An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations

Abstract

Background Industry self-regulation is the dominant approach to managing alcohol advertising in Australia and many other countries. There is a need to explore the barriers to government adoption of more effective regulatory approaches. This study examined relevance and quality features of evidence cited by industry and non-industry actors in their submissions to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations. Methods Submissions to two public consultations with a primary focus on alcohol advertising policy were analysed. Submissions (n = 71) were classified into their actor type (industry or non-industry) and according to their expressed support for, or opposition to, increased regulation of alcohol advertising. Details of cited evidence were extracted and coded against a framework adapted from previous research (primary codes: subject matter relevance, type of publication, time since publication, and independence from industry). Evidence was also classified as featuring indicators of higher quality if it was either published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic source, published within 10 years of the consultation, and/or had no apparent industry connection. Results Almost two-thirds of submissions were from industry actors (n = 45 submissions from alcohol, advertising, or sporting industries). With few exceptions, industry actor submissions opposed increased regulation of alcohol advertising and non-industry actor submissions supported increased regulation. Industry actors cited substantially less evidence than non-industry actors, both per submission and in total. Only 27% of evidence cited by industry actors was highly relevant and featured at least two indicators of higher quality compared to 58% of evidence cited by non-industry actors. Conclusions Evaluation of the value of the evidentiary contribution of industry actors to consultations on alcohol advertising policy appears to be limited. Modifications to consultation processes, such as exclusion of industry actors, quality requirements for submitted evidence, minimum standards for referencing evidence, and requirements to declare potential conflicts, may improve the public health outcomes of policy consultations.

Do different actors submit different evidence to alcohol advertising policy consultations?

“…The primary strength of this study was the analysis of all cited journal articles across almost all submissions to two policy consultations, providing a comprehensive analysis of how peer‐reviewed evidence is differentially employed by actors. Other forms of cited evidence have been examined elsewhere [9]. As only self‐declared industry connections were assessed in a sub‐sample of journal articles, other connections may have been missed.…”

“…Data were submissions to two public consultations on alcohol advertising policy: Australian National Preventive Health Agency's 2012–2014 consultation on the effectiveness of alcohol advertising regulations ( n = 34 submissions) [7] and New South Wales (NSW) Parliament's 2017–2018 consultation on the NSW Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Prohibition Bill ( n = 42 submissions) [8]. The purpose and outcomes of each consultation are described elsewhere [9]. In total, 71 of 76 submissions were publicly available and included in analyses.…”

Unpacking assertions made by the alcohol industry and how they make them: An analysis of submissions into Australia's National Alcohol Strategy

“…A growing body of research both in Australia and internationally has analysed publicly available submissions into policy consultation processes. This evidence demonstrates that the alcohol industry consistently ignore, misrepresent and misuse high‐quality evidence and promote weak evidence for various alcohol policy issues, including drinking guidelines [6], alcohol advertising regulations [7], alcohol pregnancy warning labels [8] and taxation [9]. For example, the alcohol industry in Australia has claimed that industry self‐regulation of pregnancy warning labels [8] and alcohol marketing is sufficient [10], and that other industry‐led activities conducted by Social Aspect Public Relations Organisations (SAPRO) are effective [11], despite substantial evidence to the contrary [12–14].…”