Search

Aims Using terms of justification such as ‘corporate social responsibility’ and ‘partnerships with the public health community’, the alcoholic beverage industry (mainly large producers, trade associations and ‘social aspects’ organizations) funds a variety of scientific activities that involve or overlap with the work of independent scientists. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the ethical, professional and scientific challenges that have emerged from industry involvement in alcohol science. Method Source material came from an extensive review of organizational websites, newspaper articles, journal papers, letters to the editor, editorials, books, book chapters and unpublished documents. Results Industry involvement in alcohol science was identified in seven areas: (i) sponsorship of research funding organizations; (ii) direct financing of university-based scientists and centers; (iii) studies conducted through contract research organizations; (iv) research conducted by trade organizations and social aspects/public relations organizations; (v) efforts to influence public perceptions of research, research findings and alcohol policies; (vi) publication of scientific documents and support of scientific journals; and (vii) sponsorship of scientific conferences and presentations at conferences. Conclusion While industry involvement in research activities is increasing, it constitutes currently a rather small direct investment in scientific research, one that is unlikely to contribute to alcohol science, lead to scientific breakthroughs or reduce the burden of alcohol-related illness. At best, the scientific activities funded by the alcoholic beverage industry provide financial support and small consulting fees for basic and behavioral scientists engaged in alcohol research; at worst, the industry's scientific activities confuse public discussion of health issues and policy options, raise questions about the objectivity of industry-supported alcohol scientists and provide industry with a convenient way to demonstrate ‘corporate responsibility’ in its attempts to avoid taxation and regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: This article summarizes the findings and conclusions of the third edition of Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. The latest revision of this book is part of a series of monographs designed to provide a critical review of the scientific evidence related to alcohol control policy from a public health perspective. Design: A narrative summary of the contents of the book according to five major issues. Findings An extensive amount of epidemiological evidence shows that alcohol is a major contributor to the global burden of disease, disability and death in high‐, middle‐ and low‐income countries. Trends in alcohol products and marketing are described, indicating that a large part of the global industry has been consolidated into a small number of transnational corporations that are expanding their operations in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The main part of the book is devoted to a review of strategies and interventions designed to prevent or minimize alcohol‐related harm. Overall, the most effective strategies to protect public health are taxation that decreases affordability and restrictions on the physical availability of alcohol. A total ban on alcohol marketing is also an effective strategy to reduce consumption. In addition, drink‐driving counter‐measures, brief interventions with at‐risk drinkers and treatment of drinkers with alcohol dependence are effective in preventing harm in high‐risk contexts and groups of hazardous drinkers. Conclusion: Alcohol policy is often the product of competing interests, values and ideologies, with the evidence suggesting that the conflicting interests between profit and health mean that working in partnership with the alcohol industry is likely to lead to ineffective policy. Opportunities for implementation of evidence‐based alcohol policies that better serve the public good are clearer than ever before as a result of accumulating knowledge on which strategies work best. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the development of a comprehensive alcohol policy in Europe. It mentions the Alcohol Measures for Public Health Research Alliance (AMPHORA) project, a plan that aims to push through with researches pertinent to alcohol policy in the European Union (EU). According to the author, a previous research indicates how unevenly research about the effects of alcohol taxes and prices is spread within the EU. He adds that AMPHORA proposes diverse projects including technical work for checking contamination on unrecorded alcohols and an analysis of alcohol's role in the Global Burden of Diseases and alcohol consumption. Another project mentioned is one that evaluates the need of alcohol treatment services and intervention in EU countries including Austria, Germany and Italy.

Abstract: Background and aims: Emergency department (ED) alcohol‐related presentation data are not routinely collected in Australia and New Zealand. It is likely that previous research has underestimated the numbers of patients presenting with alcohol‐related conditions. This study aimed to quantify the level of alcohol harm presenting to EDs in Australia and New Zealand [Correction added on 23 Jan 2018, after first online publication: The ‘aims’ section was missing and is updated in this version]. Design: Multi‐centre, prospective study. Patients were screened prospectively for alcohol‐related presentations during a 7‐day period in December 2014. Part 1 involved screening to determine alcohol‐positive ED presentations and data collection of patient demographic and clinical information. Part 2 involved a consent‐based survey conducted with patients aged ≥ 14 years to perform Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores. Setting: Eight EDs in Australia and New Zealand, representing differing hospital role delineations. Participants: A total of 8652 patients aged ≥ 14 years attended and 8435 (97.5%) were screened. Measurements: The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients who had an alcohol‐related presentation termed ‘alcohol‐positive’, using pre‐defined criteria. It included injuries, intoxication, medical conditions and injuries caused by an alcohol‐affected third party. Secondary outcomes included demographic and clinical information, the type of alcohol‐related presentations and AUDIT scores. Findings: A total of 801 [9.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.9–10.1%] presentations were identified as alcohol‐positive, ranging between 4.9 and 15.2% throughout sites. Compared with alcohol‐negative patients, alcohol‐positive patients were more likely to be male [odds ratio (OR) = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.63–2.21], younger (median age 37 versus 46 years, P < 0.0001), arrive by ambulance (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.68–2.25) or police/correctional vehicle (OR = 4.56, 95% CI = 3.05–6.81) and require immediate treatment (OR = 3.20, 95% CI = 2.03–05.06). The median AUDIT score was 16 (interquartile range = 10–24). Conclusions: Almost one in 10 presentations to emergency departments in Australia and New Zealand are alcohol related. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]