Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics?

Jeffrey Collin, Sarah E. Hill, Mor Kandlik Eltanani, Evgeniya Plotnikova, Robert Ralston, Katherine E. Smith

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    5 Citations (Scopus)

    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 foodindustry.
    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 toaddressing non-communicable diseases seem incapable of attracting widespread support across public health, challenging practice in many contexts.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages1-13
    Number of pages13
    JournalPLoS ONE
    Volume12
    Issue number9
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 8 Sep 2017

    Fingerprint

    Pandemics
    pandemic
    Public health
    profits and margins
    Tobacco Industry
    Profitability
    public health
    Industry
    profit
    Public Health
    industry
    Tobacco
    nicotine
    tobacco industry
    Food
    Research
    products and commodities
    Alcohols
    tobacco
    food

    Keywords

    • public health
    • commercial sector engagement
    • health policy
    • industry interests

    Cite this

    Collin, J., Hill, S. E., Kandlik Eltanani, M., Plotnikova, E., Ralston, R., & Smith, K. E. (2017). Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? PLoS ONE, 12(9), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182612
    Collin, Jeffrey ; Hill, Sarah E. ; Kandlik Eltanani, Mor ; Plotnikova, Evgeniya ; Ralston, Robert ; Smith, Katherine E. / Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics?. In: PLoS ONE. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 9. pp. 1-13.
    @article{c12f0c3bbc074816acc114a2f672d694,
    title = "Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics?",
    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 foodindustry.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 toaddressing non-communicable diseases seem incapable of attracting widespread support across public health, challenging practice in many contexts.",
    keywords = "public health, commercial sector engagement, health policy, industry interests",
    author = "Jeffrey Collin and Hill, {Sarah E.} and {Kandlik Eltanani}, Mor and Evgeniya Plotnikova and Robert Ralston and Smith, {Katherine E.}",
    year = "2017",
    month = "9",
    day = "8",
    doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0182612",
    language = "English",
    volume = "12",
    pages = "1--13",
    journal = "PLOS One",
    issn = "1932-6203",
    publisher = "Public Library of Science",
    number = "9",

    }

    Collin, J, Hill, SE, Kandlik Eltanani, M, Plotnikova, E, Ralston, R & Smith, KE 2017, 'Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics?' PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182612

    Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? / Collin, Jeffrey; Hill, Sarah E.; Kandlik Eltanani, Mor; Plotnikova, Evgeniya; Ralston, Robert; Smith, Katherine E.

    In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 9, 08.09.2017, p. 1-13.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics?

    AU - Collin, Jeffrey

    AU - Hill, Sarah E.

    AU - Kandlik Eltanani, Mor

    AU - Plotnikova, Evgeniya

    AU - Ralston, Robert

    AU - Smith, Katherine E.

    PY - 2017/9/8

    Y1 - 2017/9/8

    N2 - 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 foodindustry.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 toaddressing non-communicable diseases seem incapable of attracting widespread support across public health, challenging practice in many contexts.

    AB - 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 foodindustry.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 toaddressing non-communicable diseases seem incapable of attracting widespread support across public health, challenging practice in many contexts.

    KW - public health

    KW - commercial sector engagement

    KW - health policy

    KW - industry interests

    U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0182612

    DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0182612

    M3 - Article

    VL - 12

    SP - 1

    EP - 13

    JO - PLOS One

    T2 - PLOS One

    JF - PLOS One

    SN - 1932-6203

    IS - 9

    ER -

    Collin J, Hill SE, Kandlik Eltanani M, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE. Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? PLoS ONE. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182612