Reconsidering our low-risk alcohol advice: The dark influence of the alcohol industry – Public Health Communication Centre

Report on Alcohol-Related Harm and Policy Integrity in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report examines the growing scientific consensus on the health risks associated with alcohol consumption and the significant challenges posed by alcohol industry interference to public health policy. A review of current evidence indicates no safe level of alcohol use, directly impacting the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3): Good Health and Well-being. While Aotearoa New Zealand’s review of its Low-Risk Drinking Advice (LRDA) is a crucial step towards aligning with global health standards, this process is threatened by industry tactics that undermine effective governance and public trust, contravening the principles of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This report outlines the evidence of harm, details industry interference strategies, and provides recommendations to safeguard public health policy, thereby advancing the nation’s commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. The Public Health Imperative: Reassessing Alcohol Harm and its Impact on SDG 3

1.1. Evolving Scientific Evidence on Alcohol Consumption

Recent large-scale studies have invalidated previous beliefs that low levels of alcohol consumption may confer health benefits. The current scientific consensus confirms a clear dose-response relationship between alcohol use and the risk of numerous chronic diseases. This evidence underscores that any level of alcohol consumption carries health risks, making the reduction of harmful alcohol use a critical target for achieving SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.

• Methodological flaws in earlier studies claiming health benefits have been identified and corrected.
• Current research consistently finds no net health benefit from alcohol consumption.
• Increased risk of illness and premature mortality is evident even at low consumption levels.
• Disproportionate harm is experienced by Māori, Pacific, and other communities, highlighting a challenge to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

1.2. Global Policy Alignment and National Review

In response to this evidence, many nations have revised their LRDA to lower recommended consumption limits. Aotearoa New Zealand’s 2024 review of its 2011 guidelines is a vital measure to provide the public with accurate health information, enabling informed choices and supporting the objectives of SDG 3.5 (Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including harmful use of alcohol).

1. The UK recommends no more than 14 drinks per week.
2. Australia recommends no more than 10 drinks per week.
3. Canada recommends no more than two drinks per week.
4. Aotearoa New Zealand’s current guidelines (15 drinks for men, 10 for women) are outdated and under review.

2. Industry Interference: A Threat to SDG 16 and Effective Governance

2.1. Commercial Determinants of Health

The alcohol industry employs strategies, similar to those used by the tobacco industry, that actively obstruct evidence-based public health initiatives. These actions represent a significant barrier to developing the effective, accountable, and transparent institutions required under SDG 16. The industry’s primary objective is to protect commercial interests, often at the expense of population health and sustainable development.

2.2. Tactics of Industry Influence

The industry’s interference operates across three key domains, systematically weakening public health governance:

• Influencing Governance and Policy:
  • Lobbying government officials to weaken regulations.
  • Promoting industry-friendly, localized solutions over coordinated global strategies.
  • Framing alcohol harm as an issue of individual responsibility to deflect from corporate accountability.
  • Creating public relations organizations to promote industry narratives.
• Shaping and Obscuring Scientific Evidence:
  • Funding research designed to minimize evidence of harm.
  • Creating academic “controversies” to undermine scientific consensus.
  • Promoting ineffective “solutions” that do not reduce alcohol-related harm.
• Influencing Public Understanding:
  • Funding charities and non-profits that misrepresent evidence on alcohol-related harm, including links to cancer.
  • Providing school-based “education” programs that normalize alcohol use and shift blame to individuals.

These actions directly compromise the integrity of the policy-making process and hinder progress towards national health and development goals.

3. Recommendations for Policy Coherence and Sustainable Development

To mitigate industry influence and ensure that public health policy serves the public interest, the following measures are recommended. These actions will strengthen institutional integrity (SDG 16) and promote better health outcomes (SDG 3).

1. Advocate for a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control: Replicate the successful WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to limit industry interference on a global scale, fostering international partnership as envisioned in SDG 17.
2. Strengthen Governance and Transparency: Implement stricter controls and transparent monitoring of political lobbying and donations. Introduce “cooling off” periods to prevent movement between government and industry roles, ensuring policy is driven by public interest, not commercial profit.
3. Prevent Industry Misinformation: Prohibit alcohol industry involvement in school-based education and tighten regulations on marketing and public-facing campaigns to ensure the public receives accurate, evidence-based health information.
4. Update National Health Guidance: Finalize the review of Aotearoa New Zealand’s LRDA to reflect the scientific consensus that no level of alcohol use is without risk, a foundational step for public health protection.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article’s primary focus is on the health risks associated with alcohol consumption, including chronic diseases and premature mortality. It discusses the need for evidence-based public health advice to promote well-being.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: The article addresses the issue of misinformation and the alcohol industry’s influence on public understanding, particularly through “alcohol education” programs in schools that misrepresent evidence and normalize alcohol use.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The text highlights that certain communities, specifically “Māori, Pacific and other communities,” experience disproportionate harm from alcohol, pointing to a need to address health inequalities.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article extensively discusses the alcohol industry’s interference in policymaking through lobbying, political donations, and shaping research. It calls for stronger, more transparent, and accountable institutions to protect public health policy from commercial interests.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  • Target 3.4: Reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases. The article directly connects alcohol use to an “increased risk of illness and early death” and the “development of many chronic health conditions,” which are non-communicable diseases.
  • Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including the harmful use of alcohol. The entire article is centered on mitigating the harmful use of alcohol by updating low-risk drinking advice (LRDA) and countering industry tactics that undermine harm reduction efforts.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  • Target 4.7: Ensure all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed for sustainable lifestyles. The article critiques industry-led “alcohol education” programs in schools for providing misleading information. It advocates for preventing this misinformation to ensure the public, including children, receives accurate, evidence-based health information.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The article points out that “Māori, Pacific and other communities who experience disproportionate harms from alcohol.” Addressing this issue aligns with reducing health outcome inequalities among different population groups.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article calls for “stricter controls and transparent monitoring of political lobbying and donations” and measures to prevent a “revolving door” between government and industry, aiming to make policymaking institutions more accountable to the public interest rather than commercial interests.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, and representative decision-making. The article argues that the alcohol industry’s interference undermines responsive public health policy. Advocating for a “Framework Convention on Alcohol Control” aims to ensure decision-making processes are protected from undue industry influence and are more representative of public health needs.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  • Implied Indicator for Target 3.4: Mortality rates from alcohol-related chronic diseases. The article’s emphasis on the “dose-response relationship between alcohol use and development of many chronic health conditions” implies that tracking mortality and morbidity from these conditions is a key measure of progress.
  • Implied Indicator for Target 3.5: National low-risk drinking advice (LRDA) and alcohol per capita consumption. The article explicitly compares the recommended weekly drink limits in Aotearoa New Zealand (10-15) with those in other countries like Canada (2), Australia (10), and the UK (14). The updating of these guidelines to reflect scientific evidence serves as a policy-level indicator.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  • Implied Indicator for Target 4.7: Policies prohibiting alcohol industry involvement in school-based education. The article’s recommendation to prevent the industry from providing “‘alcohol education’ programmes in schools” implies that the existence and enforcement of such a prohibition would be a direct indicator of progress.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Implied Indicator for Target 10.3: Data on alcohol-related harm disaggregated by ethnicity. The statement that “Māori, Pacific and other communities who experience disproportionate harms” suggests that progress would be measured by collecting and analyzing health data to track whether these disparities are decreasing over time.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Implied Indicator for Target 16.6: Existence of regulations on political lobbying and donations. The call for “stricter controls and transparent monitoring of political lobbying and donations” and “‘cooling off’ periods” implies that the implementation and enforcement of these governance rules would be a key indicator of institutional accountability.
  • Implied Indicator for Target 16.7: Adoption of a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control. The article advocates for this framework as a mechanism to limit industry interference, making its adoption a clear indicator of progress in protecting policymaking processes.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: phcc.org.nz