A definition for market-driven epidemics (MDEs) could significantly alleviate the obstacles faced in timely and effective prevention and mitigation, suggests a study recently released in the open-access journal PLOS Global Public Health. The study’s authors, including Jonathan Quick from the Duke University School of Medicine in the U.S., highlight how certain consumer products contribute to global risk factors for premature deaths across all age groups, costing the global economy trillions of dollars. Despite concerted efforts, reducing mortality related to these products has proven challenging, slow, and frequently unsuccessful. Quick and his team have established a case definition for MDEs to tackle this issue, which occurs when companies intensively market harmful products, deny the associated risks, and obstruct mitigation measures. The paper outlines the application of this definition through the analysis of three MDE products: cigarettes, sugar, and prescription opioids. The researchers map out five phases of MDEs based on the history of these products: market expansion, evidence of harm, corporate resistance, mitigation, and market adaptation.
The study notes a significant decline in the consumption of these products in the U.S. from their consumption peaks to the latest data available: cigarette sales dropped by 82%, sugar consumption decreased by 15%, and prescriptions for prescription opioids went down by 62%. The turning point in consumption for each product was marked by convincing evidence of harm, professional concern, and significant public health advocacy or mobilization that countered corporate marketing and resistance efforts. The interval between initial suspicion of damage and consumption tipping point varied from one to five decades, mainly due to the time needed to accumulate adequate evidence of harm. The authors also discuss how market adaptation to the decreased consumption of these products has had both adverse effects, such as the geographical relocation of marketing efforts, and positive impacts, such as consumers moving away from sugar-sweetened beverages.
The authors argue that this is the inaugural comparative analysis of successful efforts to alter the consumption patterns of millions, potentially reducing the adverse health impacts associated with these products. The MDE epidemiological framework proposed by Quick and his colleagues aims to shorten the latent time between the described phases, offering the global health community a novel approach to confronting existing and emerging harmful products and their impacts on health, society, and the economy.
The analysis underscores that while each MDE is unique in terms of the specific product and circumstances, the underlying epidemiology of consumption and health impacts and the milestones of the epidemic should inform public health leaders in combating current MDEs and more rapidly identifying potential future ones. The patterns observed across various MDEs suggest that public health officials, researchers, and civil society can employ these mitigation strategies to save lives and mitigate the effects of ongoing and emerging MDEs.
In their conclusion, the authors emphasize: “The consumption of cigarettes and other harmful products results in millions of deaths and costs the world trillions of dollars annually. Our analysis of U.S. efforts against three such market-driven epidemics shows that lives can be saved through earlier and more definitive actions by public health authorities, researchers, and through public engagement,” asserting that “the consumption patterns of cigarettes and similar products often mimic those of infectious disease epidemics, causing widespread damage before an effective public health intervention is implemented. By recognizing these market-driven epidemics sooner and responding more decisively, we can save numerous lives.”
More information: Eszter Rimányi et al, Dynamics of combatting market-driven epidemics: Insights from U.S. reduction of cigarette, sugar, and prescription opioid consumption, PLOS Global Public Health. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003479
Journal information: PLOS Global Public Health Provided by PLOS
