ArticleTobacco control2015
'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.
Article in Tobacco control, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tobacco industry data on illicit tobacco trade: a systematic review of existing assessments.Tobacco control · 2019Pooled it
- Public Comments and Federal Rulemaking for Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Which types of research and knowledge translation are most likely to lead to public health-informed policy responses to unhealthy commodities? A UK-based cross-sectional survey and focus group-based study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- The tobacco industry at the health-environment nexus: a framing analysis of the UK 'disposable' e-cigarette ban.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- No Change in Illicit Tobacco Use Following the Introduction of Standardised Packaging? A Longitudinal Online Survey in the United Kingdom.Tobacco use insights · 2025Article
- A thematic analysis of tobacco industry responses to the Scottish Government's consultation on e-cigarette regulation.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Perceptions of Illicit Tobacco Sources Following a Proposed Reduction in Tobacco Availability: A Qualitative Analysis of New Zealanders Who Smoke.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023Article
- A Framing Analysis of Consultation Submissions on the WHO Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol: Values and Interests.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Use of supporting evidence by health and industry organisations in the consultation on e-cigarette regulations in New Zealand.PloS one · 2022Article
- Regulatory Resistance? Narratives and Uses of Evidence around "Black Market" Provision of Gambling during the British Gambling Act Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Analysis of submissions to the EU's public consultation on tobacco traceability and security features.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Commercial use of evidence in public health policy: a critical assessment of food industry submissions to global-level consultations on non-communicable disease prevention.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Developing more detailed taxonomies of tobacco industry political activity in low-income and middle-income countries: qualitative evidence from eight countries.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations.PloS one · 2021Article
- Illicit tobacco trade is 'booming': UK newspaper coverage of data funded by transnational tobacco companies.Tobacco control · 2020Article
- Tracking and tracing the tobacco industry: potential tobacco industry influence over the EU's system for tobacco traceability and security features.Tobacco control · 2020Article
- Illicit Tobacco in Lithuania: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Implementation of Cigarette Plain Packaging: Triadic Reactions of Consumers, State Officials, and Tobacco Companies-The Case of Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Memoranda of understanding: a tobacco industry strategy to undermine illicit tobacco trade policies.Tobacco control · 2019Article
- Introduction of Standardized Tobacco Packaging During a 12-Month Transition Period: Findings From Small Retailers in the United Kingdom.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTransnational 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.