Protecting their paymasters

Abstract

Three fundamental questions arise from this excellent paper 1: how independent is independent; who should be responsible for providing health information about harmful products to the community; and is there any role for organizations such as Drinkaware and Drinkwise beyond promoting the interests of the alcohol industry? First, independence. Both Drinkaware and Drinkwise proclaim repeatedly that they are ‘independent’ 2, 3; but both organizations were established and are funded by the alcohol industry. Their Boards include substantial alcohol company membership. They support approaches that cause the alcohol industry no discomfort, and appear to avoid positions or policies that research has shown over the years might harm the industry's sales or interests—no support, for example, for the kind of action on tax recommended by health authorities, curbs on alcohol advertising and promotion, effective health warnings, strong, hard-hitting public education or measures that significantly reduce access. They imply medical support, naming a few doctors and researchers who are willing to participate in their committees. Drinkwise refers to committee members as ‘community representatives’ 4, although these are simply individuals chosen through methods that are opaque (an issue common to both organizations in relation to committee membership), usually in receipt of substantial fees, and representing nobody other than themselves. These organizations are not independent. Their repeated claims of ‘independence’ fit well with the principles of the ‘Big Lie'—‘when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it’ 5. Second, responsibility for providing health information about harmful products. Alcohol and tobacco companies (like their junk food counterparts) increasingly seek to present themselves—both directly and through funded organizations—as objective providers of health information about their products, and appropriate sources of educational resources for both adults and children. Tobacco has a long history of lying about health, and yet again has recently been stepping up its efforts to play a role in health information, education and policy. Alcohol companies develop, produce and promote products for the youth market; junk food companies are even more overt about targeting children; and all three industries are closely linked. They all want to be seen as reliable sources of health information through their own websites, materials and programmes and industry organizations such as Drinkaware (‘Our aim is to be a leading provider of information and education on alcohol for consumers, parents, professionals and other stakeholders’; ‘We've got the answers’) 2; and Drinkwise (‘Get the Facts—Drinkwise.com.au’) 3. The education programmes run by these groups are clearly intended to pre-empt the kind of hard-hitting campaigns that have worked so well in tobacco as part of a comprehensive approach—especially in the absence of tobacco promotion. The last people who should be given any responsibility for education on alcohol or tobacco are the very companies that spend billions of dollars marketing their products to potential consumers of all ages and seeking to avoid any curbs on their promotional activities. Governments that support such exercises know perfectly well that they are conniving in a pretence. Health information and messages should come from health authorities, not the 21st century's most successful drug peddlers. Third, the role of Drinkaware and Drinkwise. Nobody—governments, health authorities, consumers—should have any doubt that these organizations exist solely to serve the interests of their alcohol industry funders. Far from being ‘evidence-based’ 3, they avoid involvement in key policy areas where the evidence shows that action would reduce alcohol harms. Their role is to protect their paymasters through ineffective programmes, involvement in policy discussions and distraction from measures that work. They are a sham, with as much claim to independence or credibility as the ‘Coca Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness’ 6. Anyone involved with them should bear in mind that they are supporting an alcohol industry promotional programme, and both directly and indirectly helping to prevent the implementation of effective, evidence-based policy. None.