Funding and undertaking ‘safe’ research—content in FSFW-funded peer-reviewed and preprint articles which distracts attention from industry harms, frames industry products as part of the ‘solution’ and promotes interventions that minimise damage to product sales
| Types of ‘safe’ industry research as identified in the Science for Profit Model (SPM)* | Illustrative examples from FSFW-funded research |
| 1. Suggests causes of harm other than that of the corporate product or practice | Detracts attention from industry harms including by: Pointing blame at:
Omitting tobacco industry actions in explanations of why people smoke:
|
| 2. Suggests problems of corporate harm are problems ‘of the individual’ | Focuses on individuals including by: Asking survey questions focused on individual-level motivations to smoke, rather than external factors (such as industry advertising, cigarette packaging, etc): ‘a majority of smokers smoked after meals (62.2%), and many also smoked every time they had coffee or tea (46.1%), or an alcoholic beverage (43.6%). Smokers were also tempted to smoke when they saw others smoking nearby (41.9%)…more than 60% of smokers and ex-smokers…had bought cigarettes when they knew the money could be spent better on household essentials like food.’34 |
| 3. Focuses on reducing harm from, rather than intake/use of products/practices | Promotes ‘tobacco harm reduction’ rather than other tobacco control measures which would reduce consumption of industry products, for example: ‘For those of us committed to tobacco harm reduction, there is no turning back—we will advocate for our patients, families, friends and fellow world citizens for their right to avail themselves of snus, heated tobacco products and e-cigarettes.’42 |
| 4. Suggests supposed benefits of industry products or practices | Suggests potential benefits or rewards of tobacco or nicotine, for example:
|
| 5. Focuses on industry products as solutions to public health problems (rather than broader public health interventions) | Detracts attention from broader public health interventions by promoting industry products as solutions including by focusing on:
|
| 6. Suggests regulation of industry products or practices is undesirable | Frames tobacco control policy and regulation as undesirable,37 42 43 45 106 labelling it as: Ineffective: ‘52% of the world is ‘covered’ with respect to pack warnings, which do little to reduce smoking rates’45 Regressive: ‘regressive tobacco control policies that compound financial insecurity, such as increasing the price beyond affordable levels or fining people for smoking, and policies that criminalise use or possession, risk worsening the very conditions contributing to higher smoking rates among marginalised groups’43 Having unintended consequences: ‘tobacco harm reduction products are subject to bans in various countries…. Not only do bans preclude the adoption of harm reduction strategies but also they can foster a black market for the products. For example, Australia’s ban on nicotine e-cigarettes has given rise to a black market for nicotine liquids’42 |
| 7. Promotes industry as part of the solution | Attempts to legitimise the tobacco industry: As a stakeholder in science: ‘though there exists understandable leeriness about engaging with big tobacco, these companies may play a key role in funding cessation and harm reduction research’45 As a stakeholder in policymaking: ‘regarding alternative nicotine products, manufacturers need to work with policymakers to create and comply with regulatory frameworks that ensure consumer safety and quality assurance and prevent youth uptake’39 |
*We did not find additional types of ‘safe’ research beyond those identified in the SPM.
FSFW, Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.