Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review

Authors

Karen A. Evans-Reeves, Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.
Britta K. Matthes, Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.
Phil Chamberlain, Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.
Nino Paichadze, Department of Global Health and the Center on Commercial Determinants of Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Anna B. Gilmore, Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 7AY, UK.
Melissa Mialon, Universite Rennes, EHESP, CNRS, Inserm, Arènes-UMR 6051, RSMS (Recherche sur les Services et Management en Santé)-U 1309, Rennes, France.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

12-1-2024

Journal

Health promotion international

Volume

39

Issue

6

DOI

10.1093/heapro/daae153

Keywords

corporate political activity; intimidation; legal challenges; public discreditation; surveillance

Abstract

Unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs) engage in corporate political activity, using diverse practices, including intimidatory tactics, to thwart, delay and dilute regulations that threaten their businesses. While examples of such intimidation exist across multiple sectors, no attempt has been made to synthesize these. Furthermore, much of the literature focuses on intimidation of policy-makers. Less is known about the types of intimidation experienced by advocates and researchers and their responses to this intimidation. This scoping review explores the literature across the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces for instances of intimidation and categorizes them inductively and deductively based on a framework of intimidation types. Similarly, responses to intimidation were mapped onto a pre-existing framework. We found intimidatory tactics towards advocates and researchers in every sector. Public discreditation, followed by legal threats and action, complaints and freedom of information requests were most frequently mentioned and often attributed to UCIs or their third parties. Surveillance, threats of violence, violence, burglary and bribery were less prevalent in the literature and their perpetrators were unknown. Those intimidated reported carrying on as normal, defensive action (changing/adapting work, taking security precautions) or, as was most reported, offensive action (exposing intimidation, correcting misinformation, taking legal action). The similarity of intimidation across sectors suggests that UCIs engage in similar intimidatory tactics regardless of sector. Understanding more about the scale of intimidation and how it impacts the work and wellbeing of those affected is essential, as is learning more about the ways researchers and advocates can effectively pre-empt and respond.

APA Citation

Evans-Reeves, Karen A.; Matthes, Britta K.; Chamberlain, Phil; Paichadze, Nino; Gilmore, Anna B.; and Mialon, Melissa, "Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review" (2024). GW Authored Works. Paper 6239.
https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/gwhpubs/6239

Department

Global Health