Industry Actor Use of Research Evidence: Critical Analysis of Australian Alcohol Policy Submissions

Stafford, Julia; Kypri, Kypros; Pettigrew, Simone

doi:10.15288/jsad.2020.81.710

Cited by 16 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with Allen and Clarke's analysis of submissions to the New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship [16]. In the present study, the substantial participation of advertising and media organisations (accounting for 32% of analysed submissions), alongside major sporting bodies (3% of submissions), reflects the position of these industries as close allies of the alcohol industry in resisting advertising controls [8,49]. This has previously been observed in the active roles of these industries in resisting tobacco advertising bans [40,50].…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiessupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The sustained burden of alcohol-caused harm has required governments to consider regulatory options for reducing levels of harm and associated public costs [1,2]. Stakeholder consultation is a common part of government policy development processes [3,4], including for alcohol policy [5][6][7][8]. Public consultation processes typically involve a general call for submissions [4], providing an opportunity for stakeholders to connect decision-makers with evidence and shape how the policy matter is perceived.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, few requirements or conditions are placed on submissions to public consultations in terms of who may submit them, how they are presented, or the veracity of their content [6,9,10]. Concerns about the participation of alcohol industry actors in public health policy consultations have been raised by health and academic stakeholders due to the industry's conflicts of interest and documented behaviours of distorting and denying evidence [5,7,8,[11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common industry claims include that alcohol brands are marketed responsibly and only to adults in compliance with self-regulatory codes, making increased regulation unnecessary. Claims of adverse unintended consequences of regulation are also common and often relate to the cost of compliance, job losses in associated industries, and discouragement of healthier product development [8]. Industry actors have also argued that the evidence base is insufficient to support proposals to regulate further, as advertising is simply intended to inform consumer brand selection and influence market share [8,15,39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Industry self-regulation is the dominant approach to managing alcohol advertising in Australia and many other countries. There is a need to explore the barriers to government adoption of more effective regulatory approaches. This study examined relevance and quality features of evidence cited by industry and non-industry actors in their submissions to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations. Methods Submissions to two public consultations with a primary focus on alcohol advertising policy were analysed. Submissions (n = 71) were classified into their actor type (industry or non-industry) and according to their expressed support for, or opposition to, increased regulation of alcohol advertising. Details of cited evidence were extracted and coded against a framework adapted from previous research (primary codes: subject matter relevance, type of publication, time since publication, and independence from industry). Evidence was also classified as featuring indicators of higher quality if it was either published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic source, published within 10 years of the consultation, and/or had no apparent industry connection. Results Almost two-thirds of submissions were from industry actors (n = 45 submissions from alcohol, advertising, or sporting industries). With few exceptions, industry actor submissions opposed increased regulation of alcohol advertising and non-industry actor submissions supported increased regulation. Industry actors cited substantially less evidence than non-industry actors, both per submission and in total. Only 27% of evidence cited by industry actors was highly relevant and featured at least two indicators of higher quality compared to 58% of evidence cited by non-industry actors. Conclusions Evaluation of the value of the evidentiary contribution of industry actors to consultations on alcohol advertising policy appears to be limited. Modifications to consultation processes, such as exclusion of industry actors, quality requirements for submitted evidence, minimum standards for referencing evidence, and requirements to declare potential conflicts, may improve the public health outcomes of policy consultations.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Studiessupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…53 On the other hand, a less studied facet of the interface between public health policy, evidence, and corporations is the strategic use of evidence within the policymaking process. Existing public health research on this topic has focused predominantly on tobacco control [56][57][58] and alcohol policy, [59][60][61] with only two articles, to our knowledge, systematically exploring use of evidence within dietary NCD policy. 28 62 Largely divisible into two analytical strands, examinations of the nature of evidence used by commercial actors and of how this evidence or, more broadly, the concept of evidence are used.…”

Section: Bmj Global Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercial use of evidence in public health policy: a critical assessment of food industry submissions to global-level consultations on non-communicable disease prevention

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUltra-processed food industry (UPFI) actors have consistently opposed statutory regulation in health policy debates, including at the WHO. They do so most commonly with claims that regulatory policies do not work, will have negative consequences or that alternatives such as self-regulation work well or better. Underlying this are often assertions that industry is aligned with principles of evidence-based policymaking. In this study, we interrogate if this holds true by exploring the extent and quality of the evidence UPFI respondents employed to support claims around regulatory policy, and how they did this.MethodsFirst, we identified all submissions from organisations who overtly represent UPFI companies to consultations held by the WHO on non-communicable disease policy between 2016 and 2018. Second, we extracted all relevant factual claims made in these submissions and noted if any evidence was referenced in support. Third, we assessed the quality of evidence using independence from UPFI, nature, and publication route as indicators. Lastly, where peer-reviewed research was cited, we examined if the claims made could be justified by the source cited.ResultsAcross 26 included consultation responses, factual claims around regulation were made in 18, although only 10 referenced any evidence at all. Of all 114 claims made, 39 pieces of identifiable evidence were cited in support of 56 claims. Of the 39 distinct pieces of evidence, two-thirds were industry-funded or industry-linked, with only 16 externally peer-reviewed. Over half of industry-funded or industry-linked academic articles failed to declare a conflict of interest (COI). Overall, of only six claims which drew on peer-reviewed and independent research, none appropriately represented the source.DiscussionUPFI respondents made far-reaching claims which were rarely supported by high-quality, independent evidence. This indicates that there may be few, if any, benefits from consulting actors with such a clear COI.

show abstract

A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of combinations of ‘why to reduce’ and ‘how to reduce’ alcohol harm-reduction communications

Pettigrew

Booth

Jongenelis

et al. 2021

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industry Actor Use of Research Evidence: Critical Analysis of Australian Alcohol Policy Submissions

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations

An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations

Commercial use of evidence in public health policy: a critical assessment of food industry submissions to global-level consultations on non-communicable disease prevention

A randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of combinations of ‘why to reduce’ and ‘how to reduce’ alcohol harm-reduction communications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About