ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2022
Trust, but Verify Comment on "'Part of the Solution': Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy".
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multisectoral action to address noncommunicable diseases: lessons from three country case studies.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- Engaging with the Private Sector for Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control: Is it Possible to Create "Shared Value?"Annals of global health · 2023Article
- Political Economy and Research Silos: A Response to the Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Situating Food Industry Influence: Governance Norms and Economic Order Comment on "'Part of the Solution': Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy".International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to Lacy-Nichols and Williams, the food industry is increasingly forestalling regulation with incremental concessions and co-option of policy-making discourses and processes; bolstering their legitimacy via partnerships with credible stakeholders; and disarming critics by amending their product portfolios whilst maintaining high sales volumes and profits. Their assessment raises a number of fundamental philosophical questions that we must address in order to form an appropriate public health response: is it appropriate to treat every act of corporate citizenship with cynicism? If voluntary action leads to better health outcomes, does it matter whether profits are preserved? How should we balance any short-term benefits from industry-led reforms against the longer-term risk stemming from corporate capture of policy-making networks? I argue for a nuanced approach, focused on carefully defined health outcomes; allowing corporations the benefit of the doubt, but implementing robust binding measures the moment voluntary actions fail to meet independently set objectives.
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.