Browsing by Author "Rossow I"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessing alcohol industry penetration and government safeguards: the International Alcohol Control Study
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2024-11-24) Leung JYY; Casswell S; Randerson S; Athauda L; Banavaram A; Callinan S; Campbell O; Chaiyasong S; Dearak S; Dumbili EW; Romero-García L; Gururaj G; Kalapat R; Karki K; Karlsson T; Kong M; Liu S; Maldonado Vargas ND; Gonzalez-Mejía JF; Naimi T; Nthomang K; Oladunni O; Owino K; Herrera Palacio JC; Phatchana P; Pradhan PMS; Rossow I; Shorter G; Sibounheuang V; Štelemėkas M; Son DT; Vallance K; van Dalen W; Wettlaufer A; Zamora A; Jankhotkaew J; Veitch E
    BACKGROUND: The alcohol industry uses many of the tobacco industry's strategies to influence policy-making, yet unlike the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, there is no intergovernmental guidance on protecting policies from alcohol industry influence. Systematic assessment of alcohol industry penetration and government safeguards is also lacking. Here, we aimed to identify the nature and extent of industry penetration in a cross-section of jurisdictions. Using these data, we suggested ways to protect alcohol policies and policy-makers from undue industry influence. METHODS: As part of the International Alcohol Control Study, researchers from 24 jurisdictions documented whether 22 indicators of alcohol industry penetration and government safeguards were present or absent in their location. Several sources of publicly available information were used, such as government or alcohol industry reports, websites, media releases, news articles and research articles. We summarised the responses quantitatively by indicator and jurisdiction. We also extracted examples provided of industry penetration and government safeguards. RESULTS: There were high levels of alcohol industry penetration overall. Notably, all jurisdictions reported the presence of transnational alcohol corporations, and most (63%) reported government officials or politicians having held industry roles. There were multiple examples of government partnerships or agreements with the alcohol industry as corporate social responsibility activities, and government incentives for the industry in the early COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, government safeguards against alcohol industry influence were limited, with only the Philippines reporting a policy to restrict government interactions with the alcohol industry. It was challenging to obtain publicly available information on multiple indicators of alcohol industry penetration. CONCLUSION: Governments need to put in place stronger measures to protect policies from alcohol industry influence, including restricting interactions and partnerships with the alcohol industry, limiting political contributions and enhancing transparency. Data collection can be improved by measuring these government safeguards in future studies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparing alcohol policy environments in high-income jurisdictions with the International Alcohol Control Policy Index.
    (John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, 2025-02-23) Casswell S; Randerson S; Parker K; Huckle T; Callinan S; Campbell O; Karlsson T; Rossow I; Shorter G; Štelemėkas M; Vallance K; van Dalen W; Wettlaufer A
    INTRODUCTION: Considerable evidence exists on the most effective policy to reduce alcohol harm; however, a tool and index to allow comparisons of policy status of the most effective policies between similar jurisdictions and change over time within a jurisdiction has not been widely used. The International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index is designed to address this gap and monitor the alcohol policy environment with regard to four effective policy domains (tax/pricing, availability, marketing and drink driving). METHODS: This study compares IAC Policy Index scores across 11 high-income jurisdictions: Aotearoa (Māori language name for New Zealand); Australia; Finland; Norway; the Netherlands; (Republic of Ireland; Lithuania; Ontario; Alberta; Quebec; British Columbia). Collaborators in the 11 high-income jurisdictions populated the online Alcohol Policy Tool with available indicators. The team in Aotearoa New Zealand sought to validate information and worked with collaborators to clarify any uncertainties in the data. RESULTS: Lithuania, Norway, Finland and Ireland scored above average on the IAC Policy Index. The jurisdictions varied in terms of the strength of policy in different domains, with drink driving legislation showing the greatest consistency and marketing the strongest relationship between stringency of policy and impact on the ground. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Results in high-income jurisdictions suggested the IAC Policy Index provides a useful overview of core alcohol policy status, allows for comparisons between jurisdictions and has the potential to be useful in alcohol policy debate.