The TRAPS research programme highlights the importance of researching the public-facing activities of the alcohol industry and other harmful industries. It is essential to remind ourselves and others that, however they present themselves, the alcohol industry and its front groups have no expertise in epidemiology or public health. This needs much greater research attention, and awareness-raising. There were several striking and important findings from McCambridge et al.’s Transformative Research on the Alcohol industry, Policy and Science (TRAPS) research programme [1], which merit further unpicking. One such arises from the analyses of the alcohol industry involvement in science, in particular the review showing the relationship between the findings of studies on alcohol and cardiovascular disease (CVD) and industry funding. While the independent evidence on a protective effect of alcohol on CVD is mixed, all reviews with industry funding reported a protective effect for low levels of consumption. This provides further evidence that alcohol industry funding influences research and, directly and indirectly, influences public and policy understanding of alcohol harms. While we know much about pharmaceutical, food, tobacco industry funding and the distorting effects on science, this is an area which remains relatively under-explored in relation to alcohol; in particular, the ways in which industry funding shapes not only outcomes (as in this study), but the research questions themselves. As is often the case, analyses of the activities of other harmful industries provide a valuable context that might shape further work. For example, in the case of research sponsored by the tobacco and e-cigarettes, alcohol and food industries [2-5], industry-funded research tends to preferentially focus upon particular research questions which aim to deflect attention from the industry or harmful commodity in question. We see this in the case of the alcohol industry, where research studies funded by them or their front organizations show a preferential focus upon peer pressure as a cause of underage drinking, rather than on the pervasive influence of alcohol marketing and advertising [6]. This focus upon peer pressure is also shown in tobacco industry research, reflecting what historian and analyst of the tobacco industry Robert Proctor has called ‘distraction science’ or ‘red herring research’ [2]. Coca-Cola’s funding of research on physical activity and ‘energy balance’ to deflect attention from the role of sugar-sweetened beverages in obesity might also be seen in this light [7]. Researchers involved in such partnerships may not feel pressured by their industry funders, nor do they need to be, as industry can easily shape the evidence base by only funding certain topics. Further analyses such as those in TRAPs are therefore important not only to identify and understand biases, but to raise awareness among researchers themselves about the visible and invisible mechanisms by which conflicts of interest work and the wider systemic effects beyond the individual study. There are few systematic, high-quality evidence syntheses such as that of Golder et al. [8], and further similar analyses would be of great value. As McCambridge et al. themselves note, TRAPs has only located the tip of the iceberg. What we need next is comprehensive documentation and analysis of what has been funded in other topic areas; of what topics and research questions were addressed (and not addressed) and how were they framed; and analysis of the framings employed. Beyond that, the crucial further step is to use the findings to inform new citation and document analyses to determine how the findings of those studies were subsequently cited and used by industry actors. This could involve analysing policy documents and industry submissions to consultations on new policies, as well as media analyses. Another important concept in the paper requires comment; the authors note ‘the importance of studying the fusion of political, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and marketing strategies and how they shape media and public understanding’. This is perhaps the greatest priority for future work. It could include analyses of the activities of alcohol industry (and other industry) organizations in public spaces, which appear to be growing rapidly. Industry activities in schools in the United Kingdom, Ireland and internationally are one example [9]. This poses a challenge to public health practitioners, policymakers and communities, as such organizations can appear to offer useful additional resources, including finance, which can be aimed at educating the public about alcohol harms. It is clear, however, that such activities are intended not to supplement legitimate independent resources and expertise, but to displace and replace them. It is therefore important to frequently remind ourselves (and others) that however they present themselves, the alcohol industry and its front groups have no expertise in epidemiology or public health. Their expertise lies in selling alcohol, and in devising strategies to defend and develop its markets. Often this involves the deployment of misinformation and disinformation, while posturing on public health issues [10, 11]. This is no different from tobacco industry, gambling industry or any other harmful industry CSR, and needs much greater research attention and awareness-raising. TRAPs has played an important role in raising awareness and setting the agenda. It is crucial that funders continue to support such research, to understand and combat the strategies of alcohol and other harmful industries, and to protect the public. None. None.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Just Published
Apr 23, 2024
Dong Lv + 5
Open Access