Applying a Commercial Determinants of Health Lens to Understand, Expose and Counter Industry Co-option, Appeasement and Partnership; Comment on “‘Part of the Solution’: Food Corporation Strategies for Regulatory Capture and Legitimacy”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors

1 School of Public Health, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA

2 Ozmen Institute for Global Studies, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA

3 World Public Health Nutrition Association, London, UK

4 Department of Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Abstract

Lacy-Nichols and Williams’ examination of the food industry illustrates how it altered its approach from mostly oppositional to regulation to one of appeasement and co-option. This reflection builds upon this by using a commercial determinants of health (CDoH) lens to understand, expose and counter industry co-option, appeasement and partnership strategies that impact public health. Lessons learned from tobacco reveal how tobacco companies maintained public credibility by recruiting scientists to produce industry biased data, co-opting public health groups, gaining access to policy elites and sitting on important government regulatory bodies. Potential counter solutions to food industry appeasement and co-option include (i) understanding corporate actions of health harming industries, (ii) applying mechanisms to minimize industry engagement, (iii) dissecting industry relationship building, and (iv) exposing the negative effects of public private partnerships (PPPs). Such counter-solutions might help to neutralise harmful industry practices, products and policies which currently threaten to undermine healthy food policies.

Keywords


  1. Lacy-Nichols J, Williams O. "Part of the solution": food corporation strategies for regulatory capture and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(12):845-856. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.111
  2. Gilmore AB, Savell E, Collin J. Public health, corporations and the new responsibility deal: promoting partnerships with vectors of disease? J Public Health (Oxf). 2011;33(1):2-4. doi:1093/pubmed/fdr008
  3. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable Diseases Key Facts. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases#:~:text=Noncommunicable%20diseases%20(NCDs)%20kill%2041,%2D%20and%20middle%2Dincome%20countries. Accessed January 5, 2022. Published April 13, 2021.
  4. Kickbusch I, Allen L, Franz C. The commercial determinants of health. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4(12):e895-e896. doi:1016/s2214-109x(16)30217-0
  5. Lee K, Freudenberg N, Zenone M, et al. Measuring the commercial determinants of health and disease: a proposed framework. Int J Health Serv. 2022;52(1):115-128. doi:1177/00207314211044992
  6. Hurt RD, Robertson CR. Prying open the door to the tobacco industry's secrets about nicotine: the Minnesota Tobacco Trial. JAMA. 1998;280(13):1173-1181. doi:1001/jama.280.13.1173
  7. Glantz SA, Balbach ED. Tobacco War: Inside the California Battles. Berkeley, Los Angeles, California: University of California Press; 2000.
  8. Lee S, Ling PM, Glantz SA. The vector of the tobacco epidemic: tobacco industry practices in low and middle-income countries. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23 Suppl 1:117-129. doi:1007/s10552-012-9914-0
  9. Gilmore AB, Fooks G, Drope J, Bialous SA, Jackson RR. Exposing and addressing tobacco industry conduct in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2015;385(9972):1029-1043. doi:1016/s0140-6736(15)60312-9
  10. Ralston R, Bialous S, Collin J. Firm foundation or neglected cornerstone? The paradox of Article 5.3 implementation and the challenge of strengthening tobacco control governance. Tob Control. 2022;31(Suppl 1):s1-s4. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2022-057344
  11. Barry RA, Abdullah SM, Chugh A, et al. Advancing whole-of-government approaches to tobacco control: Article 5.3 and the challenge of policy coordination in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India and Uganda. Tob Control. 2022;31(Suppl 1):s46-s52. doi:1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057154
  12. Nguyen KH, Glantz SA, Palmer CN, Schmidt LA. Transferring racial/ethnic marketing strategies from tobacco to food corporations: Philip Morris and Kraft General Foods. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(3):329-336. doi:2105/ajph.2019.305482
  13. Schmidt L, Mialon M, Kearns C, Crosbie E. Transnational corporations, obesity and planetary health. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(7):e266-e267. doi:1016/s2542-5196(20)30146-7
  14. Barlow P, Serôdio P, Ruskin G, McKee M, Stuckler D. Science organisations and Coca-Cola's 'war' with the public health community: insights from an internal industry document. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018;72(9):761-763. doi:1136/jech-2017-210375
  15. Pan American Health Organization. Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Country Level Nutrition Programs: A Roadmap for Implementing the World Health Organizations Draft Approach in the Americas, 19 October 2021. Available at: https://iris.paho.org/bitstream/handle/10665.2/55055/PAHONMHRF210014_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed February 10, 2022.
  16. Mialon M, Vandevijvere S, Carriedo-Lutzenkirchen A, et al. Mechanisms for addressing and managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e034082. doi:1136/bmjopen-2019-034082
  17. Mialon M, Serodio P, Crosbie E, Teicholz N, Naik A, Carriedo A. Conflicts of interest for members of the U.S. 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Public Health Nutr. 2022:1-28. doi:1017/s1368980022000672
  18. Suwandi I, Jonna RJ, Foster JB. Global commodity chains and the new imperialism. Mon Rev. 2019;70(10):1-24.
  19. Canfield M, Anderson MD, McMichael P. UN Food Systems Summit 2021: dismantling democracy and resetting corporate control of food systems. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2021;5:661552. doi:3389/fsufs.2021.661552
  20. Lie A, Granheim S. Multistakeholder Partnerships in Global Nutrition Governance: Protecting Public Interest? Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening. 2017;1:22-28.
  21. Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A, Havinga T. Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agric Human Values. 2011;28(3):353-367. doi:1007/s10460-009-9236-3
  22. Carriedo A, Ojeda E. Public-Private Partnerships in Mexico: Implications for Public Health Nutrition Governance. World Public Health Nutrition Association; June 2021.
  23. Knai C, Petticrew M, Douglas N, et al. The public health responsibility deal: using a systems-level analysis to understand the lack of impact on alcohol, food, physical activity, and workplace health sub-systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2895. doi:3390/ijerph15122895
  24. Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA, et al. The Public Health Responsibility deal: has a public-private partnership brought about action on alcohol reduction? Addiction. 2015;110(8):1217-1225. doi:1111/add.12892
  25. Fanzo J, Shawar YR, Shyam T, Das S, Shiffman J. Challenges to establish effective public-private partnerships to address malnutrition in all its forms. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(12):934-945. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.262

Articles in Press, Corrected Proof
Available Online from 18 June 2022
  • Receive Date: 06 May 2022
  • Revise Date: 13 June 2022
  • Accept Date: 15 June 2022
  • First Publish Date: 18 June 2022