Jenny Hatchard

The 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy's system of governance--rhetoric or reality?

The 2002 Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was claimed to be a radical overhaul of a failing system. Several EU fish stocks--particularly North Sea cod--had reached dangerously low levels, and there was widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which the CFP was operating. The European Commission took the opportunity of the legal requirement to review some features of the CFP (principally access provisions) in 2002, to undertake a broader reappraisal of the CFP. One of the features of this reappraisal was an attempt to improve the CFPs system of governance by increasing the amount of stakeholder participation, decentralisation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. In this paper, the conclusion is reached that this attempt to improve the quality of governance in the 2002 CFP reform package has been more rhetorical than real.

‘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. Fishers 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.

Engaging Stakeholder Preferences Through Deliberative Democracy in North Sea Fisheries Governance

The question of how the preferences of a broad range of stakeholders can be effectively brought into the process of fisheries governance is one that has yet to be resolved in the North Sea context. To date, a top-down style of fisheries governance, exemplified by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), has failed to meet the expectations of all those involved in North Sea fisheries — from the science community to the fishing industry and from environmentalists to politicians. Part of this failure has been attributed, by stakeholders, to three democratic deficiencies of the CFP — its centralisation, its politicisation and its externalisation — which have collectively caused the exclusion of the majority of stakeholders from the process of fisheries governance This chapter considers what prospects two models of democracy — representative (currently in operation in North Sea fisheries governance) and deliberative (unexplored in North Sea fisheries governance) — offer for successfully engaging a broad range of stakeholders. I argue that the current governance framework is characterised by both ‘thin’ (electoral) and ‘thick’ (corporatist) types of representative democracy, but that knowledge of stakeholder preferences obtained by a process of deliberative democracy offers a better way of strengthening the legitimacy and effectiveness of North Sea fisheries governance. Research conducted using iterative stakeholder engagement (ISE) — derived from the deliberative model — to develop a framework for ecosystem-based fisheries management in the North Sea is employed to support this claim.

Standardised tobacco packaging: a health policy case study of corporate conflict expansion and adaptation

Objectives To investigate opposition to standardised tobacco packaging in the UK. To increase understanding of how transnational corporations are adapting to changes in their access to policymakers precipitated by Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Design Case study web-based documentary analysis, using NVivo V.10. Examination of relationships between opponents of standardised packaging and transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) and of the volume, nature, transparency and timing of their activities. Setting UK standardised packaging policy debate 2011–2013. Participants Organisations selected on basis of opposition to, or facilitation thereof, standardised tobacco packaging in the UK; 422 associated documents. Results Excluding tobacco manufacturing and packaging companies (n=12), 109 organisations were involved in opposing standardised packaging, 82 (75%) of which had a financial relationship with 1 or more TTC. These 82 organisations (43 actively opposing the measure, 39 facilitating opposition) were responsible for 60% of the 404 activities identified, including the majority of public communications and research production. TTCs were directly responsible for 28% of total activities, predominantly direct lobbying, but also financially underwrote third party research, communication, mass recruitment and lobbying. Active organisations rarely reported any financial relationship with TTCs when undertaking opposition activities. Conclusions The multifaceted opposition to standardised packaging was primarily undertaken by third parties with financial relationships with major tobacco manufacturers. Low levels of transparency regarding these links created a misleading impression of diverse and widespread opposition. Countries should strengthen implementation of Article 5.3 of the FCTC by systematically requiring conflict of interest declarations from all organisations participating in political or media debates on tobacco control.

How do corporations use evidence in public health policy making? The case of standardised tobacco packaging

Abstract Background In 2012, the UK Government consulted on standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products. Four transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) submitted large responses opposing SP, criticising evidence cited and citing alternative evidence to support their case. We examine the problems faced by policy makers assessing large volumes of diverse evidence submitted by well-resourced corporate interests to public consultations, and discuss potential strategies for evidence management in public health policy making. Methods We synthesise the results of three UK-based studies. Data were identified from four TTC submissions (available online). Assessment criteria for content analyses were developed by literature review. Independent second coding of data was used to validate findings (studies 1 and 2: 100%; study 3: 13%), examine convergence, and resolve interpretation differences. Study 1 was a comparative content analysis of quality (independence, peer-review) and relevance (subject matter) of 77 research documents cited by TTCs to argue that SP will not work, and 37 research documents from a systematic review (SR) of SP. Two-tailed Fishers tests were used to compare datasets. Study 2 was a content analysis of quality, relevance, and type (eg, research, opinion, policy) of 92 documents and quotations cited by TTCs to argue that SP will have negative, unintended consequences for the UK economy and illicit trade. Study 3 was a qualitative interpretive analysis of techniques used by two TTCs to undermine evidence of SPs effect on smoking behaviour. 120 purposively selected pages (of 1037) were analysed using a verification-oriented cross-documentary analysis, comparing use of research with originals, and a thematic analysis, informed by principles and techniques of constructivist grounded theory—conceptual coding for a-priori and emergent themes, constant comparison, discourse sensitivity, and attention to divergent data. Findings In 1521 pages, the four TTCs cited 143 formal research documents to underpin their opposition to SP and made extensive reference to policy documents, quotations, and media coverage. In study 1, 12% of TTC research evidence that SP will not work was both relevant (addressed SP or tobacco packaging) and fulfilled one or more quality criteria (independent of TTCs, published in a peer-reviewed journal, or both), compared with 100% of SR evidence. In study 2, 16% of data were both independent and relevant. TTCs offset the scarcity of outcome-based evidence on the consequences of SP with industry-commissioned research and used independent and industry-connected opinion to inflate the risk of unintended consequences. In study 3, TTCs misused published evidence through inaccurate reporting, attempted methodological deconstruction through mimicked scientific critique, and sought to promote a parallel evidence base to reduce the power and credibility of evidence supportive of SP. Interpretation TTCs used sophisticated, complex, and mutually reinforcing evidential presentation strategies to oppose SP. Assessment of submissions and associated evidence represents a substantial challenge and cost, causing delay or even abandonment of policies. Two strategies could address this. First, implement evidential management processes at submission (eg, requiring respondents to record evidential funding sources, conflicts of interests, and accuracy of evidential representation). Second, introduce a formal post-submission evidence assessment framework. Such strategies could reduce costs imposed on policy makers by the present requirement to invite and assess evidence from stakeholders. They might also reduce the ability of corporate interests to use evidence misrepresentation to oppose policy change. The resource advantage of TTCs is a substantial challenge to potential reforms. Funding JLH and KAE-R are supported by Cancer Research UK (CR-UK; grants C38058/A15664, C27260/A12294). SU, GJF, and ABG are supported by the US National Cancer Institute (R01CA160695). All authors are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, a UK Centre for Public Health Excellence (MR/K023195/1) funded by the BHF, CR-UK, ESRC, MRC, and NIHR, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders.

Assessing the evidence base of tobacco industry submissions to public consultations: The case of ‘plain packaging’ of tobacco products in the UK

Background The UK’s public consultation on ‘plain packaging’ of tobacco products generated an unprecedented volume of responses. Given the track record of the tobacco industry’s misuse of science to oppose policy change, and the fact that plain packaging has only recently been introduced in a single jurisdiction – Australia, December 2012 – how can policymakers weigh up evidence submitted to them? In this paper, the authors deliver an analysis of the relevance and quality of evidence on ‘plain packaging’ submitted to the UK Department of Health by the UK’s four largest tobacco companies to support their argument that plain packaging will not meet associated public health objectives for disease prevention. Methods We conducted a case-study based comparative analysis of the quality of evidence cited in tobacco industry submissions consultation with that presented in favour of ‘plain packaging’ in a ‘Systematic Review’ of the literature. We coded each piece of evidence for relevance of subject matter and three quality criteria - funding source, primary or secondary research and peer-review status – and compared the relevance and quality of the two bodies of evidence. Results We identified 112 pieces of evidence which present arguments about whether or not plain packaging will influence smoking behaviour – 65 from industry submissions, and 37 from the ‘Systematic Review’. Our preliminary findings are that the tobacco industry cited 10 sources of evidence which critique the evidence for ‘plain packaging’. These were funded by the tobacco companies and were not peer-reviewed. The tobacco companies cited a further 55 sources of new evidence, 34 presenting primary research. Of these 34, 2 related directly to ‘plain packaging’, one of which was funded by the tobacco industry and 14 of the 34 appeared in peer-reviewed journals. In contrast, all of the 37 ‘Systematic Review’ papers were funded independently of the tobacco industry and presented primary research directly related to plain packaging. 22 of these reports appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Conclusion Our preliminary findings suggest that evidence cited by the tobacco industry to oppose ‘plain packaging’ is, overall, not as relevant or robust as the growing body of evidence in favour of this regulatory proposal. We propose that an evidence assessment framework, based on four criteria – relevance of research, independence of funding, nature of research and peer-review may offer a structure by which policy-makers can make an assessment of the evidence base of submissions to public consultations, especially where response volumes are high.

Tobacco industry data on illicit tobacco trade: a systematic review of existing assessments

Objective To examine the quality of tobacco industry-funded data on the illicit tobacco trade (ITT) through a systematic review of existing assessments of industry-funded data on ITT. Data sources Papers and reports assessing tobacco industry-funded data on ITT were obtained via searches of 8 academic databases, Google searches and correspondence with ITT experts. Study selection Inclusion criteria identified 35 English-language papers containing an original assessment of tobacco industry-funded data. Data extraction Using a coding framework, information was extracted from the assessments regarding the quality of tobacco industry data. Documents were second-coded, achieving 94% intercoder reliability with all disagreements resolved. Data synthesis Of the 35 assessments reviewed, 31 argued that tobacco industry estimates were higher than independent estimates. Criticisms identified problems with data collection (29), analytical methods (22) and presentation of results (21), which resulted in inflated ITT estimates or data on ITT that were presented in a misleading manner. Lack of transparency from data collection right through to presentation of findings was a key issue with insufficient information to allow replication of the findings frequently cited. Conclusions Tobacco industry data on ITT are not reliable. At present, the tobacco industry continues to fund and disseminate ITT research through initiatives such as PMI IMPACT. If industry data on ITT cannot meet the standards of accuracy and transparency set by high-quality research publications, a solution may be to tax tobacco companies and administer the resulting funds to experts, independent of the tobacco industry, who use previously developed reliable models for measuring ITT.