Search

Introduction: Associates for Research in Substances of Enjoyment (ARISE) was formed by tobacco companies in the late 1980s designed to counter public health policy development. This study examines the alcohol content of ARISE and the contribution of ARISE to alcohol industry activities in a key period in the globalisation of the alcohol industry, generating insights into the inter‐relationships between the tobacco and alcohol industries in their involvements in policy‐oriented science. Methods: We systematically searched the UCSF Truth Tobacco Documents Library for information about ARISE, alcohol and the alcohol industry. This material was supplemented with an analysis of the contributions by ARISE associates to one volume in the International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP) book series on alcohol and pleasure. Results: ARISE placed nicotine alongside caffeine, chocolate and other foods, and alcohol as treats which brought pleasure and other benefits. Alcohol was thus intrinsic to the ARISE project for the tobacco industry. This study shows that at a formative moment in the mid‐1990s the major alcohol companies took advantage of the intellectual inheritance and personnel provided by the tobacco industry when establishing ICAP. Key to this was an ICAP conference that resulted in Alcohol and pleasure: A health perspective (1999). Discussion and Conclusions: Not only did ARISE use alcohol to play a supporting role in a sophisticated tobacco industry strategy, the alcohol industry engaged with ARISE as part of its own strategy. This shows the importance of careful attention to corporate activities on the fringes of peer‐reviewed science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The Transformative Research on the Alcohol industry, Policy and Science (TRAPS) programme investigates the alcohol industry, with an innovative focus on public health sciences. TRAPS adds to an under‐developed literature on the study of alcohol industry influence on alcohol science and policymaking. This paper provides a synthesis of TRAPS findings to inform future research. Methods: We conducted an interpretive review of TRAPS research findings across its component studies, identifying and integrating the key contributions made by individual studies to the literature on alcohol policymaking and science, and identifying areas where TRAPS progress was limited. This produced themes for consideration in future research agenda setting. Results: TRAPS explored the interventions of the alcohol industry in science and policymaking using various methods, including systematic reviews and qualitative interviews. These studies identified the industry's activities in several key areas, such as the debate over minimum unit pricing (MUP), cardiovascular health and alcohol research and a long‐running public relations programme developed in close connection with the tobacco industry. Collectively, the research shows that alcohol policymaking has involved a contest between the research community and alcohol industry actors about whether and how science should be used to inform policy. Conclusions: The TRAPS programme demonstrates the need for a transdisciplinary approach to understand the nature of corporate political activity; the crucial role industry involvement in science plays in the development of corporate political power; and how public health actors have successfully overcome industry opposition to evidence‐based policies. Advances in alcohol policy should be underpinned by strong, reflexive public health sciences, alert to the role of industry in the alcohol harms under study and thorough in their investigation of the alcohol industry as an object of study in itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]