Misuse of evidence and downplaying harms: unpacking assertions of the alcohol industry
Reading time: approximately four minutes
Research has uncovered the tactics commonly used by alcohol industries to manipulate evidence, misrepresent the harms of alcohol, and influence public health policy for their own gains.
Senior Research Fellow at Menzies School of Health Research, and a member of the FASD Hub Advisory Group Dr Cassandra Wright outlines the need for close scrutiny of this harmful industry and curtail their influence on public health policy.
Australia’s National Alcohol Strategy: Setting the national agenda for alcohol policy
The research examined the submissions made by alcohol companies and lobbyists into Australia’s National Alcohol Strategy, which was released in 2019 after four years of consultation.
“We used alcohol submissions into the National Alcohol Strategy as a case study, because it’s such an important policy document that sets the agenda in alcohol policy for a decade,” explained Dr Wright.
As part of the drafting process, twelve submissions were made by alcohol industry actors, including producers, retailers, and industry-funded social organisations.
The study uncovered five common and incorrect claims across these submissions.
Facts versus fiction on alcohol and health
Claim by alcohol industry
-
Drinking alcohol in moderation has health benefits
-
Alcohol isn’t cause of violence
-
We need target initiatives and not population level alcohol policies
-
Strong alcohol advertising regulations are not necessary
-
Minimum unit price and price and taxation policies more broadly are not needed
Fact
-
Even moderate drinking increases the risk of seven types of cancers
-
Overall, the harms of alcohol outweigh any potential benefits
-
No amount of alcohol can be considered safe at any stage in pregnancy
-
Recent research shows that the clear contribution of alcohol to violence
-
No evidence has been provided to support this claim
-
Initiatives are significantly less effective at reducing alcohol consumption
-
No evidence to demonstrate that the existing co-regulatory approach is effective in reducing alcohol-related harms.
-
Alcohol-related harm contributes to inequalities
-
low socio-economic communities experience the most harm
Tactics to watch for
According to the study, the alcohol industry commonly attempts to position themselves as legitimate stakeholders in alcohol policy debates by mimicking scientific critique.
However, these companies then use a wide range of non-scientific methods to cast doubt on the effectiveness of public health policies.
“We found that submissions from alcohol companies and lobby groups consistently promoted non-evidence based and ineffective policy measures, and that they downplayed the social and health harms of alcohol. The research also showed that the industry deliberately misquoted, manipulated, misused, and ignored evidence throughout their submissions.” – Dr Cassandra Wright
Common tactics to watch out for include:
- Using evidence-less claims
- Promoting alternative policies without evidence
- Emphasising complexity to refute the need for population-wide policy
- Misinterpretation of strong evidence, or questioning the credibility of strong evidence
- Promoting weak evidence
- Incorrectly quoting evidence, or taking evidence out of context
- Excluding relevant evidence and promoting only evidence that supports their view.
Time for tighter regulation
These tactics are borrowed from the tobacco industry. And like the tobacco industry, tighter regulation of the alcohol industry is needed, the researchers suggest.
“Alcohol companies distort the science around alcohol and policy to try and influence policies in ways that protect their profits, and this really muddies the water for governments who are trying to make decisions that are in the best interests of the community. I think it begs the question whether alcohol companies should have a seat at the table in these policy processes.”