Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33276385›Full record

ReviewHealth policy and planning2021

Corporate power and the international trade regime preventing progressive policy action on non-communicable diseases: a realist review.

Penelope Milsom, Richard Smith, Phillip Baker, Helen Walls

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health policy and planning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Using a systems thinking approach to map the global rise of ultra-processed foods in population diets.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Penelope MilsomDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, Kings Cross, London WC1H 9SH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9605-6978
Richard SmithCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Magdalen Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Phillip BakerInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Melbourne, Victoria 3125 Australia.
Helen WallsDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, Kings Cross, London WC1H 9SH, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBDeakin University · AUUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203286/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transnational tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food corporations use the international trade regime to prevent policy action on non-communicable diseases (NCDs); i.e. to promote policy 'non-decisions'. Understanding policy non-decisions can be assisted by identifying power operating in relevant decision-making spaces, but trade and health research rarely explicitly engages with theories of power. This realist review aimed to synthesize evidence of different forms and mechanisms of power active in trade and health decision-making spaces to understand better why NCD policy non-decisions persist and the implications for future transformative action. We iteratively developed power-based theories explaining how transnational health-harmful commodity corporations (THCCs) utilize the international trade regime to encourage NCD policy non-decisions. To support theory development, we also developed a conceptual framework for analysing power in public health policymaking. We searched six databases and relevant grey literature and extracted, synthesized and mapped the evidence against the proposed theories. One hundred and four studies were included. Findings were presented for three key forms of power. Evidence indicates THCCs attempt to exercise instrumental power by extensive lobbying often via privileged access to trade and health decision-making spaces. When their legitimacy declines, THCCs have attempted to shift decision-making to more favourable international trade legal venues. THCCs benefit from structural power through the institutionalization of their involvement in health and trade agenda-setting processes. In terms of discursive power, THCCs effectively frame trade and health issues in ways that echo and amplify dominant neoliberal ideas. These processes may further entrench the individualization of NCDs, restrict conceivable policy solutions and perpetuate policymaking norms that privilege economic/trade interests over health. This review identifies different forms and mechanisms of power active in trade and health policy spaces that enable THCCs to prevent progressive action on NCDs. It also points to potential strategies for challenging these power dynamics and relations.

Indexed as

Noncommunicable DiseasesCommerceHealth PolicyHumansInternationalityPolicy Makingpolitical economypower analysispublic health policyTrade agreementstrade liberalization

Identifiers

PMID33276385
PMCPMC8128013
OpenAlexW3109151975

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.