Consent

Cookies are small files that are saved on your device. Some of these cookies are essential, while other cookies help us to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information, please see our cookie policy

Skip to content

Publications

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

Publication details

Authors
Karen A Evans-Reeves, Britta K Matthes, Phil Chamberlain, Nino Paichadze, Anna B Gilmore, Melissa Mialon
Journal
Health Promotion International
Publication date
November 21, 2024
DOI / Link
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae153

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.