Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27650401›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2016

'Manage and mitigate punitive regulatory measures, enhance the corporate image, influence public policy': industry efforts to shape understanding of tobacco-attributable deforestation.

Kelley Lee, Natalia Carrillo Botero, Thomas Novotny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. "All Weather Friends": How China Transformed Zimbabwe's Tobacco Sector.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  5. Global Health Perspectives on Cigarette Butts and the Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kelley LeeFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada. kelley_lee@sfu.ca.
Natalia Carrillo BoteroFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Thomas NovotnyDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

Tobacco Companies, Public Policy and Global HealthR01CA091021 · NCI · U OF L LONDON SCH/HYGIENE &TROPICAL MED · PI LEE, KELLEY · 2001 to 2018
$5.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA091021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeforestation due to tobacco farming began to raise concerns in the mid 1970s. Over the next 40 years, tobacco growing increased significantly and shifted markedly to low- and middle-income countries. The percentage of deforestation caused by tobacco farming reached 4 % globally by the early 2000s, although substantially higher in countries such as China (18 %), Zimbabwe (20 %), Malawi (26 %) and Bangladesh (>30 %). Transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) have argued that tobacco-attributable deforestation is not a serious problem, and that the industry has addressed the issue through corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

methodsAfter reviewing the existing scholarly literature on tobacco and deforestation, we analysed industry sources of public information to understand how the industry framed deforestation, its key causes, and policy responses. To analyse industry strategies between the 1970s and early 2000s to shape understanding of deforestation caused by tobacco farming and curing, the Truth Tobacco Documents Library was systematically searched. The above sources were compiled and triangulated, thematically and chronologically, to derive a narrative of how the industry has framed the problem of, and solutions to, tobacco-attributable deforestation.

resultsThe industry sought to undermine responses to tobacco-attributable deforestation by emphasising the economic benefits of production in LMICs, blaming alternative causes, and claiming successful forestation efforts. To support these tactics, the industry lobbied at the national and international levels, commissioned research, and colluded through front groups. There was a lack of effective action to address tobacco-attributable deforestation, and indeed an escalation of the problem, during this period.

conclusionsThe findings suggest the need for independent data on the varied environmental impacts of the tobacco industry, awareness of how the industry seeks to work with environmental researchers and groups to further its interests, and increased scrutiny of tobacco industry efforts to influence environmental policy.

Indexed as

AgricultureConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansProfessional CorporationsPublic PolicyPublic RelationsSocial ResponsibilityTobacco IndustryCorporate social responsibilityDeforestationLeaf farmingPolicy influenceTobacco industry

Identifiers

PMID27650401
PMCPMC5029076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.