Thread by @spidermaani

This is an example of the strategic value of industry-funded alcohol information charities.The Scotch Whisky Association, as the spear tip of wider industry opposition, has spent years opposing evidence-based alcohol policy, including through legal action on MUP. #CDoH 🧵

After MUP was voted into law (ie, democracy worked), industry (represented by SWA) took the government all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to get it overturned, and succeeded in getting it delayed through that time bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla…

As the recent MUP evaluations show, many lives were likely saved by the policy once it came into force, and the industries claims of potential impact on business turned out to be exaggerated scotsman.com/health/minimum…

But legal fights against policy are only part of a wider strategy. There is a parallel effort to frame alcohol harms as being a matter of personal responsibility, and to position the industry as being a partner in public health rather than a cause of harm or consumption

https://twitter.com/LancetGastroHep/status/1645673961525501953

And this is where funding charities like DrinkAware, and signposting to them like the industry does above, comes in. It makes them look like they care about the public getting “the facts”. But note the framing is about “responsible drinking” academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/art…

IE, individual responsibility, not us. Speaking of which, on such a charity website, you won’t see “the facts” on MUP, or about the WHO Best Buys to reduce alcohol harm, or about the role of the industry, like you might find from an independent charity ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

And what is there on harms has been found to contain dark nudges (ie pro alcohol behavioral prompts), and sludge (aspects that make it harder to access the most important information) onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…

In fact, an RCT of quotes from a range of industry funded organizations on the links between products and specific harms found they actually increased uncertainty about harms compared to those from independent orgs, and by quite a margin: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

All convenient for an industry that is actively opposing policy and disputing harms. Mounting evidence of these issues, and community action, has led to I-Mark, a civil society effort to reduce industry influence alcoholforum.org/i-mark/ @AlcoholForum

With recent developments in relation to the alcohol advertising restrictions in Scotland, it is important that industry don’t use these sort of organizations to engage in policy substitution, in watering down what med and civil society are calling for: bmj.com/content/381/bm…

If you want the facts in relation to alcohol in Scotland, don’t listen to the Scotch Whiskey Association, or any other organizations the alcohol industry funds. Listen to the experts, listen to civil society. @InstAlcStud @AlcoholFocus @WHO @SPECTRUMRes

@petticrewmark @maizie333 @AlisonDouglas18 @AlcoholIreland @globalgapa @AlcoholFocus @LindaBauld @SimonCapewell99 @martinmckee @DoctorChrisVT @TheScotsman @mikakosinska @Juan_E_Tello @Movendi_Int