About

Through research and stakeholder engagement we hope to understand more about what social and psychological influences allow dangerous and addictive products to flourish, with often minimal intervention, resulting in massive harm to individuals and society.

We explore cross-cutting issues and stories from the ‘mainstream’ addictions – cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy food and gambling and the flourishing of the latest addictive products being marketed around the world – vapes, social media, computer games and ultra-processed foods.

We will not look specifically at currently illegal drugs though the lessons are inescapable and we will be reflecting on them too.

Here are some interesting questions which we are finding relevant:

What is ‘addiction’ and an ‘addictive product’?

There are many, usually complicated academic definitions of addiction. We have chosen the definition used by the NHS “Addiction is defined as not having control over taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you”.

An addiction influences our ability to control our behaviour and causes various types of direct and indirect harm to us. We will also reflect on the social impact of addictive product on society in general.

An addictive product is one which either chemically or psychologically over-rides our ability to control our consumption or usage and which causes us physical, mental or ‘social’ harm.

The Addiction Economy describes an economy where products are deliberately made not just to persuade but to addict, for commercial gain. Harm to customers is known and ignored in service to greater profit for shareholders. The products may have benefits, for example vapes can help smokers quit, social media help us connect and UPF provide affordable food products, but these can be illusory, disproportionate to the harms and also used as a lobbying technique to muddy the water, or draw attention away from harms.

The role of government in either facilitating or curtailing this, is fundamental.

What are the factors and design techniques which go into making an addictive product?

In what ways is commercial product design optimised not just to persuade us to use products, but to make us dependent, even addicted. This may include designing or ramping up chemical components of addictive product formulations; using behavioural science and neuroscience in product design to increase usage to the point of dependency; use of these to design marketing support for products.

What makes some products addictive, including their chemical composition or psychological effect and what means others aren’t and how do notions of harm to the self and society influence what is seen as an addiction. Eg coffee vs alcohol, computer games vs cigarettes.

What works to prevent these products becoming mainstream and harming society? In what ways does product availability and pricing influence uptake?

What, if any, are considered reasonable ‘red lines’ from merely enticing and persuading a customer to use a product to stimulating dependency and addiction? Who says what those lines are, how have they evolved, how may they evolve further?

How does the commercial drivers of the entire product ecosystem - not just big manufacturers but small and large retailers, component suppliers, marketing agencies etc - combine to increase the embedding or acceptability of addictive products, and slow down or prevent political or social change?

What allows ‘mainstream’ addictions to flourish?

What ideologies and historical and current interpretations of capitalism influence political decision-making, corporate strategy and social norms which allow addictive products to become mainstream and become broadly tolerated role not just by governments but by citizens and society?

How do different beliefs about the appropriate role of the state affect political and public opinion about addiction and its prevention? How does this influence the inclination and ability of politicians to act in a more assertive fashion to prevent the flourishing of addictive mainstream commercial products and their damage to citizens? We will explore notions like ‘the nanny state’ or its opposite, which might be considered ‘the neglectful state’, ‘the complicit state’, ‘irresponsible state’ or ‘the minimal state’. (We have a fancy for an umbrella term for the opposite of the nanny state, which we are working on. This is also linked with beliefs about democracy and ‘What is Government for’).

What is the role and effect of business lobbying? What is the role and effect of civil society lobbying? When, if at all, should companies be excluded from lobbying, and how. In what ways could the system of policy design be made more inclusive and democratic?

How currently do governments design regulation of these products? How inclusive is this process? How to they design consultations? How do they then decide how to weight and prioritise the findings? How do then then demonstrate meaningful weighting of influence on policy? What is the effect of power and influence imbalances among different stakeholders and their access to policy influence? (We have another project on trust and the Meaningful Engagement with Stakeholders in the Design of Regulation and a new one developing a Framework for beset practice by governments in evaluating and weighting the consultations received in policy design and regulation and how to make that process more transparent.)

How do beliefs about people and addiction shape individual perceptions, actions, politics, regulation, and government approaches to preventing addiction? ‘It’s people’s own fault they are addicted’, ‘everyone has the choice to use these products or not’, ‘addiction is a medical thing, a disease’, ‘some people have an addictive personality’, ‘addiction is for life’. What is the basis for these framings and how do they positively and negatively influence people’s view of addictive products, people and policy options.

What are the issues and role of the ‘culture wars’ within addiction around the difference scientific, academic and political views of addiction and how that affects policy responses and treatment? For example we would explore the current polarised views about the prioritising of the social, biological, psychological or moral determinants of addiction in policy direction and addiction treatment and the impact of the economic determinents. Ie: addiction as a social disease vs a biological disease vs a psychological problem vs genetic predisposition vs a substance abuse problem vs a behavioural problem all advocate for different approaches to regulation and to un-addiction.

What factors contribute to the the ‘commerciogenic’ aspects (eg role of companies, capitalism or business models) on addiction being ignored? (A term first coined in relation to ‘commerciogenic malnutrition’, to refer to ‘infant starvation caused by inappropriate promotion and use of infant formula or bottlefeeding in areas with low income and poor water supplies’.). Lobbying? Ideology? Clashes with different ideologies? Lack of media interest? Lack of societal pressure?

What is the role of media, social media and various ‘influencers’ in creating addiction, embedding further addiction, inflaming concerns, prolonging addictions as well as its very positive role in benefitting, supporting addicts, making them feel not alone etc. Does this ‘tribal’ aspect affect un-addiction?

What about Un-addiction?

How, if at all, have the different academic framings about addiction influenced media and so individuals beliefs about their own addiction and so their ability to become un-addicted. (Eg why companies might welcome ‘nicotine is addictive’ on vapes, because it helps embed a feeling of helplessness in individuals smoking or vaping)

The beliefs, psychology and commercial influences behind the ‘battle’ between pharmacological and psychological approaches to un-addiction (which we have seen clearly with smoking and vapes). Is the role of pharmaceuticals in health prevention too great? . How does this reflect concerns about the ‘Pharma-isation’ of the NHS. How does this affect un-addiction?

What is behind the bitter battle between ‘harm reduction’, prevention and un-addiction in tobacco and beyond? How did these seemingly common-sense approaches become so polarised and antagonistic? What might be the role of academic infighting and social media in inflaming this debate?

How might new scientific understandings arising from neuroscience and neurotechnologies influence addiction and un-addiction? How might they be used and misused to rightly or wrongly identify or predict addiction? How will we know? How can damaging impacts be prevented and helpful ones catalysed? How will we know which is which?

What works and not in preventing addiction through public health messaging? Who is trusted to do this? What is the role of using the model of an Addiction Economy and its commercial determinants to help prevent uptake and inspire un-addiction?

Next steps…

Our aim is first to explore the issues and begin to synthesise and cluster them, and then articulate them, and their complexity, in simple, but effective ways.

We then seek to use that understanding to consider what steps could be taken by us all to create compelling materials to bring the issues to the attention of politicians, citizens, civil society, academia and business.

It’s ridiculously ambitious, totally crazy, but what the heck. This type of many-tentacled work is what Hilary has spent the last 30 years doing and Joe relishes. Why not give it a go!