Between a rock and a hard place: Economic expansion and social responsibility in UK media discourses on the global alcohol industry

Co-regulation and alcohol industry political strategy: A case study of the Public Health England-Drinkaware Drink Free Days Campaign

This article examines the Drink Free Days (DFD) campaign run by Public Health England and the industry funded alcohol education charity, Drinkaware, in eight English regions in 2018-2019. More specifically, it examines uses, and usefulness, of the campaign to the alcohol producers which fund Drinkaware. It draws on 36 semi-structured interviews with policy actors and a framing analysis of industry social media accounts and news coverage of the campaign. Industry-associated bodies such as Drinkaware have been identified as key components of alcohol industry strategies to influence policy and shape the regulatory contexts in which they operate in three ways. First, funding such bodies forms part of corporate social responsibility programmes which allow companies to position themselves as legitimate policy actors and 'part of the solution' to alcohol related harms. Second, reliance on industry funding incentivises governments to co-operate with industry actors and provides leverage in policy debates. Third, their programmes absorb policy bandwidth and deflect from more effective, evidence based interventions (e.g. on pricing and advertising) which affect industry sales and profits. This is particularly effective if the perception of independence from the industry is created. The analysis presented below suggests that the DFD was not used explicitly by the industry actors for public relations purposes. However, it was useful to their broader strategic aims. It reinforced the position of Drinkaware as a key policy actor and promoted the particular, industry-favoured understanding of alcohol harms and their solutions which it promotes. This is in keeping with the previous insights from international research literature on corporate political activity in health harming industries which finds that policy influence is often subtle, indirect and designed to embed organisations within the policy architecture. It suggests that government agencies should proceed with great caution in entering into such partnerships with industry associated bodies.

The impact of promoting revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption: interrupted time series analysis

Background

The UK’s Chief Medical Officers revised the UK alcohol drinking guidelines in 2016 to ≤ 14 units per week (1 unit = 10 ml/8 g ethanol) for men and women. Previously, the guideline stated that men should not regularly consume more than 3–4 units per day and women should not regularly consume more than 2–3 units per day.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of promoting revised UK drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption.

Design

Interrupted time series analysis of observational data.

Setting

England, March 2014 to October 2017.

Participants

A total of 74,388 adults aged ≥ 16 years living in private households in England.

Interventions

Promotion of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome – alcohol consumption measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score. Secondary outcomes – average weekly consumption measured using graduated frequency, monthly alcohol consumption per capita adult (aged ≥ 16 years) derived from taxation data, monthly number of hospitalisations for alcohol poisoning (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: T51.0, T51.1 and T51.9) and assault (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: X85–Y09), and further measures of influences on behaviour change.

Data sources

The Alcohol Toolkit Study, a monthly cross-sectional survey and NHS Digital’s Hospital Episode Statistics.

Results

The revised drinking guidelines were not subject to large-scale promotion after the initial January 2016 announcement. An analysis of news reports found that mentions of the guidelines were mostly factual, and spiked during January 2016. In December 2015, the modelled average Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score was 2.719 out of 12.000 and was decreasing by 0.003 each month. After the January 2016 announcement, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption scores did not decrease significantly (β = 0.001, 95% confidence interval –0.079 to 0.099). However, the trend did change significantly such that scores subsequently increased by 0.005 each month (β = 0.008, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.015). This change is equivalent to 0.5% of the population moving each month from drinking two or three times per week to drinking four or more times per week. Secondary analyses indicated that the change in trend began 6 months before the guideline announcement. The secondary outcome measures showed conflicting results, with no significant changes in consumption measures and no substantial changes in influences on behaviour change, but immediate reductions in hospitalisations of 7.3% for assaults and 15.4% for alcohol poisonings.

Limitations

The pre-intervention data collection period was only 2 months for influences on behaviour change and the graduated frequency measure. Our conclusions may be generalisable only to scenarios in which guidelines are announced but not promoted.

Conclusions

The announcement of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines was not associated with clearly detectable changes in drinking behaviour. Observed reductions in alcohol-related hospitalisations are unlikely to be attributable to the revised guidelines. Promotion of the guidelines may have been prevented by opposition to the revised guidelines from the government's alcohol industry partners or because reduction in alcohol consumption was not a government priority or because practical obstacles prevented independent public health organisations from promoting the guidelines. Additional barriers to the effectiveness of guidelines may include low public understanding and a need for guidelines to engage more with how drinkers respond to and use them in practice.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15189062.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Media Coverage of Alcohol Issues: A Critical Political Economy Framework-A Case Study from Ireland

There is a growing literature on news media representations of alcohol-related issues. However, current scholarship has neglected critical political economic frameworks to interpret media coverage of alcohol. This paper presents such a framework that conceives of news organisations as corporations that share the values and interests of political and economic elites. The media are thus expected to present viewpoints that are more aligned with the alcohol industry than the scientific consensus on public health policy would warrant. The media are also expected, but to a lesser extent, to present a certain amount of support for public health perspectives because these are supported by a few socioeconomic elite groups (the medical professions, progressive politicians). The case of Ireland from 2012 to 2017 illustrates the framework empirically. Four main newspapers’ coverage of the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill and related policies is examined. Results show that, overall, 44.0% of articles support public health measures and 56.0% are opposed or remain neutral. It is argued that the media are not strong proponents of public health for multiple reasons: there are more articles opposed to or neutral toward public health measures than supporting them; the number of supportive articles remains relatively small and there are still many pieces presenting drinks industry views; there are virtually no calls in the media for stronger measures; supportive coverage is partially explained by the pub owners lobby’s support for minimum unit pricing; the media often downplay or ignore the negative consequences of alcohol, such as its role in accidents; many news articles normalise drinking and promote events sponsored by the industry; there is not a single Irish journalist covering alcohol issues systematically; and other policy issues that are prioritised by elites receive multiple times more media coverage than public health measures. In short, the media reflect the views of the political and economic establishment on public health measures: there is some support from the medical professions and progressive politicians, but overall, there is a clear reluctance to support strong public health strategies. One main recommendation for public health advocates to promote their perspectives is to diversify the mass media and make them less commercial in nature, as well as to engage with non-corporate, so-called progressive “alternative media” outlets.