Tobacco Industry Engagement in the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee E-Cigarettes Inquiry.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Benjamin Hawkins
{"title":"Tobacco Industry Engagement in the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee E-Cigarettes Inquiry.","authors":"Benjamin Hawkins","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.8341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A now extensive literature has documented political strategies of health-harming industries (HHIs), but little is known about their engagement with parliamentary select committees. Recent investments by trans-national tobacco corporations (TTCs) in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has raised concerns that industry actors may be using these to re-engage policy-makers in ways precluded by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 5.3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This article examines tobacco industry engagement with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) inquiry into e-cigarettes. It draws on a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with committee members and support staff (n=4) triangulated against written and oral evidence submissions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TTCs featured prominently in the STC inquiry via written and oral submissions. Opportunities existed for industry engagement, and potential influence, at each stage of the process. There was an absence of oral testimony from those sceptical about the potential health benefits of ENDS. The governance mechanisms in place for select committees appear inadequate for protecting committee work from industry influence. As it relates to TTCs, this has implications for the UK's commitments under FCTC Article 5.3, yet understanding of the FCTC and the requirements of Article 5.3 compliance within the committee were limited.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The governance of select committees requires urgent reform in order to balance norms of openness and participation with the need to protect their work from power of economic actors with conflicts of interest (COI). This is particularly the case in relation to TTCs and adherence to FCTC Article 5.3. These findings are of relevance to other select committees whose work affects the interests of HHIs. Further research is needed on other committees and sectors.</p>","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"13 ","pages":"8341"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11496763/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.8341","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A now extensive literature has documented political strategies of health-harming industries (HHIs), but little is known about their engagement with parliamentary select committees. Recent investments by trans-national tobacco corporations (TTCs) in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has raised concerns that industry actors may be using these to re-engage policy-makers in ways precluded by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 5.3.

Methods: This article examines tobacco industry engagement with the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) inquiry into e-cigarettes. It draws on a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with committee members and support staff (n=4) triangulated against written and oral evidence submissions.

Results: TTCs featured prominently in the STC inquiry via written and oral submissions. Opportunities existed for industry engagement, and potential influence, at each stage of the process. There was an absence of oral testimony from those sceptical about the potential health benefits of ENDS. The governance mechanisms in place for select committees appear inadequate for protecting committee work from industry influence. As it relates to TTCs, this has implications for the UK's commitments under FCTC Article 5.3, yet understanding of the FCTC and the requirements of Article 5.3 compliance within the committee were limited.

Conclusion: The governance of select committees requires urgent reform in order to balance norms of openness and participation with the need to protect their work from power of economic actors with conflicts of interest (COI). This is particularly the case in relation to TTCs and adherence to FCTC Article 5.3. These findings are of relevance to other select committees whose work affects the interests of HHIs. Further research is needed on other committees and sectors.

烟草业参与下议院科学技术特别委员会的电子烟调查。
背景:现在广泛的文献已经记录了健康危害行业(HHIs)的政治策略,但很少有人知道他们与议会特别委员会的接触。跨国烟草公司(TTCs)最近对电子尼古丁输送系统(ENDS)的投资引起了人们的关注,即行业行为者可能正在利用这些系统以《烟草控制框架公约》(FCTC)第5.3条所禁止的方式重新吸引政策制定者。方法:本文考察了烟草业参与英国下议院科学技术委员会(STC)对电子烟的调查。它借鉴了对委员会成员和支持人员(n=4)进行的半结构化访谈的定性分析,并根据书面和口头证据提交了三角分析。结果:ttc通过书面和口头提交在STC调查中占有突出地位。在这一进程的每个阶段,都存在着行业参与和潜在影响的机会。那些对ENDS的潜在健康益处持怀疑态度的人没有提供口头证词。特别委员会现有的治理机制似乎不足以保护委员会的工作不受行业影响。由于涉及到TTCs,这对英国在《烟草控制框架公约》第5.3条下的承诺有影响,但委员会内部对《烟草控制框架公约》和第5.3条合规要求的理解有限。结论:特别委员会的治理需要紧急改革,以平衡开放和参与规范与保护其工作免受利益冲突(COI)经济行为者权力的需要。在TTCs和遵守《烟草控制框架公约》第5.3条方面尤其如此。这些发现与其他工作影响卫生保健机构利益的特别委员会有关。需要对其他委员会和部门进行进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信