Trust, but Verify; Comment on “‘Part of the Solution’: Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

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.

Keywords


  • epublished Author Accepted Version: February 7, 2022
  • epublished Final Version: February 26, 2022
  1. Lacy-Nichols J, Williams O. "Part of the solution:" food corporation strategies for regulatory capture and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.111
  2. Darmon K, Fitzpatrick K, Bronstein C. Krafting the obesity message: a case study in framing and issues management. Public Relat Rev. 2008;34(4):373-379. doi:1016/j.pubrev.2008.07.002
  3. Mello MM, Pomeranz J, Moran P. The interplay of public health law and industry self-regulation: the case of sugar-sweetened beverage sales in schools. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(4):595-604. doi:2105/ajph.2006.107680
  4. Pogue JM. Salt sugar fat: how the food giants hooked us. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2014;27(3):283-284. doi:1080/08998280.2014.11929135
  5. Stephanie Soechtig. Fed Up. Atlas Films, 2014.
  6. Miller D, Harkins C. Corporate strategy, corporate capture: food and alcohol industry lobbying and public health. Crit Soc Policy. 2010;30(4):564-589. doi:1177/0261018310376805
  7. Allen LN. Commercial determinants of global health. In: Haring R, Kickbusch I, Ganten D, Moeti M, eds. Handbook of Global Health. Cham: Springer; 2020:1-37. doi:1007/978-3-030-05325-3_57-1
  8. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations; 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
  9. Hursthouse R, Pettigrove G. Virtue ethics. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2018.
  10. Alexander L, Moore M. Deontological ethics. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2021.
  11. Sinnott-Armstrong W. Consequentialism. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2021.
  12. Petrini C. Theoretical models and operational frameworks in public health ethics. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(1):189-202. doi:3390/ijerph7010189
  13. Advanced Practice Toolkit: Ethical Principles. 2022. https://www.advancedpractice.scot.nhs.uk/law-ethics/ethics/ethical-principles.aspx.
  14. Hobbes T. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil. 1651.
  15. Lloyd SA, Sreedhar S. Hobbes’s moral and political philosophy. In: Zalta EN, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University; 2020.
  16. Friedman M. A Friedman Doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times. September 13, 1970. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html.
  17. Public health. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/public-health.
  18. Baum FE, Sanders DM, Fisher M, et al. Assessing the health impact of transnational corporations: its importance and a framework. Global Health. 2016;12(1):27. doi:1186/s12992-016-0164-x
  19. Anaf J, Baum FE, Fisher M, Harris E, Friel S. Assessing the health impact of transnational corporations: a case study on McDonald's Australia. Global Health. 2017;13(1):7. doi:1186/s12992-016-0230-4
  20. McKee M, Stuckler D. Revisiting the corporate and commercial determinants of health. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(9):1167-1170. doi:2105/ajph.2018.304510
  21. Allen LN, Hatefi A, Feigl AB. Corporate profits versus spending on non-communicable disease prevention: an unhealthy balance. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(11):e1482-e1483. doi:1016/s2214-109x(19)30399-7
  22. Lacy-Nichols J, Marten R. Power and the commercial determinants of health: ideas for a research agenda. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(2):e003850. doi:1136/bmjgh-2020-003850
  23. Madureira Lima J, Galea S. The corporate permeation index - a tool to study the macrosocial determinants of non-communicable disease. SSM Popul Health. 2019;7:100361. doi:1016/j.ssmph.2019.100361
  24. Madureira Lima J, Galea S. Corporate practices and health: a framework and mechanisms. Global Health. 2018;14(1):21. doi:1186/s12992-018-0336-y
  25. Gramsci A. Prison Notebooks. Volume 1. Columbia University Press, 1992:608.
  26. Allen LN, Wigley S, Holmer H. Implementation of non-communicable disease policies from 2015 to 2020: a geopolitical analysis of 194 countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(11):e1528-e1538. doi:1016/s2214-109x(21)00359-4
  27. Allen LN, Wigley S, Holmer H. Assessing the association between corporate political influence and implementation of policies to tackle commercial determinants of non-communicable diseases: a cross-sectional analysis of 172 countries. Soc Sci Med. [In Press].
  28. Allen L, Bloomfield A. Engaging the private sector to strengthen NCD prevention and control. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(12):e897-e898. doi:1016/s2214-109x(16)30216-9
  29. L’Abbe M, Lewis J, Zehaluk C. The potential of the Codex Alimentarius to promote healthy diets worldwide—the Canadian experience of implementation. In: Hawkes C, Blouin C, Henson S, Drager N, Dubé L, eds. Trade, Food, Diet and Health: Perspectives and Policy Options. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
  30. Goiana-da-Silva F, Cruz ESD, Allen L, et al. Portugal's voluntary food reformulation agreement and the WHO reformulation targets. J Glob Health. 2019;9(2):020315. doi:7189/jogh.09.020315
  31. Tedstone AE. Repeating the success of the salt reduction programme. BMJ. 2016;355:i6079. doi:1136/bmj.i6079
  32. Bandy LK, Scarborough P, Harrington RA, Rayner M, Jebb SA. The sugar content of foods in the UK by category and company: A repeated cross-sectional study, 2015-2018. PLoS Med. 2021;18(5):e1003647. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1003647
  33. Cobiac LJ, Vos T, Veerman JL. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce dietary salt intake. Heart. 2010;96(23):1920-1925. doi:1136/hrt.2010.199240
  34. Rincón-Gallardo Patiño S, Rajamohan S, Meaney K, et al. Development of a responsible policy index to improve statutory and self-regulatory policies that protect children's diet and health in the America's region. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):495. doi:3390/ijerph17020495
  35. Updated Statement Moves Away from Shareholder Primacy, Includes Commitment to All Stakeholders. Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans.’ https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans. Published August 19, 2019.

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 07 February 2022
  • Receive Date: 14 December 2021
  • Revise Date: 03 February 2022
  • Accept Date: 06 February 2022
  • First Publish Date: 07 February 2022