Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35705357›Full record

ReviewTobacco control2023

Tobacco industry's human rights makeover: an archival review of British American Tobacco's human rights rhetorical veneer.

Neiloy R Sircar, Stella A Bialous

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neiloy R SircarPublic Health Law Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA neil.sircar@mitchellhamline.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5983-4814
Stella A BialousCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UCSF, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6471-5457
Hamline University · US

Funding

ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO INDUSTRY DOCUMENTSR01CA087472 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2000 to 2018
$12.5M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlR25CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GLANTZ, STANTON ARNOLD · 2006 to 2015
$5.4M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA087472NCI NIH HHS R25 CA113710NCI NIH HHS T32 CA113710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBritish American Tobacco (BAT) released an industry-first human rights report in 2020, which extolled the efforts and objectives of the tobacco industry giant for promoting human rights. How BAT came to brand itself as a human rights champion, being a leader in an industry long accused of enabling human rights violations from leaf-to-stub including profiting from a product which inherently violates the right to health, is unknown. Exploring BAT's evolution through reviewing its materials and Tobacco Industry Documents could shed light on their development and what it means in the tobacco control and human rights context. METHODOLOGY: We reviewed publicly available materials from BAT as well as conducted archival research in the Tobacco Industry Documents digital archives at University of California San Francisco. We focused on how and when BAT used terms such as 'human rights', 'right to health', 'sustainable development goal' and 'harm reduction' as well as 'Framework Convention on Tobacco Control'.

resultsWe reviewed 48 BAT publications and 45 documents from the Tobacco Industry Documents archives. These materials demonstrate both BAT's increasing utilisation of human rights language as well as BAT's reuse of the same language, concepts and general rhetoric. BAT has not engaged significantly or meaningfully on the human right to health.

conclusionBAT's increasing use of human rights rhetoric does not appear to reflect a shift in the company's human rights positions, particularly with respect to the right to health of consumers and BAT's lack of impactful measures to eliminate the harms of its tobacco products.

Indexed as

Tobacco IndustryHumansNicotianaSan FranciscoUnited StatesGlobal healthHuman rightsTobacco industryTobacco industry documents

Identifiers

PMID35705357
PMCPMC9751230
OpenAlexW4283014540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.