Journal Articles

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/7915

Browse

Filters

20242

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Randerson SSubject: search.filters.subject.Health Policy

Search Results

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
    Using the International Alcohol Control (IAC) policy index to assess effects of legislative change in Aotearoa New Zealand.
    (BioMed Central Ltd, 2024-06-11) Casswell S; Randerson S; Parker K; Huckle T
    BACKGROUND: The IAC Policy Index was developed to allow comparison in alcohol policy between countries and within countries over time including in low resource settings. It measures four effective alcohol policies and takes into account stringency of regulation and the actual impact on the alcohol environment, such as trading hours and prices paid. This framework was used to assess policy in Aotearoa New Zealand in a time period covering two relevant legislative changes. This is the first study to use an alcohol policy index to assess and describe legislative change within country. METHODS: Data to calculate the IAC Policy Index was collected for 2013 and 2022. Stringency of policy was assessed from legislative statutes and impacts of policy on the alcohol environment from administrative data and specifically designed data collection. RESULTS: The overall IAC Policy Index score improved over the time period. The scores for the separate policy areas reflected the legislative changes as hypothesised, but also independent changes in impact, given ecological changes including reduced enforcement of drink driving countermeasures and increased exposure to marketing in digital channels. The IAC Policy index reflects the changes in policy status observed in Aotearoa, NZ. DISCUSSION: The IAC Policy Index provided a useful framework to assess and describe change in alcohol legislation contextualised by other influences on policy impact over time within a country. The results indicated the value of assessing stringency and impact separately as these moved independently. CONCLUSIONS: The IAC Alcohol Policy Index, measuring both stringency and actual impact on the alcohol environment with a focus on only the most effective alcohol policies provides meaningful insights into within-country policy strength over time. The IAC Policy Index used over time can communicate to policy makers successes and gaps in alcohol policy.