National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2020 Nov;81(6):710-718.
Governments' limited adoption of evidence-based policies to reduce alcohol-related harm has been partly attributed to alcohol industry influence. A better understanding of industry political strategy may help protect public policy against vested interests. We examined how industry actors used scientific evidence in their submissions to government alcohol policy consultations.
We conducted a content analysis of 214 submissions from industry actors in 21 Australian public consultations between 2013 and 2017. Represented industry actors included alcohol producers and retailers, trade associations, licensees, and associated entities that derive commercial benefit from alcohol (e.g., advertising companies). Adapting an existing framework, we classified industry practices into two categories: (a) misuse of evidence and (b) denial of the effectiveness of evidence-based strategies.
Almost all submissions (91%) denied the effectiveness of evidence-based strategies; the most common denial practices were making unsubstantiated claims about adverse effects of policies (76%) and promoting alternatives without evidence (71%). The misuse of scientific evidence was apparent in 66% of submissions. Trade associations, producers, and retailers were most likely to use such practices.
The extent to which the examined industry actors misused scientific evidence in their submissions to a wide range of alcohol policy consultations in Australia suggests the need for governments to consider excluding the industry from consultation on the regulation of alcohol.
政府对减少与酒精相关伤害的循证政策的采纳有限,部分原因是受到了酒精行业的影响。更好地了解行业的政治策略可能有助于保护公共政策免受既得利益的影响。我们研究了行业参与者如何在政府酒精政策咨询中提交的文件中使用科学证据。
我们对 2013 年至 2017 年期间澳大利亚 21 项公共咨询中来自 214 名行业参与者的 214 份意见书进行了内容分析。代表行业的参与者包括酒精生产商和零售商、贸易协会、持牌人以及从酒精中获得商业利益的相关实体(例如广告公司)。我们采用现有的框架,将行业做法分为两类:(a)证据滥用和(b)否认循证策略的有效性。
几乎所有的意见书(91%)都否认了循证策略的有效性;最常见的否认做法是对政策的不良影响提出无根据的主张(76%)和在没有证据的情况下推广替代方案(71%)。在 66%的意见书明显存在对科学证据的滥用。贸易协会、生产商和零售商最有可能使用这种做法。
在所审查的行业参与者在向澳大利亚广泛的酒精政策咨询中提交的文件中滥用科学证据的程度表明,政府有必要考虑将行业排除在酒精法规监管的咨询之外。