Challenging the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking: tactics of tobacco industry expert witnesses

Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods

BACKGROUND

Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity-not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates.

METHODS

The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary.

RESULTS

Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would-supported by the body of valid evidence-protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public's health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

The importance of psychology for shaping legal cannabis regulation

Different patterns of cannabis use can be traced directly back to different interactions between 2 types of variables: pharmacological and environmental. As legal cannabis expands in the U.S. and around the world, state and national regulatory agencies are gaining control over these variables. Specifically, regulatory agencies are increasingly capable of altering (a) the pharmacological properties of cannabis products and (b) the way these products are distributed to the population. Consequently, cannabis regulatory agencies are in a unique position to use evidence from psychological science to alter cannabis consumption patterns in ways that mitigate potential harm to public health. However, most state-level legal cannabis regulatory systems in the U.S. are not yet evidence-based or public health-oriented. This applied review and commentary draws on evidence from the psychological science literature to help regulators better understand the types of behaviors they must address and guide empirically supported regulation of THC-laden cannabis, whether used putatively for medical or recreational reasons. This review is organized into 3 parts that correspond to the 3 primary agents within the cannabis regulation ecosystem: (a) the cannabis consumer, (b) the cannabis industry, and (c) the cannabis regulatory agency. Within this structure, the review addresses critical psychological variables that drive cannabis consumer and industry behaviors and discusses how regulatory agencies can use this information to protect public health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The discordance between evidence and health policy in the United States: the science of translational research and the critical role of diverse stakeholders

Background

There is often a discordance between health research evidence and public health policies implemented by the United States federal government. In the process of developing health policy, discordance can arise through subjective and objective factors that are unrelated to the value of the evidence itself, and can inhibit the use of research evidence. We explore two common types of discordance through four illustrative examples and then propose a potential means of addressing discordance.

Discussion

In Discordance 1, public health authorities make recommendations for policy action, yet these are not based on high quality, rigorously synthesised research evidence. In Discordance 2, evidence-based public health recommendations are ignored or discounted in developing United States federal government policy. Both types could lead to serious risks of public health and clinical patient harms.

We suggest that, to mitigate risks associated with these discordances, public health practitioners, health policy-makers, health advocates and other key stakeholders should take the opportunity to learn or expand their knowledge regarding current research methods, as well as improve their skills for appropriately considering the strengths and limitations of research evidence. This could help stakeholders to adopt a more nuanced approach to developing health policy. Stakeholders should also have a more insightful contextual awareness of these discordances and understand their potential harms. In Discordance 1, public health organisations and authorities need to acknowledge their own historical roles in making public health recommendations with insufficient evidence for improving health outcomes. In Discordance 2, policy-makers should recognise the larger impact of their decision-making based on minimal or flawed evidence, including the potential for poor health outcomes at population level and the waste of huge sums. In both types of discordance, stakeholders need to consider the impact of their own unconscious biases in championing evidence that may not be valid or conclusive.

Conclusion

Public health policy needs to provide evidence-based solutions to public health problems, but this is not always done. We discuss some of the factors inhibiting evidence-based decision-making in United States federal government public health policy and suggest ways these could be addressed.

Epidemiology and the Tobacco Epidemic: How Research on Tobacco and Health Shaped Epidemiology

In this article, I provide a perspective on the tobacco epidemic and epidemiology, describing the impact of the tobacco-caused disease epidemic on the field of epidemiology. Although there is an enormous body of epidemiologic evidence on the associations of smoking with health, little systematic attention has been given to how decades of research have affected epidemiology and its practice. I address the many advances that resulted from epidemiologic research on smoking and health, such as demonstration of the utility of observational designs and important parameters (the odds ratio and the population attributable risk), guidelines for causal inference, and systematic review approaches. I also cover unintended and adverse consequences for the field, including the strategy of doubt creation and the recruitment of epidemiologists by the tobacco industry to serve its mission. The paradigm of evidence-based action for addressing noncommunicable diseases began with the need to address the epidemic of tobacco-caused disease, an imperative for action documented by epidemiologic research.

'It will harm business and increase illicit trade': an evaluation of the relevance, quality and transparency of evidence submitted by transnational tobacco companies to the UK consultation on standardised packaging 2012

INTRODUCTION

Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) submitted evidence to the 2012 UK Consultation on standardised packaging (SP) to argue the policy will have detrimental economic impacts and increase illicit tobacco trade.

METHODS

A content analysis of the four TTC submissions to the consultation assessed the relevance and quality of evidence TTCs cited to support their arguments. Investigative research was used to determine whether the cited evidence was industry connected. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the relevance and quality of industry-connected and independent from the industry evidence. The extent to which TTCs disclosed financial conflicts of interest (COI) when citing evidence was examined.

RESULTS

We obtained 74 pieces of TTC-cited evidence. The quality of the evidence was poor. TTCs cited no independent, peer-reviewed evidence that supported their arguments. Nearly half of the evidence was industry-connected (47%, 35/74). None of this industry-connected evidence was published in peer-reviewed journals (0/35) and 66% (23/35) of it was opinion only. Industry-connected evidence was of significantly poorer quality than independent evidence (p<0.001). COIs were not disclosed by TTCs in 91% (32/35) of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of peer-reviewed research to support their arguments, TTCs relied on evidence they commissioned and the opinions of TTC-connected third-parties. Such connections were not disclosed by TTCs when citing this evidence and were time consuming to uncover. In line with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and broader transparency initiatives, TTCs should be required to disclose their funding of all third-parties and any COIs when citing evidence.

Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation: a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging

BACKGROUND

Standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products is an innovative tobacco control measure opposed by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) whose responses to the UK government's public consultation on SP argued that evidence was inadequate to support implementing the measure. The government's initial decision, announced 11 months after the consultation closed, was to wait for 'more evidence', but four months later a second 'independent review' was launched. In view of the centrality of evidence to debates over SP and TTCs' history of denying harms and manufacturing uncertainty about scientific evidence, we analysed their submissions to examine how they used evidence to oppose SP.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We purposively selected and analysed two TTC submissions using a verification-oriented cross-documentary method to ascertain how published studies were used and interpretive analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques. The companies' overall argument was that the SP evidence base was seriously flawed and did not warrant the introduction of SP. However, this argument was underpinned by three complementary techniques that misrepresented the evidence base. First, published studies were repeatedly misquoted, distorting the main messages. Second, 'mimicked scientific critique' was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected methodological pluralism, adopted a litigation (not scientific) model, and was not rigorous. Third, TTCs engaged in 'evidential landscaping', promoting a parallel evidence base to deflect attention from SP and excluding company-held evidence relevant to SP. The study's sample was limited to sub-sections of two out of four submissions, but leaked industry documents suggest at least one other company used a similar approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The TTCs' claim that SP will not lead to public health benefits is largely without foundation. The tools of Better Regulation, particularly stakeholder consultation, provide an opportunity for highly resourced corporations to slow, weaken, or prevent public health policies.

Big tobacco "pull out all stops" for a landmark example: The Burswood Casino case

BACKGROUND

With the aid of internal tobacco industry documents, this paper provides a chronology of events documenting the role of the Philip Morris tobacco company in the 1993 litigation case against the Burswood International Resort Casino (BIRC). The paper also examines the implications of this case for the regulation of second hand smoke exposure.

METHOD

A systematic keyword search and analysis of internal tobacco industry documents was conducted using documents available on the World Wide Web through the Master Settlement Agreement.

RESULTS

The industry documents provide comprehensive evidence that the Philip Morris tobacco company provided assistance to the BIRC in its defence against action by the Western Australian government. The Philip Morris tobacco company, along with others, sought to publicise and promote the outcome as a 'landmark example' to lobby against the implementation of indoor smoking bans.

CONCLUSION

Philip Morris' investment in the BIRC defence demonstrated the industry's recognition of the potential significance of the case beyond Western Australia. Involvement in the BIRC case assisted the wider tobacco industry by helping to prolong smoking at casinos and other Australian hospitality venues. The findings contribute to our understanding of the history of tobacco industry strategies implemented in Western Australia and internationally to slow tobacco control progress, and the preparedness of the tobacco industry to exploit favourable developments originating anywhere in the world.

Quantification of ETS exposure in hospitality workers who have never smoked

BACKGROUND

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was classified as human carcinogen (K1) by the German Research Council in 1998. According to epidemiological studies, the relative risk especially for lung cancer might be twice as high in persons who have never smoked but who are in the highest exposure category, for example hospitality workers. In order to implement these results in the German regulations on occupational illnesses, a valid method is needed to retrospectively assess the cumulative ETS exposure in the hospitality environment.

METHODS

A literature-based review was carried out to locate a method that can be used for the German hospitality sector. Studies assessing ETS exposure using biological markers (for example urinary cotinine, DNA adducts) or questionnaires were excluded. Biological markers are not considered relevant as they assess exposure only over the last hours, weeks or months. Self-reported exposure based on questionnaires also does not seem adequate for medico-legal purposes. Therefore, retrospective exposure assessment should be based on mathematical models to approximate past exposure.

RESULTS

For this purpose a validated model developed by Repace and Lowrey was considered appropriate. It offers the possibility of retrospectively assessing exposure with existing parameters (such as environmental dimensions, average number of smokers, ventilation characteristics and duration of exposure). The relative risk of lung cancer can then be estimated based on the individual cumulative exposure of the worker.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, having adapted it to the German hospitality sector, an existing mathematical model appears to be capable of approximating the cumulative exposure. However, the level of uncertainty of these approximations has to be taken into account, especially for diseases with a long latency period such as lung cancer.

An actor-network theory analysis of policy innovation for smoke-free places: understanding change in complex systems

Complex, transnational issues like the tobacco epidemic are major challenges that defy analysis and management by conventional methods, as are other public health issues, such as those associated with global food distribution and climate change. We examined the evolution of indoor smoke-free regulations, a tobacco control policy innovation, and identified the key attributes of those jurisdictions that successfully pursued this innovation and those that to date have not. In doing so, we employed the actor-network theory, a comprehensive framework for the analysis of fundamental system change. Through our analysis, we identified approaches to help overcome some systemic barriers to the solution of the tobacco problem and comment on other complex transnational problems.

Tobacco Control and Children: An International Perspective

Tobacco use currently claims >5 million deaths per year worldwide and this number is projected to increase dramatically by 2030. The burden of death and disease is shifting to low- and middle-income countries. Tobacco control initiatives face numerous challenges including not being a high priority in many countries, government dependence upon immediate revenue from tobacco sales and production, and opposition of the tobacco industry. Tobacco leads to environmental harms, exploitation of workers in tobacco farming, and increased poverty. Children are especially vulnerable. Not only do they initiate tobacco use themselves, but also they are victimized by exposure to highly toxic secondhand smoke. Awareness of tobacco adverse health effects is often superficial even among health professionals. The tobacco industry continues to aggressively promote its products and recognizes that children are its future. The tools and knowledge exist, however, to dramatically reduce the global burden of tobacco. In 2003 the World Health Organization adopted the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Aggressive tobacco control initiatives have been undertaken not only in high-income countries but also in less-wealthy countries such as Uruguay and Thailand. Stakeholders must come together in coordinated efforts and there must be a broad and sustained investment in global tobacco control.