⚡️ New paper just out from our research group! "Manufacturing doubt: Assessing the effects of independent vs industry-sponsored messaging about the harms of fossil fuels, smoking, alcohol, and sugar sweetened beverages" #CDOH @SPECTRUMRes sciencedirect.com/science/articl… 🧵below!
Background: We know that harmful product manufacturers, most notably tobacco, have sought to dispute the evidence on the harms they cause, to stall public support for effective policy and prevent informed customers from steering clear of their products
One way they do this is through “alternative causation arguments”. The tobacco industry was infamous for this, attempting to offer alternative causes for lung cancer. The key was to create doubt about the link to smoking. 
Internal memos have revealed that the tobacco industry developed a range of alternative causation arguments, and even evaluated their impact. Described in ucpress.edu/book/978052027…
While much is known about how the tobacco industry used this strategy and we have evidence of is effects, little is known about the effects of other industries alternative causation arguments, produced and disseminated via CSR "education" campaigns, evidence submissions, etc.
Thats where this paper comes in! In our study, we identified real world alternative causation arguments from industry or industry-funded education charities on the harms associated with fossil fuels, alcohol, tobacco, and sugar sweetened beverages.
Specifically, we looked at statements made about fossil fuels and climate change, smoking and lung cancer, alcohol and breast cancer, alcohol and foetal alcohol syndrome, and SSBs and obesity.
We randomized Qualtrics panelists to read either one of these industry statements, or a corresponding factually correct “control” statement about the links between the product and that specific harm. Like a series of mini-RCTs, one for each product/harm combination.
What did we find? Overall, industry arguments led to significantly greater uncertainty about products links with harms.
We found independent statistically significant effects for fossil fuels and climate change, alcohol and breast cancer, and smoking and lung cancer. The effect was greatest where respondents self-reported as having less knowledge about the topic beforehand, which makes sense.
The main strength of this study? This is the first independent assessment of the effectiveness of industry misinformation, with direct comparisons across a range of industries which affect public health.
It provides evidence that the real-life arguments these industries spend a large amount of money to put out there through CSR, legal arguments or evidence submissions actually work to foster doubt in the mind of the public about wether these products are harmful.
In effect, these companies aren't just causing harm, they are expending money and resources to pollute public discourse and understanding too. This is something research should do far more to bear witness to and address.
If you made it this far, congratulations! Please feel free to retweet. Huge thanks to co-authors @petticrewmark @maizie333 @CecileKnai @F_Filippidis for all their work on this.
Tagging some folks who may find this interesting: @NaomiOreskes @GeoffreySupran @martinmckee @trishgreenhalgh @LindaBauld @globalgapa @CassSunstein @Movendi_Int @GeorgeMonbiot @martinwhite33 @SimonChapman6 @SimonCapewell99 @mikakosinska
@HealthFdn @GeciPh @LSHTM @CassSunstein @TaraStrome @JenniferTHF @commonwealthfnd @RW_Intl @dcorreiamartins @SalmaMHAbdalla @felly500 @VictimOfMaths @GregoryHCohen @MIALONMelissa @vkatikireddi
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
