Leung JYYCasswell SRanderson SAthauda LBanavaram ACallinan SCampbell OChaiyasong SDearak SDumbili EWRomero-García LGururaj GKalapat RKarki KKarlsson TKong MLiu SMaldonado Vargas NDGonzalez-Mejía JFNaimi TNthomang KOladunni OOwino KHerrera Palacio JCPhatchana PPradhan PMSRossow IShorter GSibounheuang VŠtelemėkas MSon DTVallance Kvan Dalen WWettlaufer AZamora AJankhotkaew JVeitch E2024-12-092024-12-092024-11-24Leung 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. (2024). Assessing alcohol industry penetration and government safeguards: the International Alcohol Control Study.. BMJ Glob Health. 9. 11. (pp. e016093-).2059-7908https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/72236BACKGROUND: 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.(c) 2024 The Author/sCC BY 4.0https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/AlcoholControl strategiesHealth policyHumansAlcoholic BeveragesFood IndustryAlcohol DrinkingPolicy MakingHealth PolicyGovernmentCross-Sectional StudiesJournal article10.1136/bmjgh-2024-0160932059-7908journal-articlee016093-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39581634e016093bmjgh-2024-016093