What is it about?
Alcohol industry submissions to the Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee's 2011 call for written evidence on the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill were assessed for their use of peer-reviewed evidence. All peer-reviewed evidenced employed in alcohol industry submissions were assessed against the original evidence source. We determined that 82% of peer-reviewed evidence was questionably cited with examples of evidenced used in misleading and inaccurate ways.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The findings presented in this paper add to the growing literature which highlights a need for policymakers to carefully examine alcohol industry claims about potential (and existing) policy efforts to reduce alcohol-related harm, especially where any such policy may be perceived as a threat to industry profitability.
Perspectives
It has been a great pleasure to write this article with such accomplished and supportive co-authors. Evidence plays an important role in policy, and I think it is necessary that policymakers are aware of how commercial industry actors use evidence in ways favourable to their industry, but which may be misleading, false and misaligned with public health goals. I hope readers find this work interesting and there is more work published in this area of research.
Dana Cullen
University of Edinburgh
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: 'Half-cut' science: a qualitative examination of alcohol industry actors' use of peer-reviewed evidence in policy submissions on Minimum Unit Pricing, Evidence & Policy, February 2019, Policy Press,
DOI: 10.1332/174426417x15071939491726.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
