The Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World: tax return sheds light on funding activities

Vaping industry participation standards in health organizations: an exploratory policy content analysis

The vaping industry has been found to employ similar tactics to tobacco industry actors to seek credibility and distort the scientific evidence base around the health harms of nicotine vaping products. As vaping industry interests undermine vaping control efforts, safeguards are necessary to protect against this influence. We aimed to examine health organizations' policies on vaping industry participation in their activities in Australia. A descriptive approach integrating policy analysis and key informant surveys was used to obtain vaping industry participation information from health research stakeholders. Descriptive statistics on organization type, policy document type, policy document industry focus (tobacco or vaping) and respondent role and responsibility were collected. We used framework analysis to identify themes describing organizational allowances, constraints, and rationale for vaping industry research participation. Relevant health organizations were identified within Australia for policy searching (n = 156), which identified 47 unique policy documents. After contacting 267 key stakeholders from eligible organizations, 31 survey responses were analysed. Research organizations and universities were highly represented in both the policy and survey data. Most health research stakeholders recognized that vaping industry interests counteract public health priorities and opposed vaping industry participation. However, many organizations lacked clear, vaping industry-specific participation policies. To protect the integrity of the emerging evidence base around vaping harms which inform vaping policy, health organizations require strong, comprehensive policies to resist vaping industry participation in research.

E-cigarette manufacturers' compliance with clinical trial reporting expectations: a case series of registered trials by Juul Labs

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are a frequently debated topic in public health. It is essential that clinical trials examining e-cigarettes are fully and accurately reported, especially given long-standing concerns about tobacco industry research. We assess the reporting of clinical trials sponsored by Juul Labs, the largest e-cigarette company in the USA, against accepted reporting standards.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all trials sponsored by Juul Labs and determined those with registry data consistent with coverage by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act 2007 (FDAAA). For trials with a primary completion date more than 1 year earlier, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the academic literature and a Juul-funded research database (JLI Science) for results. For located results, we compared reported outcomes with registered outcomes in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

We located five registered trials sponsored by Juul Labs that appeared covered by the FDAAA 2007 in the public data. All five trials did not have results available on ClinicalTrials.gov. We found one publication and four poster presentations reporting results for four of the five covered trials outside of ClinicalTrials.gov. Of 61 specified outcomes, 28 were CONSORT compliant. Specific outcome reporting issues are detailed.

DISCUSSION

Our findings raise substantial concerns regarding these trials. Clinicians, public health professionals, and the public cannot make informed choices about the benefits or hazards of e-cigarettes if the results of clinical trials are not completely and transparently reported. Clarification and potential enforcement of reporting laws may be required.

Situating Food Industry Influence: Governance Norms and Economic Order Comment on "'Part of the Solution': Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy"

Lacy-Nichols and Williams provide important new insights into the ongoing contest over policy space and consumer behavior. I attempt to situate these insights in relation to government mandates and governance norms and situate these norms and mandates in the prevailing economic order. This approach is necessary to understand how corporate practices persist and why governments are receptive to the approaches outlined in the analysis conducted by Lacy-Nichols and Williams. This approach can help explain why governments are often receptive to corporations positioning themselves as 'part of the solution'. Governments want strong economies and big food positions itself as contributor to this end. The point I attempt to articulate is that we often conceive of corporate power as power over, while I suggest that corporate power is rather power within and through a system that is oriented towards profits and economic growth.

Smoke-free spaces: a decade of progress, a need for more?

Adoption of smoke-free measures has been one of the central elements of tobacco control activity over the past 30 years. The past decade has seen an increasing number of countries and proportion of the global population covered by smoke-free policies to some extent. Despite reductions in global smoking prevalence, population growth means that the number of non-smokers exposed to the harms caused by secondhand smoke remains high. Smoke-free policy measures have been shown to be useful in protecting non-smokers from secondhand smoke, and can additionally increase cessation and reduce smoking initiation. Policies tend to be aimed primarily at enclosed public or workplace settings with very few countries attempting to control exposure in private or semiprivate spaces such as homes and cars, and, as a result, children may be benefiting less from smoke-free measures than adults. Compliance with legislation also varies by country and there is a need for education and empowerment together with guidance and changing social norms to help deliver the full benefits that smoke-free spaces can bring. Restrictions and policies on use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in smoke-free settings require more research to determine the benefits and implications of bystanders' exposure to secondhand e-cigarette aerosol, dual use and smoking cessation.

Global tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship regulation: what's old, what's new and where to next?

Tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) bans are a cornerstone of comprehensive tobacco control laws. Global progress in implementing TAPS bans has been enabled by the adoption of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Innovative TAPS policies are in place internationally and include: point-of-sale display bans, plain packaging of products, industry spending on TAPS disclosure reporting, bans on retailer incentive programmes, and regulation of TAPS in entertainment and online media. However, there is an over-reliance on entertainment and digital content producers and platforms to self-regulate TAPS. Ensuring TAPS laws are regularly examined to limit loopholes and remove exemptions is crucial to continued success. The definition of what constitutes TAPS can allow the tobacco industry to deploy corporate communication and political campaigns that skirt TAPS bans. TAPS laws must also maintain pace with the changing media landscape, which includes monitoring and reporting TAPS that cross international borders, primarily through digital media platforms. Limiting tobacco retail supply will also serve to prevent the continued undermining of TAPS bans. Leveraging global corporation to ensure enforcement of TAPS bans across borders is urgently needed.

Understanding the long-term policy influence strategies of the tobacco industry: two contemporary case studies

OBJECTIVE

This paper explores transnational tobacco companies' (TTCs) long-term policy influence strategies using two case studies, harm reduction and illicit tobacco, to identify lessons for the tobacco control movement and wider efforts to address the commercial determinants of health.

METHODS

Evidence from a broad combination of sources including leaked documents and findings from over two decades of TTC monitoring were reviewed for each case study and categorised using the Policy Dystopia Model, focusing on the primary discursive strategy and key instrumental (action-based) strategies used.

RESULTS

In both case studies, TTCs seek to advance their interests by engaging primarily in reputation management, coalition management and information management strategies over the long-term to propagate their over-riding discursive strategy-'we've changed, we are part of the solution'-despite clear evidence from both case studies that this is not the case. These strategies are globally coordinated and attempt primarily to reshape norms towards TTC involvement in tobacco control policy and delivery. Findings also suggest that industry denormalisation and the advent of Article 5.3 have led to the TTCs growing use of increasingly complex and opaque 'webs of influence'.

CONCLUSIONS

The tobacco control community must develop its own proactive long-term strategies which should include industry denormalisation, new ways to fund research that reduce industry control, and improved transparency measures for research and policy. These findings, including TTC adaptations to Article 5.3, also indicate the need for more structural solutions, addressing corporate power and the underlying political and economic system. These lessons can be applied to other unhealthy commodity industries.

Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation-the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)-was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder's scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW's publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian 'Centre of Excellence') and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

Successful countering of tobacco industry efforts to overturn Thailand's ENDS ban

BACKGROUND

After Thailand enacted laws to ban the import and sale of all types of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, including e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs)) in 2015, pro-ENDS advocacy groups pressured the government to lift the ban, particularly after Philip Morris International (PMI) started promoting its HTP IQOS in 2017.

METHODS

We reviewed information related to ENDS in Thailand between 2014 and 2019 from Thai newspaper articles, meeting minutes and letters submitted to government agencies, websites and social media platforms of pro-ENDS networks and Thai tobacco control organisations.

RESULTS

The tobacco industry and the pro-ENDS groups used five tactics to try to reverse the Thai ban on ENDS: creating front groups, lobbying decision-makers, running public relations campaigns, seeking to discredit tobacco control advocates and funding pro-tobacco harm reduction research. ENDS Cigarette Smoking Thailand (ECST), a pro-ENDS group in Thailand, worked in parallel to Philip Morris Thailand Limited (PMTL) to oppose the ban. The group connected with international coalitions that promote harm reduction through the PMI-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

CONCLUSION

Although ECST and PMTL continuously worked to revoke the ban since 2017, the government still kept ENDS illegal as of October 2020. This decision resulted from the strong commitment and collaboration among Thai tobacco control organisations and their shared vision to protect the public's health from harmful tobacco products. The similar strategies used by the pro-ENDS movement in Thailand and the tobacco companies could inform health advocates and policy-makers in other low and middle income countries facing pressure to market ENDS.

Recruitment, risks, rewards and regrets: Senior researcher reflections on working with alcohol industry social aspects organisations

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of literature suggests alcohol industry corporate social responsibility activity, including the creation of 'social aspects' organisations (SAO), may harm rather than improve public health. We aimed to explore established researcher experiences of working with SAOs, and the factors informing their decisions to do so.

METHODS

Qualitative interview study with senior alcohol researchers who had previous or ongoing connections to SAOs or their predecessors initiated when their careers were established (n = 16). Thematic analysis using NVivo software.

RESULTS

Established researchers were recruited for their expertise by alcohol industry SAOs via employees who were previously academics or via academic colleagues with SAO connections. Motivated by the desire to improve public health and 'reach out' beyond academia, researchers were confident that they could maintain their independence when sharing their expertise with SAOs. Short-term connections included attendance at SAO-funded events and book chapter contributions. Sometimes, these led to long-term relationships with SAOs, or researchers were invited to long-term roles by a colleague. These included memberships of scientific advisory committees, board positions, or work as independent consultants. Most researchers reflected negatively on their experiences and had ended their associations, while some had positive experiences.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Current and former researchers play key roles in initiating connections with SAOs, with industry-funded events and invitations to long-term roles by trusted colleagues, mechanisms used to facilitate the development of such relationships. Our study adds to existing evidence that SAO scientific activity does not contribute to public health goals, but does present industry with public relations opportunities.