Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;82(1):84-92.

Partners or Opponents? Alcohol Industry Strategy and the 2016 Revision of the U.K. Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines

Affiliations
  • PMID: 33573726

Partners or Opponents? Alcohol Industry Strategy and the 2016 Revision of the U.K. Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines

Benjamin R Hawkins et al. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: In 2016, the U.K. Chief Medical Officers published revised low-risk drinking guidelines, based on an updated evidence review. These guidelines advised that men and women drink no more than 14 units per week--a reduction for men--while emphasizing the dangers of drinking in pregnancy and as a risk factor for cancer. The aim of this study is to examine how the alcohol industry responded to the publication of the guidelines.

Method: This article draws on 26 semi-structured interviews with civil servants, parliamentarians, and public health and civil society actors. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using thematic coding.

Results: Following the publication of the new draft guidelines, the U.K. alcohol industry criticized their exclusion from the guidelines development process. They then mounted a major public relations campaign that strongly criticized the guidance produced and rejected the association of drinking with cancer without recourse to evidence. The Portman Group, which was prominent in the industry response, did not recommend that members or other companies carry the revised content on product labels and sought to undermine them via high-level political lobbying. There was no formal campaign to communicate the guidelines to the public.

Conclusions: The present case adds new insights into the political strategies of alcohol industry actors to undermine public health, providing evidence of confrontational tactics. It draws attention to the failure of self-regulatory regimes to incorporate basic public health messaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources