Search

Introduction: In 2015/2016 controversy followed the publication of a report on an anthropological study of Australian and New Zealand night-time economies funded by a major alcohol producer. This paper explores the background, moments of public controversy and political uses of the report., Methods: Informed by the sociology of scientific controversies, we review the available relevant work of the author of the report, associated material such as press releases, newspaper articles (n = 18) and industry submissions to government (n = 12). Attention was paid to the ways in which claims were made about the relationship between alcohol and violence, and the ways in which credibility and legitimacy were constructed., Results: The author of the report has longstanding associations with alcohol industry organisations. Claims made regarding alcohol and violence have remained highly consistent over time, and appear oblivious to developments in the evidence. In the media, the story was largely framed as a contest of credibility between compromised parties. The report continues to be used in alcohol industry submissions to government., Discussion and Conclusions: This analysis suggests that this is a 'counterfeit scientific controversy'; in our assessment, the report has had value not as a contribution to the scientific literature, but as a resource in the claims-making practices of the alcohol industry. Studies of the ways in which industry actors foster science-related content conducted at significant social and conceptual distance from the core of the relevant research community will enhance understandings of the ways in which industry actors engage with science and policy., (© 2021 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Introduction: Alcohol is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. One significant barrier to the implementation of evidence-based alcohol policy is alcohol industry opposition. Making submissions to national policy processes is one way in which the industry exert influence. The aim of this study was to analyse alcohol industry submissions into Australia's National Alcohol Strategy to determine key assertions made by the alcohol industry and the ways in which they use evidence and refute the effectiveness of public health policies to make their claims., Methods: Submissions made by alcohol industry actors (n = 12) were analysed using content analysis to determine key industry assertions. A pre-existing framework on alcohol industry use of evidence was then applied to analyse the evidentiary practices used to make these assertions., Results: Five common industry assertions were identified: 'Drinking alcohol in moderation has health benefits'; 'Alcohol isn't the cause of violence'; 'Targeted initiatives, not population level alcohol policies, are needed'; 'Strong alcohol advertising regulations are not necessary'; and 'Minimum unit price and pricing and taxation policies more broadly are not needed'. The industry systematically manipulated, misused and ignored evidence throughout their submissions., Discussion and Conclusions: The alcohol industry is misusing evidence in their submissions to government consultations to make their assertions about alcohol policy. It is therefore essential that industry submissions are scrutinised and not accepted on face value. Additionally, it is suggested that the alcohol industry requires a distinct model of governance similarly to that which regulates the tobacco industry to prevent their attempts to undermine evidence-based public health policy., (© 2023 The Authors. Drug and Alcohol Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Introduction and Aims: Restrictions introduced to reduce the spread of COVID-19 have had major impacts on the living circumstances of Australians. This paper aims to provide insight into shifts in alcohol consumption and associated factors during the epidemic., Design and Methods: A cross-sectional convenience sample of 2307 Australians aged 18 and over who drank at least monthly was recruited through social media. Respondents were asked about their alcohol consumption and purchasing in 2019 prior to the epidemic plus similar questions about their experiences in the month prior to being surveyed between 29 April and 16 May 2020., Results: Reports of average consumption before (3.53 drinks per day [3.36, 3.71 95% confidence interval]) and during (3.52 [3.34, 3.69]) the pandemic were stable. However, young men and those who drank more outside the home in 2019 reported decreased consumption during the pandemic, and people with high levels of stress and those who bulk-bought alcohol when restrictions were announced reported an increase in consumption relative to those who did not., Discussion and Conclusions: A reported increase in consumption among those experiencing more stress suggests that some people may have been drinking to cope during the epidemic. Conversely, the reported decrease in consumption among those who drank more outside of their home in 2019 suggests that closing all on-trade sales did not result in complete substitution of on-premise drinking with home drinking in this group. Monitoring of relevant subgroups to assess long-term changes in consumption in the aftermath of the epidemic is recommended., (© 2020 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Introduction and Aims: Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for death and disability, responsible for 3 million deaths in 2016. The alcohol industry is a powerful player in shaping trade and investment rules in ways that can constrain the ability of governments to regulate alcoholic beverages to reduce harm. This paper analyses publicly available submissions about alcohol in the context of Australia's free trade agreements to determine the key themes put forward by industry., Design and Methods: We searched for submissions made to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by alcohol industry trade associations, alcohol manufacturers, distributors and retailers, general industry association, and government agencies with responsibilities for alcohol trade, about specific free trade agreements involving Australia. Thirty-one submissions in relation to eight trade agreements were included for analysis. The analysis involved both descriptive content analysis and thematic analysis., Results: Findings suggest that industry is actively seeking to shape trade negotiations around alcohol. Priority issues for the industry include improving market access, harmonising regulation, improving clarity and transparency, reducing the burden of regulation and preventing monopolies on product names., Discussion and Conclusion: The alcohol industry and associated business and government organisations are actively working to influence trade agreement negotiations for industry economic gain, arguing for rules which may undermine public health goals. The analysis suggests that public health experts should pay attention to trade and investment agreements and develop counter frames to ensure agreements do not create barriers for coherent health policies., (© 2020 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Aims: This paper examines the strategies and arguments used by segments of the alcohol industry to delay the introduction of mandatory health warning labels on alcohol containers in Australia. These strategies are compared with those used by the tobacco industry to delay the introduction of warning labels for cigarettes., Methods: Submissions made by members of the alcohol industry to the Australian Government's review of labelling and Parliamentary Inquiry into Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders were analysed., Results: Segments of the alcohol industry have delayed the introduction of mandatory alcohol health warning labels in Australia by questioning the rationale and evidence base for labels; arguing that they will cause damage to public health and the economy; lobbying and seeking to influence government and political representatives including through monetary donations; and introducing its own voluntary labelling scheme. The arguments made by these organizations against the introduction of mandatory health warning labels for alcohol are flawed and their empirical basis is limited., Conclusion: The Australian Government has delayed the introduction of mandatory alcohol health warning labels in Australia by 2 years, until at least December 2013. The campaigning of some parts of the alcohol industry appears to have been instrumental in this decision., (© 2013 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Introduction and Aims: Since 2010, members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including Australia, have opposed Thailand's proposal for graphic warnings on alcohol containers. This paper aims to provide an account of the arguments for/against Thailand and to examine the arguments' legal and political validity., Design and Methods: This paper reviews primary WTO records in relation to Thailand's proposal to reveal the arguments for/against Thailand's proposal. The paper analyses these arguments in light of WTO cases to identify the legal strengths and weaknesses of Thailand's position. The paper then considers whether the attacks on Thailand by Australia are justified in light of the Australian Government's position on (i) alcohol warning labels in Australia and (ii) tobacco plain packaging., Results: The legal arguments against Thailand are: only harmful alcohol consumption should be prevented; there is no evidence that graphic warning labels can reduce alcohol-related harm; the labels unnecessarily restrict international trade. There are some legal weaknesses in Thailand's proposal. Yet, Australia's opposition to Thailand cannot be justified whilst Australia is (i) mandating pregnancy-related alcohol warnings in Australia and (ii) defending its plain packaging law against similar WTO attacks., Discussion: No WTO member is obliged to challenge another member for being non-compliant. The case tests the willingness of WTO members like Australia to respect the autonomy of other countries to pursue their public health goals and trial novel interventions., Conclusions: Australia's actions suggest it is willing to protect its alcohol industry at the expense of public health in Thailand., (© 2012 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Objective: To review the findings of a paper that has often been cited as evidence-with potentially adverse public health consequences-that the demand for alcohol in Indigenous Australian communities is not responsive to price and that, in the face of increasing alcohol prices, expenditure is diverted from basic sustenance to the purchase of alcohol., Methods: The raw data on income and various items of expenditure from the original study were entered in a database, a trend variable was created, and trends in measures of interest were tested using appropriate cross-correlations., Results: Re-analysis of the data did not support the findings of the original study., Conclusions: The original study does not contradict the general findings of the national and international literature that the demand for alcohol is sensitive to increases in price and does not provide evidence for the assertion that, other factors being equal, price controls on the availability of alcohol in Indigenous communities are likely to be ineffective., (© 2012 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Introduction and Aims: There are a number of studies in recent years that have examined the relationship of alcohol outlets to the incidence of alcohol-related problems. Only a small number of these studies examine the types of alcohol-related problems which may be considered amenity problems, such as neighbourhood disturbance, litter and noise. This paper examines the association between the proximity of someone's home to alcohol outlets and their experience of public amenity problems., Design and Methods: Data came from an Australian general population survey: the Alcohol's Harm to Others Survey (2008). Two thousand six hundred and forty-nine Australians aged 18 years and over were asked about their experiences of a number of amenity-type problems and the distance they lived to the nearest on- and off-premise alcohol outlet., Results: Bivariate results showed that respondents living closer to on- and off-premise outlets reported more problems, with minor differences by distance to on- and off-premise outlet. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, controlling for possible confounding effects of the respondent and neighbourhood characteristics, living closer to on-premise outlets was independently associated with reporting being kept awake or disturbed at night and living closer to an off-premise outlet was independently associated with reporting property damage., Discussion and Conclusions: A possible interpretation of the results is that respondents living close to on- and off-premise outlets experience more amenity problems than those living further away, but that these experiences are concentrated among demographic groups who live in these areas. Direction of influence cannot be inferred from these cross-sectional findings., (© 2011 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Aim: It has been proposed that alcohol industry 'social aspects/public relations' organizations (SAPROs) serve the agenda of lending credibility to industry claims of corporate responsibility while promoting ineffective industry-friendly interventions (such as school-based education or TV advertising campaigns) and creating doubt about interventions which have a strong evidence base (such as higher taxes on alcoholic beverages). This paper investigated whether submissions to Australia's National Preventative Health Taskforce (NPHT) from alcohol industry bodies regarding the Australian SAPRO, Drinkwise, have used this organization to demonstrate corporate responsibility while promoting industry-friendly interventions., Method: Submissions to the Australian National Preventative Health Taskforce (NPHT) discussion paper Australia, the healthiest country by 2020 (n = 375) were examined to identify those with primary alcohol content. A thematic analysis of the resulting 33 submissions was conducted to determine which organization, institution or individual discussed Drinkwise., Setting: Australia., Findings: Nine of the 33 submissions discussed Drinkwise; all were submitted by the alcohol industry or its affiliates. Every industry submission referred to Drinkwise either as providing evidence of social responsibility or by suggesting the industry-friendly actions of Drinkwise as alternatives to those recommended by the NPHT report., Conclusions: Drinkwise has been used by the alcohol industry to create an impression of social responsibility while promoting interventions that maintain profits and campaigning against effective interventions such as higher taxes on alcohol., (© 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Issues: In light of possible introduction of alcohol warning labels in Australia and New Zealand, this paper discusses the international experience with and evidence of effects of alcohol warning labels., Approach: The report describes international experience with providing information and warnings concerning the promotion or sale of alcoholic beverages, and considers the evidence on the effects of such information and warnings. The experience with and evaluations of the effects of tobacco warning labels are also considered., Key Findings: The most methodologically sound evaluations of alcohol warning labels are based on the US experience. Although these evaluations find little evidence that the introduction of the warning label in the USA had an impact on drinking behaviour, there is evidence that they led to an increase in awareness of the message they contained. In contrast, evaluations of tobacco warning labels find clear evidence of effects on behaviour., Implications: There is a need and opportunity for a rigorous evaluation of the impacts of introducing alcohol warning labels to add to the published work on their effectiveness. The experience with tobacco labels might guide the way for more effective alcohol warning labels., Conclusion: Alcohol warning labels are an increasingly popular alcohol policy initiative. It is clear that warning labels can be ineffective, but the tobacco experience suggests that effective warning labels are possible. Any introduction of alcohol warning labels should be evaluated in terms of effects on attitudes and behaviour.

Aim: This paper analyses a partnership between an addiction agency and the drinks industry in Australia, with special reference to concerns held by public health advocates for such projects., Method: Public health anxieties regarding collaboration between the drugs sector and the drinks industry are identified. A projected partnership between the Alcohol and Drug Foundation--Queensland (ADFQ) and the liquor industry in Australia is reviewed. The partnership involves the creation of a new organization, Alcohol Education Australia Ltd. (AEA), which states as its aim the education of consumers in responsible drinking. In order to assess the impact of the partnership an examination is undertaken of the AEA's stated mission and objectives, of relevant policy development by ADFQ and of ADFQ's intervention in support of an alcohol manufacturer which was putting a case to a licensing authority., Findings: The results indicate the partnership advances the interests of the drinks industry rather than public health. The mission and objectives of Alcohol Education Australia Ltd subordinate public health goals to industry aims and the host organization, the ADFQ, has changed its policy and practice to accommodate the drinks industry., Conclusion: The partnership between the ADFQ and the drinks industry indicates the difficulty faced by addiction organizations in maintaining an uncompromising public health orientation when in partnership with the alcohol industry.

This paper puts the role of research into perspective in the policy-making context. It points out that there are differing 'policy' goals of government and the use of research might be vital for one element, e.g. health policy, but of lesser significance in, say, international policy. The paper then goes on to describe case studies of where research has had a major impact on government decision making in Australia in the past 2 years, notably in the area of proposed changes to the marketing and sale of alcoholic beverages.