Using Regulatory Stances to See All the Commercial Determinants of Health

Abstract

The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) concept, which currently focuses on markets that harm health, should be expanded to refer to the interface between commerce and health, which can sometimes have positive public health consequences.r The regulatory stances framework helps us classify public health preferences for regulating specific markets related to CDoH, based on the intended effects of regulations on market size. The regulatory stances a jurisdiction can adopt can be classified as ranging from prohibitionist through contractionist, permissive, and expansionist, to universalist.r The regulatory stances framework increases the usefulness of the CDoH concept by expanding the conversation beyond negative determinants of health and providing a fuller view of the tools at the disposal of society to alter markets and improve health. Context:The effects of commerce on the public health are omnipresent. The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) represent a burgeoning area of scholarly debate and activist policymaking to redress markets that adversely affect public health. The CDoH debate is a logical extension of the tobacco control movement, but, to its detriment, the CDoH conversation remains primarily focused policies and proposals that are analogous to historical tobacco control strategies.Methods: This paper argues that for the CDoH to develop further and broaden its appeal, it should expand to cover markets with conditional and positive impacts on health. To explain and order this conversation, a comparative framework for regulatory policy is introduced: the regulatory stances. The regulatory stances classify a regulatory policy based on the intended effect of policy on the size of a market in the future relative to the present.Findings: Some markets that interface between commerce and health do not inherently harm health. Regulatory policy toward these markets should be different in intent than regulatory policy for markets with negative health effects. Conclusions: By using the regulatory stances framework to encompass markets that have positive or conditional effects on health as well as those that have adverse health effects, the CDoH conversation can shift away from the exclusive focus on strategies to shrink markets with adverse health impacts to consider a wider array of policy options.

Corporate activities that influence population health: A scoping review and qualitative synthesis to develop the HEALTH-CORP typology

“…The features of products were also discussed, such as the hyper-palatable nature of ultra-processed foods [93] and the hyper-engagement features of social media (e.g., endless scroll) [64], which were seen as promoting behaviour some authors described as addictive. Liber [112] discussed some health-promoting products (e.g., vaccines) and suggested that regulation focus on expanding these markets while contracting the markets for health-harming products (e.g., alcohol).…”

Power and Other Commercial Determinants of Health: An Empirical Study of the Australian Food, Alcohol, and Gambling Industries

“…1,4,6,88 However, PH evidence generally favours further regulation. 5,[89][90][91][92] Australia has seen successes in implementing relatively strict tobacco control, including tobacco plain packaging laws introduced in 2012. 93 These laws are the latest in Australia's tobacco control policies implemented incrementally since the 1970s 94 which have been quite successful.…”

A Decision-Theoretic Public Health Framework for Heated Tobacco and Nicotine Vaping Products

“…Our analysis is in terms of public health impacts, but policymakers may have other goals, such as the elimination of cigarette companies or cigarette use or even more broadly the use of all nicotine delivery products. Such “regulatory stances” [ 130 ] classify a regulatory framework by its intent to change the size of a given market in the future compared to the present. For example, based on the evidence of substantially higher health risks from cigarettes than either NVPs or HTPs, a regulatory stance towards cigarettes that is contractionist (reducing the share of that market in the economy) or even prohibitionist (intent to reduce the market’s size to zero) may be warranted.…”