Martino Florentine Petronella, Miller Peter Graeme, Coomber Kerri, Hancock Linda, Kypri Kypros
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 24;12(1):e0170366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170366. eCollection 2017.
A growing body of literature points to the role of vested interests as a barrier to the implementation of effective public health policies. Corporate political activity by the alcohol industry is commonly used to influence policy and regulation. It is important for policy makers to be able to critique alcohol industry claims opposed to improved alcohol marketing regulation. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency reviewed alcohol marketing regulations in 2012 and stakeholders were invited to comment on them. In this study we used thematic analysis to examine submissions from the Australian alcohol industry, based on a system previously developed in relation to tobacco industry corporate political activity. The results show that submissions were a direct lobbying tactic, making claims to government that were contrary to the evidence-base. Five main frames were identified, in which the alcohol industry claimed that increased regulation: (1) is unnecessary; (2) is not backed up by sufficient evidence; (3) will lead to unintended negative consequences; and (4) faces legal barriers to implementation; underpinned by the view (5) that the industry consists of socially responsible companies working toward reducing harmful drinking. In contrast with tobacco industry submissions on public policy, which often focused on legal and economic barriers, the Australian alcohol industry placed a heavier emphasis on notions of regulatory redundancy and insufficient evidence. This may reflect differences in where these industries sit on the 'regulatory pyramid', alcohol being less regulated than tobacco.
越来越多的文献表明，既得利益是有效公共卫生政策实施的障碍。酒精行业的企业政治活动通常被用来影响政策和监管。对于政策制定者来说，能够批判酒精行业反对加强酒精营销监管的主张很重要。澳大利亚国家预防健康局在2012年审查了酒精营销法规，并邀请利益相关者对其发表意见。在本研究中，我们基于先前针对烟草行业企业政治活动开发的系统，采用主题分析法来审视澳大利亚酒精行业的意见书。结果表明，意见书是一种直接的游说策略，向政府提出的主张与证据基础相悖。确定了五个主要框架，酒精行业在其中声称加强监管：（1）没有必要；（2）没有充分的证据支持；（3）将导致意外的负面后果；（4）面临实施的法律障碍；其依据是（5）该行业由致力于减少有害饮酒的具有社会责任感的公司组成。与烟草行业关于公共政策的意见书不同，后者通常关注法律和经济障碍，而澳大利亚酒精行业更加强调监管冗余和证据不足的观念。这可能反映了这些行业在“监管金字塔”中的位置差异，酒精行业受到的监管比烟草行业少。
