Australia’s alcohol industry continues to “manipulate, misuse and ignore evidence in attempts to influence policy,” a study which analysed submissions to the development of the national alcohol strategy has concluded.
In light of the study, doctors and health experts say the strategy excludes some of the most effective measures for reducing alcohol-related harm, and have blamed the effect of lobbying that exaggerated the benefits of drinking and misrepresented evidence.
Published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review, the study found alcohol industry submissions to the strategy consultation process did use peer-reviewed research, but it was often presented in a one-sided way, selectively quoted, or misrepresented.
“Overall, our study demonstrates that the alcohol industry continue to manipulate, misuse and ignore evidence in attempts to influence policy,” the study found.
The researchers examined all 96 submissions made to the government’s consultation process that informed the 2019-28 national plan to tackle harm from alcohol.
There were 12 submissions from the alcohol industry, including producers, retailers, peak bodies and industry-funded organisations. Despite strong evidence showing otherwise, three of the industry submissions asserted that drinking alcohol in moderation had health benefits; three argued that alcohol was not a causal factor for violence; and eight argued against a minimum unit price on alcohol and against strengthened pricing and taxation policies.
Research has shown even low levels of alcohol consumption can complicate a number of conditions including hypertension, atrial fibrillation (an irregular, rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow) and stroke caused by bleeding.
One alcohol industry submission claimed that a multicountry study showed “the net effect of alcohol consumption was to reduce adverse health outcomes”. But the study actually concluded drinking was “not associated with a net health benefit”.
There is also strong evidence of a causal relationship between drinking and violence.
None of the bodies contacted responded to a request for comment on the study’s findings.
The lead author of the study, Mia Miller from the Menzies school of health research at Charles Darwin University, said the strategy did not go far enough to regulate alcohol advertising.
“Our current system allows the alcohol industry to set its own rules, but evidence clearly shows that industry-self regulation does not work,” Miller said.
“The government should also review current lobbying and political donation rules that allow alcohol companies to donate large amounts of money to political parties. Unfortunately, the National Alcohol Strategy was watered down in its wording relating to alcohol advertising, and there is no discussion of political donations.”
Last Wednesday, the independent MP Dr Sophie Scamps, a GP, and seven other crossbenchers called on the government to more strongly regulate the marketing of harmful products, including alcohol.
Scamps described claims that the alcohol industry had undermined the national alcohol strategy as “concerning”.
“The current government should investigate these claims and if they are correct, should revisit the national alcohol strategy,” Scamps said.
“Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows alcohol-induced deaths are increasing, and as a GP, I know first-hand the harm alcohol can cause. When developing public health policy, it’s crucial government listens to health experts, and not industry.”
A report published in 2019 by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (Fare) analysed how industry influence led to revisions of the national alcohol strategy.
The president of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Dr Nicole Higgins, described the alcohol industry submissions to the strategy as “appalling”.
“I’m concerned that Big Alcohol is still subtly getting its way,” she said.
“For example, the authors point to one sentence in the strategy that originally read ‘implement regulatory measures to reduce alcohol advertising exposure to young people’, yet the final version omits the word ‘regulatory’. This is important because industry-run alcohol advertising initiatives are the equivalent of hitting someone with a wet lettuce leaf.”
Adjunct Prof Terry Slevin, the CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia, said many effective strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm long called for by health professionals – including higher taxes on higher alcohol-content drinks – were excluded from the strategy.
“I have no doubt that alcohol industry lobbying heavily influenced and watered down the National Alcohol Strategy,” he said.
The federal health minister, Mark Butler, said the strategy was developed with input from a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, public health experts, police, community-based organisations and researchers.
“There is no suggestion the strategy was influenced by alcohol lobby groups,” he said.
“The Australian government supports the development of public health policy that is free from commercial and other vested interests as outlined in the National Preventive Health Strategy 2021-2030, and other key national public health strategies including the National Tobacco Strategy 2023-2030.”
