SHAAP Policy and Public Affairs Officer, Helen McCabe reflects on her first month in the new role, the importance of evidence-based policy over industry lobbying and how the new WHO report uncovers industry tactics.
I joined SHAAP as Policy and Public Affairs Officer in October and since then I’ve learned a lot about the influence of industry on public health policy. Last week I attended the launch of the NCD Alliance Scotland report NCD Prevention: A Commercial Determinants of Health Approach where I heard about the clear conflict of interest when producers of health harming products help to set policy through extensive lobbying and (legal) opposition to public health measures.
Today the World Health Organization’s Alcohol Policy Playbook was published. This lays bare the manipulative tactics the alcohol industry employs across the globe, and myth-busts many of the lines they use to minimise the extent of alcohol harm.
The industry pretends that health harms are confined to people who are alcohol dependent when, in reality, even low levels of drinking present a risk to health. This can range from hangovers, anxiety, and antisocial behaviour to cardiovascular disease and cancer. The industry also continues to claim that there can be health benefits to moderate drinking, despite no safe level of alcohol consumption being established for health. This obfuscation about the real risks of drinking means that fewer than one in three Europeans know that alcohol increases cancer risk, and just 20% of women have the information necessary to make informed choices about alcohol consumption.
Consumers need to be careful about where we get our information from when it comes to drinking and health. Apps and websites backed by the alcohol industry such as Drinkaware have been found to contain misinformation which can actually encourage us to drink more. People should get their information from sources with no ties to the industry, like the NHS. Never forget – the industry’s main goal is to make a profit and that necessitates people drinking more, not less.
The industry does not only make misleading claims about the health risks of alcohol. Much is made of its economic contribution, and it frequently warns that any public health interventions such as restricting availability, increasing duty and regulating marketing will have a disastrous effect on the economy and lead to the loss of jobs. In reality, the cost of alcohol to the public purse is far greater. The cost of harmful drinking to the Scottish economy is estimated at around £1.2 billion a year, with a significant burden being placed on the NHS and the criminal justice system. Policies which lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption can have significant economic benefits and consumers are likely to redirect their spending elsewhere, while governments can reallocate savings made to public services.
The WHO playbook debunks several myths about public health interventions which can reduce alcohol harm. The industry has repeatedly questioned the efficacy of minimum unit pricing and presented it as targeting less wealthy alcohol users. However, pricing policies like MUP reduce consumption among heavy drinkers from all income groups, while those who are most deprived experience the greatest health benefits. A review by Public Health Scotland showed MUP has reduced deaths caused by alcohol by 13.4%. The evidence is clear. MUP saves lives.
The concept of harm reduction has become increasingly popular as the Scottish Government seeks to deal with the drug and alcohol public health emergencies. However, we need to be cautious that it is not co-opted by the industry who want decision makers to focus on alcohol-related harms (such as drink driving) without reducing alcohol consumption. Strategies which focus on education and personal behaviour change do not work at a population level, but the industry would have you believe they’re the answer to this public health emergency, because they don’t affect profit margins.
Population-wide interventions such as reducing hours of sale, restricting marketing and mandatory labelling, despite the industry claims that these are ineffective, are recommended by the WHO and other public health experts as being extremely valuable in tackling alcohol harm.
To evidence the power of the industry, however, alcohol continues to receive special treatment and avoid regulation. For instance, the industry self-regulates when it comes to labelling which means that you’ll often find more information on a bottle of orange juice than a bottle of vodka. We need to question why that is – don’t people deserve to know what they’re consuming? Why is alcohol not treated the same as other drink products? The answer lies in the industry’s lobbying of politicians who make the laws on food and drink regulation.
The WHO playbook makes clear the dangerous influence those with vested interests have on public health policy. We saw intense lobbying by the industry in the run up to the UK election and the budget and are likely to see similar before the 2026 Scottish election. It’s essential that politicians are aware of their motives and the tactics they use to hide the real risks attached to alcohol.
The Institute of Alcohol Studies has guidance on managing interactions with alcohol industry stakeholders which helps decision makers identify, manage and protect against conflicts of interest associated with alcohol industry involvement in public health policy. This and the playbook should be essential reading for all politicians.
It is time governments started listening to the experts rather than an industry aiming to make a profit.
SHAAP Blogposts are published with the permission of the authors. The views expressed are solely the authors’ own and do not necessarily represent the views of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems (SHAAP).