ArticleTobacco control2016
The revision of the 2014 European tobacco products directive: an analysis of the tobacco industry's attempts to 'break the health silo'.
Article in Tobacco control, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smoking prevalence and purchasing of menthol cigarettes since the menthol flavour ban in Great Britain: a population-based survey between 2020 and 2023.Tobacco control · 2025Article
- Labelling the debate: a thematic analysis of alcohol industry submissions to the EU consultation on alcohol health warnings in Ireland.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- A missed opportunity for public health: How impact assessment shaped EU rules on the marketing of unhealthy commodities to children.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2024Article
- Beyond the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup Australia - New Zealand: Public health advocacy and the absence of health-conscious sport sponsorship.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- The path to a European Health Union.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
- Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Complex Interventions for a Complex System? Using Systems Thinking to Explore Ways to Address Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Why meta-regulation matters for public health: the case of the EU better regulation agenda.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- Analysis of submissions to the EU's public consultation on tobacco traceability and security features.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Corporate political activity in the context of unhealthy food advertising restrictions across Transport for London: A qualitative case study.PLoS medicine · 2021Article
- Differences between ethnic groups in self-reported use of e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy for cutting down and temporary abstinence: a cross-sectional population-level survey in England.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 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
- The Science for Profit Model-How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice.PloS one · 2021Article
- Tracking and tracing the tobacco industry: potential tobacco industry influence over the EU's system for tobacco traceability and security features.Tobacco control · 2020Article
- Awareness of Changes in E-cigarette Regulations and Behavior Before and After Implementation: A Longitudinal Survey of Smokers, Ex-smokers, and Vapers in the United Kingdom.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Article
- 'Tied up in a legal mess': The alcohol industry's use of litigation to oppose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland.Scottish affairs · 2020Article
- Impact of the WHO FCTC over the first decade: a global evidence review prepared for the Impact Assessment Expert Group.Tobacco control · 2019Review
- Preoperative vaping prevalence and behavior of French surgical patients: A multicentre study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2019Article
- Adolescents notice fewer tobacco displays after implementation of the point-of-sale tobacco display ban in Finland.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2019Article
- European Union implementation of Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.Globalization and health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2014 European Union (EU) Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) was negotiated in a changed policy context, following adoption of the EU's 'Smart Regulation' agenda, which transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) anticipated would increase their influence on health policy, and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which sought to reduce it. This study aims to explore the scale and nature of the TTCs' lobby against the EU TPD and evaluate how these developments have affected their ability to exert influence.
methodsAnalysis of 581 documents obtained through freedom of information requests, 28 leaked Philip Morris International (PMI) documents, 17 TTC documents from the Legacy Library, web content via Google alerts and searches of the EU institutions' websites, plus four stakeholder interviews.
resultsThe lobby was massive. PMI alone employed over 160 lobbyists. Strategies mainly used third parties. Efforts to 'Push' (amend) or 'Delay' the proposal and block 'extreme policy options' were partially successful, with plain packaging and point of sales display ban removed during the 3-year delay in the Commission. The Smart Regulation mechanism contributed to changes and delays, facilitating meetings between TTC representatives (including ex-Commission employees) and senior Commission staff. Contrary to Article 5.3, these meetings were not disclosed.
conclusionsDuring the legislative process, Article 5.3 was not consistently applied by non-health Directorates of the European Commission, while the tools of the Smart Regulation appear to have facilitated TTC access to, and influence on, the 2014 TPD. The use of third parties undermines Article 5.3.
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.