Intimidation tactics against researchers in tobacco, ultra-processed food and alcohol sectors

New UK/US research shows researchers in the tobacco, ultra-processed food (UPF) and alcohol sectors are frequently targeted with identical intimidation tactics, and that the most common method used by corporations or their proxies is public discreditation.

Published in Health Promotion International, the study reveals the wide range and seriousness of these tactics used by “health harming industries” (HHIs). These actions are designed to undermine and discredit advocates and researchers who give evidence to policymakers working to improve public health through stronger regulations.

Researchers collaborated to compile and review public data and reports of intimidation tactics used by the tobacco, ultra-processed food and alcohol sectors since 2000. They searched six major health and social science databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, for specific keywords like "alcohol industry," "intimidation," "threat," and "researcher" to find studies that might describe intimidation tactics.

What the researchers say: 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 HHIs or their third parties,” the lead author said.

“To a lesser degree, there were also instances of surveillance, threats of and actual violence, burglary, bribery and cyberattacks. Our hope is that shining a spotlight on these highly unethical tactics may reduce their chilling effect on improving health and help researchers and advocates understand how to pre-empt and respond.”

The study highlights the increasing recognition of the need for stronger regulation of UCIs. With non-communicable diseases now responsible for nearly three-quarters of global deaths, the urgency to tackle the influence of these industries has never been greater.

Previous research revealed that tobacco, fossil fuels, ultra-processed foods (UPFs), and alcohol collectively contribute to approximately one-third to two-thirds of all global deaths, further highlighting the critical need for action.

“We found that public discreditation accounted for half of the intimidation tactics used. Academics and campaigners were publicly criticized in traditional media, social media and in public arenas such as evidentiary meetings or consultations and even on t-shirts in one incident,” the researchers said. “The language used to discredit advocates and researchers—by corporations or their industry-linked allies—is strikingly inflammatory. They are often labelled as extremists, under-qualified, or a waste of taxpayer money. Terms like ‘extremists,’ ‘fascists,’ ‘Nazis,’ ‘zealots,’ and ‘prohibitionists’ are commonly used.”

Critics of the alcohol industry are dismissed as ‘nannyists,’ while food campaigners face slurs like ‘food fascists’ or ‘gastronomical gestapo.’ Breastfeeding advocates have been mockingly called the ‘breastapo,’ accused of restricting mothers’ choices. Across sectors, academics are also branded with religiously charged insults such as ‘health jihadists’ or ‘religious fundamentalists.’

The lead author explained that spreading these highly misleading perceptions can hinder researchers’ and advocates ability to shape policy, as such tactics may temporarily silence, delay, or even thwart their work. Despite this, the research found that most researchers continued their work even after facing public discreditation.

“The dominant narrative was of perseverance – only two sources referred to staff leaving their job as a result of intimidation, although it is possible that examples of people giving up their campaigns are not so well documented,” she said. “This is an area that warrants more research.”

So, what? Amen to that last comment.