An overview of tobacco control interventions in the Global South

Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis

BACKGROUND

Tobacco corporation Philip Morris International launched the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW), a purportedly independent scientific organisation, in 2017. We aimed to systematically investigate FSFW's activities and outputs, comparing these with previous industry attempts to influence science, as identified in the recently developed typology of corporate influence on science, the Science for Profit Model (SPM).

DESIGN

We prospectively collected data on FSFW over a 4-year period, 2017-2021, and used document analysis to assess whether FSFW's activities mirror practices tobacco and other industries have historically used to shape science in their own interests. We used the SPM as an analytical framework, working deductively to search for use of the strategies it identifies, and inductively to search for any additional strategies.

RESULTS

Marked similarities between FSFW's practices and previous corporate attempts to influence science were observed, including: producing tobacco industry-friendly research and opinion; obscuring industry involvement in science; funding third parties which denigrate science and scientists that may threaten industry profitability; and promoting tobacco industry credibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Our paper identifies FSFW as a new vehicle for agnogenesis, indicating that, over 70 years since the tobacco industry began to manipulate science, efforts to protect science from its interference remain inadequate. This, combined with growing evidence that other industries are engaging in similar practices, illustrates the urgent need to develop more robust systems to protect scientific integrity.

Menthol and flavored tobacco products in LMICs: A growing menace

INTRODUCTION

High income jurisdictions are banning menthol/flavored cigarettes and other tobacco products because they attract young people and create dependence. This study explores the importance of menthol and other flavored tobacco products for tobacco markets in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), identifies countries where the menthol/flavor share is particularly high or rapidly growing, and identifies strategies tobacco companies are using to develop menthol/flavor markets.

METHODS

Research involved analysis of menthol/flavor market data from 2005 to 2019, a systematic review of academic literature, and a scoping exercise with our advocate contacts in LMICs.

RESULTS

The median menthol/capsule market share of the cigarette market grew significantly (p<0.05) between 2005 and 2019, both in lower and upper middle-income countries [lower: 2.5% (IQR: 0.5-4.0) to 6.5% (IQR: 3.6-15.9); and upper: 4.0% (IQR: 0.8-9.8) to 12.3% (IQR: 3.5-24.3)]. Countries with both high market share and high market share growth were Russia, Guatemala, Peru and Nigeria. No market data were available on low-income countries, but the academic literature suggested high prevalence of menthol use in Zambia. Tobacco industry strategies underpinning growth of menthol/flavored tobacco use in LMICs included in-store marketing and display, colorful packs and non-conventional flavor names.

CONCLUSIONS

Menthol/flavor tobacco products are a growing problem in LMICs. In addition to menthol/flavor bans, we recommend marketing bans, point of sale display bans and standardized packaging.

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.