Inside ILSI: How Coca-Cola, Working through Its Scientific Nonprofit, Created a Global Science of Exercise for Obesity and Got It Embedded in Chinese Policy (1995-2015).

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-8802174
Susan Greenhalgh
{"title":"Inside ILSI: How Coca-Cola, Working through Its Scientific Nonprofit, Created a Global Science of Exercise for Obesity and Got It Embedded in Chinese Policy (1995-2015).","authors":"Susan Greenhalgh","doi":"10.1215/03616878-8802174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Industry influence on health science and policy is a critical issue of our day. In 2015 the New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola paid scientists to form a Global Energy Balance Network promoting the notion that exercise, not dietary restraint, is the solution to the obesity epidemic-a claim few accept. This article examines the organizational dynamics and policy process behind Coke's efforts to sway obesity policy-globally and in China, a critical market-during 1995-2015.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In-depth, qualitative research during 2013-18 involved 10 weeks of fieldwork in Beijing, interviews with 25 leading experts, analysis of newsletters documenting all major obesity-related activities in China, interviews with 10 Euro-American experts, and extensive internet research on all major actors.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>This article tells two intertwined stories (institutional dynamics, science making and policy making) at global and local-Chinese levels. Coke succeeded in redirecting China's obesity science and policy to emphasize physical activity. Key to its success was the industry-funded global nonprofit International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Beneath ILSI's public narrative of unbiased science and no policy advocacy lay a maze of hidden channels companies used to advance their interests. Working through those channels, Coca-Cola influenced China's science making and policy making during every phase in the policy process, from framing the issues to drafting official policy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Though China is exceptional, ILSI promoted exercise globally, suggesting potentially significant impacts in other ILSI-branch countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":"46 2","pages":"235-276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8802174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Context: Industry influence on health science and policy is a critical issue of our day. In 2015 the New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola paid scientists to form a Global Energy Balance Network promoting the notion that exercise, not dietary restraint, is the solution to the obesity epidemic-a claim few accept. This article examines the organizational dynamics and policy process behind Coke's efforts to sway obesity policy-globally and in China, a critical market-during 1995-2015.

Methods: In-depth, qualitative research during 2013-18 involved 10 weeks of fieldwork in Beijing, interviews with 25 leading experts, analysis of newsletters documenting all major obesity-related activities in China, interviews with 10 Euro-American experts, and extensive internet research on all major actors.

Findings: This article tells two intertwined stories (institutional dynamics, science making and policy making) at global and local-Chinese levels. Coke succeeded in redirecting China's obesity science and policy to emphasize physical activity. Key to its success was the industry-funded global nonprofit International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). Beneath ILSI's public narrative of unbiased science and no policy advocacy lay a maze of hidden channels companies used to advance their interests. Working through those channels, Coca-Cola influenced China's science making and policy making during every phase in the policy process, from framing the issues to drafting official policy.

Conclusions: Though China is exceptional, ILSI promoted exercise globally, suggesting potentially significant impacts in other ILSI-branch countries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在ILSI内部:可口可乐如何通过其科学非营利组织,创建了一门针对肥胖的全球运动科学,并将其纳入中国政策(1995-2015)。
背景:工业对卫生科学和政策的影响是当今的一个关键问题。2015年,《纽约时报》披露,可口可乐付钱给科学家,让他们组建一个全球能量平衡网络,宣传锻炼而非饮食限制才是肥胖流行的解决方案——这一说法几乎无人接受。这篇文章考察了可口可乐在1995-2015年间影响全球和中国(一个关键市场)肥胖政策背后的组织动态和政策过程。方法:2013年至2018年期间,在北京进行了为期10周的深入定性研究,采访了25位知名专家,分析了记录中国所有主要肥胖相关活动的通讯,采访了10位欧美专家,并对所有主要参与者进行了广泛的互联网研究。研究发现:本文在全球和中国地方层面讲述了两个相互交织的故事(制度动态、科学制定和政策制定)。可口可乐成功地将中国的肥胖科学和政策转向强调体育活动。其成功的关键是工业界资助的全球非营利组织国际生命科学研究所(ILSI)。在ILSI关于公正的科学和没有政策倡导的公开叙述之下,隐藏着公司用来推进其利益的迷宫般的隐藏渠道。通过这些渠道,可口可乐影响了中国科学研究和政策制定的每一个阶段,从制定问题到起草官方政策。结论:尽管中国是例外,但ILSI在全球范围内促进了锻炼,这表明ILSI在其他分支国家可能产生重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
"We Want to Put Them in Trauma": Understanding the Trump Administration's Attack on Government Health Agency Regulatory Authority. The World Health Organization and the Shifting US and Global Political Orders. Public Health Under Siege. Never Waste a Crisis: The Past, Present, and Future of FDA Reform. Public Health Under Attack: Continuity, Discontinuity, and History.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1