Can't see the woods for the trees: Exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation

Jessamina Lih Yan Lie*, Gary Fooks, Nanne K. De Vries, Suzanne M. Heijndijk, Marc C. Willemsen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction Transnational tobacco company (TTC) submissions to the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation are studied to examine TTC argumentation in the context of Better Regulation practices. Methods A content analysis was conducted of Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco submissions to the 2012 UK consultation. Industry arguments concerning expected costs and (contested) benefits of the policy were categorised into themes and frames. The inter-relationship between frames through linked arguments was mapped to analyse central arguments using an argumentation network. Results 173 arguments were identified. Arguments fell into one of five frames: ineffectiveness, negative economic consequences, harm to public health, increased crime or legal ramifications. Arguments highlighted high costs to a wide range of groups, including government, general public and other businesses. Arguments also questioned the public health benefits of standardised packaging and highlighted the potential benefits to undeserving groups. An increase in illicit trade was the most central argument and linked to the greatest variety of arguments. Conclusions In policy-making systems characterised by mandatory impact assessments and public consultations, the wide range of cost (and contested benefits) based arguments highlights the risk of TTCs overloading policy actors and causing delays in policy adoption. Illicit trade related arguments are central to providing a rationale for these arguments, which include the claim that standardised packaging will increase health risks. The strategic importance of illicit trade arguments to industry argumentation in public consultations underlines the risks of relying on industry data relating to the scale of the illicit trade.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)448-454
Number of pages7
JournalTobacco Control
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Tobacco Industry
Product Packaging
argumentation
nicotine
Referral and Consultation
Tobacco
Industry
industry
costs
public health
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Public Health
health risk
Policy Making
content analysis
Insurance Benefits
Crime
Group
offense
regulation

Keywords

  • illegal tobacco products
  • Public policy
  • tobacco industry

Cite this

Lie, Jessamina Lih Yan ; Fooks, Gary ; De Vries, Nanne K. ; Heijndijk, Suzanne M. ; Willemsen, Marc C. / Can't see the woods for the trees : Exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation. In: Tobacco Control. 2017 ; Vol. 27, No. 4. pp. 448-454.
@article{204bac6ddc0c4e5a858f754eb514f790,
title = "Can't see the woods for the trees: Exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation",
abstract = "Introduction Transnational tobacco company (TTC) submissions to the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation are studied to examine TTC argumentation in the context of Better Regulation practices. Methods A content analysis was conducted of Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco submissions to the 2012 UK consultation. Industry arguments concerning expected costs and (contested) benefits of the policy were categorised into themes and frames. The inter-relationship between frames through linked arguments was mapped to analyse central arguments using an argumentation network. Results 173 arguments were identified. Arguments fell into one of five frames: ineffectiveness, negative economic consequences, harm to public health, increased crime or legal ramifications. Arguments highlighted high costs to a wide range of groups, including government, general public and other businesses. Arguments also questioned the public health benefits of standardised packaging and highlighted the potential benefits to undeserving groups. An increase in illicit trade was the most central argument and linked to the greatest variety of arguments. Conclusions In policy-making systems characterised by mandatory impact assessments and public consultations, the wide range of cost (and contested benefits) based arguments highlights the risk of TTCs overloading policy actors and causing delays in policy adoption. Illicit trade related arguments are central to providing a rationale for these arguments, which include the claim that standardised packaging will increase health risks. The strategic importance of illicit trade arguments to industry argumentation in public consultations underlines the risks of relying on industry data relating to the scale of the illicit trade.",
keywords = "illegal tobacco products, Public policy, tobacco industry",
author = "Lie, {Jessamina Lih Yan} and Gary Fooks and {De Vries}, {Nanne K.} and Heijndijk, {Suzanne M.} and Willemsen, {Marc C.}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053707",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "448--454",
journal = "Tobacco Control",
issn = "0964-4563",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "4",

}

Can't see the woods for the trees : Exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation. / Lie, Jessamina Lih Yan; Fooks, Gary; De Vries, Nanne K.; Heijndijk, Suzanne M.; Willemsen, Marc C.

In: Tobacco Control, Vol. 27, No. 4, 25.07.2017, p. 448-454.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can't see the woods for the trees

T2 - Exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation

AU - Lie, Jessamina Lih Yan

AU - Fooks, Gary

AU - De Vries, Nanne K.

AU - Heijndijk, Suzanne M.

AU - Willemsen, Marc C.

PY - 2017/7/25

Y1 - 2017/7/25

N2 - Introduction Transnational tobacco company (TTC) submissions to the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation are studied to examine TTC argumentation in the context of Better Regulation practices. Methods A content analysis was conducted of Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco submissions to the 2012 UK consultation. Industry arguments concerning expected costs and (contested) benefits of the policy were categorised into themes and frames. The inter-relationship between frames through linked arguments was mapped to analyse central arguments using an argumentation network. Results 173 arguments were identified. Arguments fell into one of five frames: ineffectiveness, negative economic consequences, harm to public health, increased crime or legal ramifications. Arguments highlighted high costs to a wide range of groups, including government, general public and other businesses. Arguments also questioned the public health benefits of standardised packaging and highlighted the potential benefits to undeserving groups. An increase in illicit trade was the most central argument and linked to the greatest variety of arguments. Conclusions In policy-making systems characterised by mandatory impact assessments and public consultations, the wide range of cost (and contested benefits) based arguments highlights the risk of TTCs overloading policy actors and causing delays in policy adoption. Illicit trade related arguments are central to providing a rationale for these arguments, which include the claim that standardised packaging will increase health risks. The strategic importance of illicit trade arguments to industry argumentation in public consultations underlines the risks of relying on industry data relating to the scale of the illicit trade.

AB - Introduction Transnational tobacco company (TTC) submissions to the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation are studied to examine TTC argumentation in the context of Better Regulation practices. Methods A content analysis was conducted of Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco submissions to the 2012 UK consultation. Industry arguments concerning expected costs and (contested) benefits of the policy were categorised into themes and frames. The inter-relationship between frames through linked arguments was mapped to analyse central arguments using an argumentation network. Results 173 arguments were identified. Arguments fell into one of five frames: ineffectiveness, negative economic consequences, harm to public health, increased crime or legal ramifications. Arguments highlighted high costs to a wide range of groups, including government, general public and other businesses. Arguments also questioned the public health benefits of standardised packaging and highlighted the potential benefits to undeserving groups. An increase in illicit trade was the most central argument and linked to the greatest variety of arguments. Conclusions In policy-making systems characterised by mandatory impact assessments and public consultations, the wide range of cost (and contested benefits) based arguments highlights the risk of TTCs overloading policy actors and causing delays in policy adoption. Illicit trade related arguments are central to providing a rationale for these arguments, which include the claim that standardised packaging will increase health risks. The strategic importance of illicit trade arguments to industry argumentation in public consultations underlines the risks of relying on industry data relating to the scale of the illicit trade.

KW - illegal tobacco products

KW - Public policy

KW - tobacco industry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049169785&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/27/4/448

U2 - 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053707

DO - 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053707

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85049169785

VL - 27

SP - 448

EP - 454

JO - Tobacco Control

JF - Tobacco Control

SN - 0964-4563

IS - 4

ER -