Reply to the critics on "binge drinking and alcohol prices".

Jon P Nelson

doi:10.1186/s13561-016-0084-8

Abstract

Xuan et al. [1] offer several “interpretive” comments on my systematic review [2] of binge drinking and alcohol prices, including comments concerning selection and interpretation of primary studies, alternative methodologies, and supporting literatures. Prior to addressing these issues, it is important to layout what has transpired in the addiction field as reflected in the editorial policies of the academic journal, Addiction, for which Professor Babor was Associate Editor-in-Chief. This provides context to faulty comments made by Xuan et al. [1]. Starting in 2009 or earlier, Addiction has engaged in a campaign against publication of any academic alcohol research that received industry support or sponsorship [3–6]. As stated by Stenius and Babor ([6], p. 191), “. . . all financial relationships with the alcoholic beverage industry are [best] avoided”. Censorship always begins with appeals to base emotions and feelings, so the campaign is surrounded with emotion-laden words that make for entertaining reading – such as “transparency,” “vested interests,” “gatekeepers,” and of course “biased findings.” Economists generally welcome open debate in the marketplace for ideas regardless of source, including contributions from researchers who rely heavily on “non-profit” financial support. For my own part, I acknowledged support received from the International Center for Alcohol Policies ([2], p. 11). All of my publications supported by ICAP contain the same declaration, and I see no reason to go beyond a simple, direct statement. Other related work that has been dormant for a decade is irrelevant and -- as I work independently as well -- did not result in research publications. That some of my conclusions do not coincide with those of Xuan et al. is to be expected in any area of scientific research. Scientific inquiry should be associated with a diversity of ideas, methods, and results, and not the monolithic approach advocated by Babor and associates.

Highlights

Xuan et al [1] offer several “interpretive” comments on my systematic review [2] of binge drinking and alcohol prices, including comments concerning selection and interpretation of primary studies, alternative methodologies, and supporting literatures
Babor and associates state the following about advantages of different primary studies, data collections, and methodologies: “Studies of what happens when there is a change – an implemented or discontinued intervention – provide the most valuable evidence on the effects of alcohol policy . . . the various modes of data collection have different advantages and drawbacks . . . [but] in general, as one moves from individual-level to population-level interventions, the utility of [controlled] experimental methods becomes problematic
Past metaanalyses of alcohol prices and alcohol-related harms are deeply flawed by incomplete data sets; lack of comparable quantitative measures; improper weighting of average effect-sizes; lack of controls for publication bias; lack of adjustments for non-independent observations; failure to properly employ meta-regression techniques; and other econometric problems

Summary

Introduction

Xuan et al [1] offer several “interpretive” comments on my systematic review [2] of binge drinking and alcohol prices, including comments concerning selection and interpretation of primary studies, alternative methodologies, and supporting literatures. Interpretation and selection of several primary studies My systematic review of binge drinking [2] examines 56 econometric studies, five natural experiments, and six field studies. Xuan et al [1] object to my summary of a study, Xuan et al [8], containing “diverse” results for youth binge drinking.

Results

Conclusion