Experts' views on how to design a tobacco control fund in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To explore expert views on the potential value, and approaches to establishing and administering a tobacco control fund in the UK. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews and follow-up discussion groups. SUBJECTS: Twenty-four UK and international experts on tobacco control regulation, public health, economics or law from the academic, public, private and third sector. METHODS: Participants considered the relative merit of (1) general excise tax on retail tobacco sales; (2) ring-fenced hypothecation of excise taxes on retail tobacco sales; and (3) a direct levy on tobacco manufacturers. Preliminary synthesis of interview findings was deliberated on in two follow-up discussion groups to identify key considerations for policy design. RESULT: Most experts agreed that a ring-fenced tobacco control fund would be a valuable method of raising predictable and reliable funds from tobacco producers either using either companies' sales volume or market share as a way to establish the proportion they should pay. Experts predominantly recommended that a fund in the UK should be administered by a government body with devolved nation input and with an independent advisory group. They typically indicated that funding should be allocated yearly with a distribution at local, regional and national levels to support smoking prevention and cessation rather than treatment activities with priority given to measures that tackle smoking-related inequalities. CONCLUSION: There was overwhelming agreement by experts on the need to establish a tobacco control fund to help meet the proposed government tobacco-free targets to reduce adult smoking prevalence to 5% by 2030 (England) and 2034 (Scotland).

Understanding commercial actors' engagement in policy debates on proposed e-cigarette regulation in Scotland.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing concern about transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) and other commercial actors' involvement in e-cigarette policy development. Previous analyses suggest that TTCs used e-cigarette debates to demonstrate alignment with public health and re-gain policy influence. Less is known about the engagement of other types of commercial actors in e-cigarette policy debates. METHODS: This paper is the first to empirically analyse commercial actors' engagement in an e-cigarette policy consultation process and to examine their views on proposed regulation. It applies mixed methods, drawing on policy consultation submissions (n=32), semi-structured interviews (n=9) and a social network analysis of website links among 32 commercial actors. RESULTS: The results show that commercial actors' positions on e-cigarette regulation aligned with business interests. TTCs, independent e-cigarette manufacturers and other non-licensed commercial actors were opposed to most aspects of potential e-cigarette regulation (except for age of sale restrictions), whereas licensed commercial actors, including pharmaceutical companies, supported more stringent regulation. While collaboration was viewed as strategically important to gain policy influence, distinct commercial interests and concerns about TTC credibility led to strategic distancing and to collaboration being largely confined to sector boundaries. In addition to reiterating arguments employed by TTCs in previous regulatory debates, commercial actors focused on highlighting the technical complexity and harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes. CONCLUSION: Awareness of the various commercial interests and strategic positioning of commercial actors in e-cigarette policy should inform public health advocacy and policy development, including managing conflicts of interest in the context of Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Article 5.3.

Message framing to inform cancer prevention pricing interventions in the UK and USA: a factorial experiment, 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To advance understanding of how message framing can be used to maximise public support across different pricing policies for alcohol, tobacco and sugary drinks/foods that prevent consumption of cancer-causing products. DESIGN: We designed a 3×4×3 randomised factorial experiment to test responses to messages with three pricing policies, four message frames and three products. SETTING: Online survey panel (Qualtrics) in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=1850) from the UK and USA. INTERVENTIONS: Participants randomly viewed one of 36 separate messages that varied by pricing policy (increasing taxes, getting rid of price discounts, getting rid of low-cost products), four frames and product (alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks/foods). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the relationship between the message characteristics and four dependent variables. Three were related to policy support: (1) increasing taxes on the product mentioned in the message, (2) getting rid of price discounts and special offers on the product mentioned in the message and (3) getting rid of low-cost versions of the product mentioned in the message. One was related to reactance, a psychological response to having one's freedom limited. RESULTS: We found no effect for pricing policy in the message. Frames regarding children and reducing cancer risk moderated some outcomes, showing promise for real-world use. We found differences in support by product and reactance with greatest support and least reactance for tobacco policies, less support and more reactance for alcohol policies, and the least support and most reactance for sugary drinks/foods policies. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer prevention efforts using policy interventions can be informed by the message framing literature. Our results offer insights for cancer prevention advocacy efforts across the UK and USA and highlight that tax versus non-tax approaches to increasing the cost of cancer-causing products result in similar responses from consumers.

E-Cigarettes: A Disruptive Technology? An Analysis of Health Actors' Positions on E-Cigarette Regulation in Scotland.

Concerns have been raised that the divisions emerging within public health in response to electronic cigarettes are weakening tobacco control. This paper employed thematic and network analysis to assess 90 policy consultation submissions and 18 interviews with political actors to examine the extent of, and basis for, divisions between health-focused actors with regard to the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and appropriate approaches to regulation in Scotland. The results demonstrated considerable engagement in e-cigarette policy development by health-focused actors and a widely held perception of strong disagreement. They show that actors agreed on substantive policy issues, such as age-of-sale restrictions and, in part, the regulation of advertising. Points of contestation were related to the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and the regulation of vaping in public places. The topicality, limitations of the evidence base and underlying values may help explain the heightened sense of division. While suggesting that some opportunities for joint advocacy might have been missed, this analysis shows that debates on e-cigarette regulation cast a light upon differences in thinking about appropriate approaches to health policy development within the public health community. Constructive debates on these divisive issues among health-focused actors will be a crucial step toward advancing public health.

Following in the footsteps of tobacco and alcohol? Stakeholder discourse in UK newspaper coverage of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

OBJECTIVE: In politically contested health debates, stakeholders on both sides present arguments and evidence to influence public opinion and the political agenda. The present study aimed to examine whether stakeholders in the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) debate sought to establish or undermine the acceptability of this policy through the news media and how this compared with similar policy debates in relation to tobacco and alcohol industries. DESIGN: Quantitative and qualitative content analysis of newspaper articles discussing sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation published in eleven UK newspapers between 1 April 2015 and 30 November 2016, identified through the Nexis database. Direct stakeholder citations were entered in NVivo to allow inductive thematic analysis and comparison with an established typology of industry stakeholder arguments used by the alcohol and tobacco industries. SETTING: UK newspapers. PARTICIPANTS: Proponents and opponents of SSB tax/SDIL cited in UK newspapers. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-one newspaper articles cited stakeholders' (n 287) arguments in relation to SSB taxation (n 1761: 65 % supportive and 35 % opposing). Stakeholders' positions broadly reflected their vested interests. Inconsistencies arose from: changes in ideological position; insufficient clarity on the nature of the problem to be solved; policy priorities; and consistency with academic rigour. Both opposing and supportive themes were comparable with the alcohol and tobacco industry typology. CONCLUSIONS: Public health advocates were particularly prominent in the UK newspaper debate surrounding the SDIL. Advocates in future policy debates might benefit from seeking a similar level of prominence and avoiding inconsistencies by being clearer about the policy objective and mechanisms.

The palatability of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: A content analysis of newspaper coverage of the UK sugar debate.

BACKGROUND: Excess sugar consumption, including sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), contributes to a variety of negative health outcomes, particularly for young people. The mass media play a powerful role in influencing public and policy-makers' perceptions of public health issues and their solutions. We analysed how sugar and SSB policy debates were presented in UK newspapers at a time of heightened awareness and following the announcement of the UK Government's soft drinks industry levy (SDIL), to inform future public health advocacy. METHODS & FINDINGS: We carried out quantitative content analysis of articles discussing the issues of sugar and SSB consumption published in 11 national newspapers from April 2015 to November 2016. 684 newspaper articles were analysed using a structured coding frame. Coverage peaked in line with evidence publication, campaigner activities and policy events. Articles predominantly supportive of SSB taxation (23.5%) outnumbered those that were predominantly oppositional (14.2%). However, oppositional articles outnumbered supportive ones in the month of the announcement of the SDIL. Sugar and SSB consumption were presented as health risks, particularly affecting young people, with the actions of industry often identified as the cause of the public health problem. Responsibility for addressing sugar overconsumption was primarily assigned to government intervention. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the policy landscape favouring fiscal solutions to curb sugar and SSB consumption has benefited from media coverage characterising the issue as an industry-driven problem. Media coverage may drive greater public acceptance of the SDIL and any future taxation of products containing sugar. However, future advocacy efforts should note the surge in opposition coinciding with the announcement of the SDIL, which echoes similar patterns of opposition observed in tobacco control debates.