FORUT, Oslo, Norway.
Addiction. 2010 Jan;105(1):22-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02695.x.
In this paper, we describe an analysis of alcohol policy initiatives sponsored by alcohol producer SABMiller and the International Center on Alcohol Policies, an alcohol industry-funded organization. In a number of sub-Saharan countries these bodies have promoted a 'partnership' role with governments to design national alcohol policies.
A comparison was conducted of four draft National Alcohol Policy documents from Lesotho, Malawi, Uganda and Botswana using case study methods.
The comparison indicated that the four drafts are almost identical in wording and structure and that they are likely to originate from the same source.
The processes and the draft policy documents reviewed provide insights into the methods, as well as the strategic and political objectives of the multi-national drinks industry. This initiative reflects the industry's preferred version of a national alcohol policy. The industry policy vision ignores, or chooses selectively from, the international evidence base on alcohol prevention developed by independent alcohol researchers and disregards or minimizes a public health approach to alcohol problems. The policies reviewed maintain a narrow focus on the economic benefits from the trade in alcohol. In terms of alcohol problems (and their remediation) the documents focus upon individual drinkers, ignoring effective environmental interventions. The proposed policies serve the industry's interests at the expense of public health by attempting to enshrine 'active participation of all levels of the beverage alcohol industry as a key partner in the policy formulation and implementation process'.
本文描述了对啤酒生产商 SABMiller 和国际酒精政策中心(一个由酒精行业资助的组织)发起的酒精政策倡议的分析。在撒哈拉以南的一些国家,这些机构与政府合作,推动了国家酒精政策的“伙伴关系”角色。
采用案例研究方法,对莱索托、马拉维、乌干达和博茨瓦纳的四份国家酒精政策草案进行了比较。
比较表明,这四份草案在措辞和结构上几乎完全相同,很可能来自同一来源。
审查的过程和政策草案提供了对方法的深入了解,以及跨国饮料行业的战略和政治目标。这一倡议反映了该行业对国家酒精政策的首选版本。行业政策愿景忽略或选择性地忽略了独立酒精研究人员制定的国际酒精预防循证,也忽略或最小化了针对酒精问题的公共卫生方法。所审查的政策仅狭隘地关注酒精贸易的经济利益。就酒精问题(及其补救)而言,这些文件侧重于个别饮酒者,而忽略了有效的环境干预措施。这些拟议政策以牺牲公共健康为代价,维护了“饮料酒精行业各级积极参与政策制定和实施过程”这一行业利益。