A public health approach to gambling regulation: countering powerful influences

Abstract

Often portrayed as a harmless leisure activity in the UK, gambling is being increasingly recognised as a public health concern. However, a gambling policy system that explicitly tackles public health concerns and confronts the dependencies and conflicts of interest that undermine the public good is absent in the UK. Although there is a window of opportunity to change the gambling policy system, with the UK Government's launch of a review of the Gambling Act 2005, the adoption of a comprehensive and meaningful public health approach is not guaranteed. Too often, government policy has employed discourses that align more closely with those of the gambling industry than with those of the individuals, families, and communities affected by the harms of gambling. In view of the well described commercial determinants of health and corporate behaviour, an immense effort will be needed to shift the gambling discourse to protect public health. In this Viewpoint, we seek to advance this agenda by identifying elements that need challenging and stimulating debate.

A Psiquiatria em Diálogo com a Sociedade

“…Em Portugal, os níveis crescentes de consumo de jogo online 12 e de raspadinhas 13 parecem configurar os principais focos de preocupação. Como bem expõe um artigo recentemente publicado na revista Lancet Public Health, 14 as autoridades governamentais e as instituições com interesses económicos no jogo têm montado um discurso repleto de falácias que visa perpetuar um negócio que gera milhões de euros de lucros. Tal como sucedeu com a indústria do tabaco e álcool no passado, as instituições que lucram com o jogo, em articulação com os governos, utilizam várias estratégias comunicacionais falaciosas 14 : 1) procuram descredibilizar a evidência que demonstra os efeitos nefastos do jogo, atacando a sua qualidade, mas nunca apresentam evidência científica que a contrarie; 2) alegam dispor de programas de "jogo responsável" que não têm sustentação científica nem evidência independente de eficácia; 3) confundem a opinião pública, desvalorizando os problemas de jogo patológico e explorando causas alternativas para esses comportamentos; 4) atacam a regulamentação com o argumento de que favorece o jogo ilegal apesar de não existir evidência nesse sentido; 5) utilizam as contribuições para ações de caridade e a importância dos impostos recolhidos como justificação social para a sua existência apesar de se tratar de uma indústria que não cria riqueza mas apenas a redistribui dinheiro; 6) utilizam argumentos relacionados com a liberdade e o equilíbrio entre o direito ao jogo dos "vencedores" e a proteção da saúde dos jogadores patológicos.…”

The politics and fantasy of the gambling education discourse: An analysis of gambling industry-funded youth education programmes in the United Kingdom

“…These developments have had considerable harmful impacts on many individuals, families, and communities, with an important example being the United Kingdom (UK), where gambling policy changes have rendered it one of the most liberalised markets in the world ( Cassidy, 2020 ; House of Lords Select Committee, 2020 ; Public Health England, 2021 ; Sulkunen et al, 2021 ). As in other jurisdictions, the concept of ‘responsible gambling’ has emerged as a central pillar in UK gambling policy ( Cassidy, 2020 ), a highly contested policy topic ( van Schalkwyk et al, 2021a ).…”

Regulatory Resistance? Narratives and Uses of Evidence around “Black Market” Provision of Gambling during the British Gambling Act Review

“…As such, framing is about agenda setting, policy formation and resource allocation [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Reflecting this, researchers [ 1 , 18 ] advocated for taking a systematic approach to understanding the actions of the unhealthy commodities industries, including gambling, in an attempt to restrain public health action. Knai et al [ 1 ] argued for the need to “focus on the narratives constructed by political actors attempting to frame political problems, attribute responsibility for them and advocate particular solutions”.…”