Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28978619›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2017

'Nothing can be done until everything is done': the use of complexity arguments by food, beverage, alcohol and gambling industries.

Mark Petticrew, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Cécile Knai, Rebecca Cassidy, Nason Maani Hessari, James Thomas, Heide Weishaar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Acting on the Commercial Determinants of Health.Health promotion international · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Mark PetticrewFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Cécile KnaiFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rebecca CassidyDepartment of Anthropology, Goldsmiths University of London, London, UK.
Nason Maani HessariFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
James ThomasEPPI-Centre, SSRU, Department of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.
Heide WeishaarMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorporations use a range of strategies to dispute their role in causing public health harms and to limit the scope of effective public health interventions. This is well documented in relation to the activities of the tobacco industry, but research on other industries is less well developed. We therefore analysed public statements and documents from four unhealthy commodity industries to investigate whether and how they used arguments about complexity in this way.

methodsWe analysed alcohol, food, soda and gambling industry documents and websites and minutes of reports of relevant health select committees, using standard document analysis methods.

resultsTwo main framings were identified: (i) these industries argue that aetiology is complex, so individual products cannot be blamed; and (ii) they argue that population health measures are 'too simple' to address complex public health problems. However, in this second framing, there are inherent contradictions in how industry used 'complexity', as their alternative solutions are generally not, in themselves, complex.

conclusionThe concept of complexity, as commonly used in public health, is also widely employed by unhealthy commodity industries to influence how the public and policymakers understand health issues. It is frequently used in response to policy announcements and in response to new scientific evidence (particularly evidence on obesity and alcohol harms). The arguments and language may reflect the existence of a cross-industry 'playbook', whose use results in the undermining of effective public health policies - in particular the undermining of effective regulation of profitable industry activities that are harmful to the public's health.

Indexed as

AdvertisingBeveragesCommerceFemaleFood IndustryGamblingHealth PolicyHumansMalePublic HealthTobacco IndustryUnited Kingdomalcoholepidemiologyobesitypublic health policy

Identifiers

PMID28978619
PMCPMC5847098

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.