Volume 190 - Issue 12

Health experts reject industry-backed funding for alcohol research

Author:  Trish M Worth

Med J Aust 2009; 190 (12): 713-714. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02648.x
Published online: 15 June 2009

In reply: I write in response to the letter from Miller and colleagues, recently published online.1 Their letter is an attempt to influence non-government senators as the Australian Government reintroduces the Bill to increase the tax on some alcoholic beverages. There must have been a better way to do this than by besmirching the good work of DrinkWise and its directors.

DrinkWise Australia is not an industry-dominated body. It has a balanced board of six members from the alcohol industry and six distinguished community members. Miller and colleagues should know that, in criticising DrinkWise, they also attack the reputations of board members Professor Ross Kalucy, Chair of Psychiatry at Flinders University; Noel Turnbull, Adjunct Professor in Communications at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Neil Comrie, former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police; and Terry Slater, who led the Australian Government’s public health programs before heading up the National Food Authority and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The sixth community representative position on the board is currently vacant and has been offered to the federal health department.

DrinkWise does not advocate for or lobby government in respect of alcohol taxation policy for a very sensible reason — alcohol industry leaders advocating for or agreeing on matters affecting price could constitute a breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cwlth).

DrinkWise programs are strictly evidence-based, drawing on specifically funded high-level independent research executed by leading academics at universities including Griffith, Macquarie, Monash, Deakin, Flinders, and the Hunter New England Institute. Moreover, the DrinkWise “Kids Absorb Your Drinking” advertising campaign was developed through qualitative, quantitative and ethnographic research, as well as the findings of an extensive literature review by child heath experts and academics.2-9 Campaign tracking results show that 28% of adults surveyed in March 2009 reported having reduced the amount of alcohol they drink in front of their children in the previous 12 months. When parents who had seen the DrinkWise advertising were asked about its impact on their drinking behaviour, 39% said they were more self-conscious of how they drink in front of their children, 18% had changed their drinking patterns, and 14% had actually cut down how much alcohol they consume when their children are around.10

DrinkWise Australia:

I was particularly surprised that the letter’s authors would trivialise the importance of education in successful drug intervention programs and instead advocate for increased reliance on supply-side strategies. DrinkWise delivers interventions in a variety of settings, not only through the Kids Absorb Your Drinking campaign, but also through practical tools such as a website (http://www.drinkwise.com.au), information materials and discussion forums, as well as working at the grassroots level with groups such as local government, school organisations, community newspapers, Sports Challenge Australia and the Good Sports program. Educational programs informed by scientific literature, that are implemented and evaluated effectively and not used as a standalone intervention strategy, can work.12

We at DrinkWise hope that anyone with a strong commitment to public health will be able to work with us and not against us. This will ensure that we will be able to continue to run evidence-based initiatives to reduce alcohol-related harm in Australia.


Author


Competing interests


References