ICAP's LATEST REPORT ON ALCOHOL EDUCATION – A FLAWED PROCESS

Abstract

I applaud Professor Foxcroft (Foxcroft 2005) in his move to make visible concerns over quality and process in a publication from the International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP). His appropriate critiques of the ICAP document (International Center for Alcohol Policies 2004) are largely focused on coverage of alcohol education delivered to young people. The ICAP document also falls well short of adequate scientific standards in its review of ‘Alcohol Education for the General Public’. For example, the paragraph devoted to evidence of effectiveness of public service announcements cites, in support of the statement ‘that such measures can be successful and should be used more widely’ (International Center for Alcohol Policies 2004, p. 2), the authoritative review Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity (Babor et al. 2003). In fact Babor et al. (2003) assessed the substantial research on public service announcements as showing no evidence of effectiveness. The ICAP paragraph goes on to suggest that ‘while they [PSAs] may not be as useful for young people, there is evidence that they may be helpful in educating parents’ (International Center for Alcohol Policies 2004, p. 2). However, the one reference cited (Hornik et al. 2002) refers to an illicit drug campaign. While Foxcroft fulfils an important task by drawing attention to the scientific inadequacies in the ICAP report, he fails to contextualise the reasons for these inadequacies and therefore concludes optimistically that a significant change is likely to occur in the ICAP publishing operation. However, seen in the broader context of the purpose of ICAP and its publishing agenda, this is not so likely. After analysing previous publications in this series as well as other activities of ICAP, McCreanor et al. (2000; p. 180) argued ‘from a study of its publications and funding . . . ICAP has taken on a specialised (and legitimate task)—the promotion of an industry-favourable alcohol ideology’. The ICAP publication Alcohol Education and Its Effectiveness (International Center for Alcohol Policies 2004) is a further example of this. Looking at the broader picture it appears that ICAP's intention is not, in fact, to publish a robust review of the evidence but rather to produce and disseminate a brief, easily digested, apparently credible, review document which supports the use of an ineffective but popular response to alcohol-related harm. Such a document is of particular value, one imagines, in emerging economies where the race is on to assist the development of a strong drinking culture, by means of ‘consumer education’ by the alcohol industry. The ICAP report rightly acknowledges that ‘an individual's alcohol education encompasses all of the alcohol-related experiences of a lifetime’ (International Center for Alcohol Policies 2004; p. 1). It is regrettable therefore that this review did not deal with the ‘consumer education’ which is taking place throughout the world, using the most sophisticated technologies and creative approaches available (Casswell 2004), calling on enormous financial resources, and successfully increasing the likelihood that young people will begin to drink earlier and drink more (Babor et al. 2003). Ignoring this commercial involvement in alcohol education while reviewing school, family and community programmes and concluding ‘some alcohol education measures have been found to be highly effective . . .’ (International Center for Alcohol Policies 2004; p. 9) seems, not surprisingly, well in keeping with ICAP's ongoing industry-favourable agenda.