212872451438
  18. Weishaar HB, Ikegwuonu T, Smith KE, Buckton CH, Hilton S. E-cigarettes: a disruptive technology? An analysis of health actors' positions on e-cigarette regulation in Scotland. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(17):3103. doi:3390/ijerph16173103
  19. Eisenkraft Klein D, Hawkins B, Schwartz R. Understanding experts’ conflicting perspectives on tobacco harm reduction and e-cigarettes: an interpretive policy analysis. SSM Qual Res Health. 2022;2:100197. doi:1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100197
  20. HM Government. The King's Speech 2023. 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2023. Accessed January 4, 2024.
  21. Mathers A, Hawkins B, Lee K. Transnational tobacco companies and new nicotine delivery systems. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(2):227-235. doi:2105/ajph.2018.304813
  22. Maziak W. E-cigarettes: harm reduction or rehabilitation of the tobacco industry? Int J Public Health. 2020;65(2):159-161. doi:1007/s00038-019-01316-y
  23. Peeters S, Gilmore AB. Understanding the emergence of the tobacco industry's use of the term tobacco harm reduction in order to inform public health policy. Tob Control. 2015;24(2):182-189. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051502
  24. Peeters S, Gilmore AB. Transnational tobacco company interests in smokeless tobacco in Europe: analysis of internal industry documents and contemporary industry materials. PLoS Med. 2013;10(9):e1001506. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1001506
  25. McCambridge J, Kypri K, Drummond C, Strang J. Alcohol harm reduction: corporate capture of a key concept. PLoS Med. 2014;11(12):e1001767. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1001767
  26. Science and Technology Committee. E-Cigarettes: 7th Report of the Session 2017-2019. House of Commons; 2018. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/505/505.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2024.
  27. McCambridge J, Mialon M, Hawkins B. Alcohol industry involvement in policymaking: a systematic review. Addiction. 2018;113(9):1571-1584. doi:1111/add.14216
  28. Hurt RD, Ebbert JO, Muggli ME, Lockhart NJ, Robertson CR. Open doorway to truth: legacy of the Minnesota tobacco trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(5):446-456. doi:1016/s0025-6196(11)60563-6
  29. Apollonio DE, Bero LA. The creation of industry front groups: the tobacco industry and "get government off our back". Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):419-427. doi:2105/ajph.2005.081117
  30. Brandt A. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2009.
  31. MacKenzie R, Hawkins B. How E-Cigarettes Could ‘Health Wash’ the Tobacco Industry. The Conversation; 2016. http://theconversation.com/how-e-cigarettes-could-health-wash-the-tobacco-industry-68428. Accessed August 13, 2024.
  32. Bartz D, Singh K. US FTC Drops Altria Complaint After Marlboro-Maker Exits Stake in Juul Labs. Reuters; 2023. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-ftc-dismisses-complaint-against-altria-juul-deal-after-altria-exited-stake-2023-07-03. Accessed January 4, 2024.
  33. Daube M, Moodie R, McKee M. Towards a smoke-free world? Philip Morris International's new Foundation is not credible. Lancet. 2017;390(10104):1722-1724. doi:1016/s0140-6736(17)32561-8
  34. van der Eijk Y, Bero LA, Malone RE. Philip Morris International-funded 'Foundation for a Smoke-Free World': analysing its claims of independence. Tob Control. 2019;28(6):712-718. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054278
  35. Russell M, Benton M. Selective Influence: The Policy Impact of House of Commons Select Committees. London: Constitution Unit; 2011.
  36. Russell M, Gover D. Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law. Oxford University Press; 2017.
  37. Geddes M, Dommett K, Prosser B. A recipe for impact? Exploring knowledge requirements in the UK Parliament and beyond. Evid Policy. 2018;14(2):259-276. doi: 1332/174426417x14945838375115.
  38. Geddes M. Dramas at Westminster. In: Dramas at Westminster. Manchester University Press; 2019:137-148. doi: 7765/9781526136817.00015.
  39. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Implementation of Article 5.3. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; 2013. https://fctc.who.int/publications/m/item/guidelines-for-implementation-of-article-5.3.  Accessed August 13, 2024.
  40. Fooks GJ, Smith J, Lee K, Holden C. Controlling corporate influence in health policy making? An assessment of the implementation of article 5.3 of the World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control. Global Health. 2017;13(1):12. doi:1186/s12992-017-0234-8
  41. Assunta M. Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index 2023. Bangkok, Thailand: Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control; 2023. https://globaltobaccoindex.org/report-summary.
  42. Walker A. 2020 - Core Questionnaire of the Reporting Instrument of WHO FCTC. Department of Health and Social Care; 2020. https://untobaccocontrol.org/impldb/wp-content/uploads/UK_2020_WHOFCTCreport.pdf.
  43. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:1191/1478088706qp063oa
  44. Tobacco Tactics. Riccardo Polosa. 2023. https://tobaccotactics.org/article/riccardo-polosa/. Accessed January 4, 2024.
  45. McKee M. Evidence and E-cigarettes: explaining English exceptionalism. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(7):965-966. doi:2105/ajph.2019.305132
  46. Geddes M. Committee hearings of the UK Parliament: who gives evidence and does this matter? Parliam Aff. 2017;71(2):283-304. doi:1093/pa/gsx026
  47. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan; 1974.
  48. Campus B, Fafard P, St Pierre J, Hoffman SJ. Comparing the regulation and incentivization of e-cigarettes across 97 countries. Soc Sci Med. 2021;291:114187. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2021.114187
  49. Hawkins B, Holden C. ‘Water dripping on stone’? Industry lobbying and UK alcohol policy. Policy Polit. 2014;42(1):55-70. doi:1332/030557312x655468
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 04 August 2024

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 09 November 2023
  • Revise Date: 04 January 2024
  • Accept Date: 02 August 2024
  • First Publish Date: 04 August 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics