Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation:a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging

BACKGROUND: Standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products is an innovative tobacco control measure opposed by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) whose responses to the UK government's public consultation on SP argued that evidence was inadequate to support implementing the measure. The government's initial decision, announced 11 months after the consultation closed, was to wait for 'more evidence', but four months later a second 'independent review' was launched. In view of the centrality of evidence to debates over SP and TTCs' history of denying harms and manufacturing uncertainty about scientific evidence, we analysed their submissions to examine how they used evidence to oppose SP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We purposively selected and analysed two TTC submissions using a verification-oriented cross-documentary method to ascertain how published studies were used and interpretive analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques. The companies' overall argument was that the SP evidence base was seriously flawed and did not warrant the introduction of SP. However, this argument was underpinned by three complementary techniques that misrepresented the evidence base. First, published studies were repeatedly misquoted, distorting the main messages. Second, 'mimicked scientific critique' was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected methodological pluralism, adopted a litigation (not scientific) model, and was not rigorous. Third, TTCs engaged in 'evidential landscaping', promoting a parallel evidence base to deflect attention from SP and excluding company-held evidence relevant to SP. The study's sample was limited to sub-sections of two out of four submissions, but leaked industry documents suggest at least one other company used a similar approach. CONCLUSIONS: The TTCs' claim that SP will not lead to public health benefits is largely without foundation. The tools of Better Regulation, particularly stakeholder consultation, provide an opportunity for highly resourced corporations to slow, weaken, or prevent public health policies.

The development of a sustainable agricultural industry through the application of biochar and pyroligneous acid

This paper marks the first in a series of studies into the potential use of pyrolysis products in the development of more sustainable practices within the agricultural industry. In this study, the immediate benefits of the application of biochar to crop yields of Raphanus sativus (radishes) are assessed. Furthermore, the study reports on the preliminary findings into the potential application of pyroligneous acid (wood vinegar) as a biocidal agent against crop disease. Although germination tests undertaken on biochar/compost blends of up to 1: 2, by weight, showed no significant adverse effect from the addition of the nutrient rich carbonaceous solid, evidence of substantial increases in crop yield through the addition of biochar were not observed. In sharp contrast, zones of inhibition were observed at 3-10 vol. % upon application of pyroligneous acid to two causal agents responsible for certain diseases in vegetable and fruit crops, i.e. Rhizobium radiobacter (agrobacterium tumefaciens) and Xanthomonas campestris, highlighting the versatility in the application of pyrolysis products and avenues for exploration in the development of this biomass conversion technology.