Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The European region has the highest daily alcohol consumption per capita and a high alcohol-related burden of disease. Policymaking at the European Union level is open to participation by interest groups, from public health organizations to alcohol industry representatives. This study aimed to map the interest groups present in the alcohol taxation and cross-border regulation initiatives and identify which arguments were used to support positions in favor or against them.
METHODS: We used qualitative content analysis on the comments submitted on the official European Commission website during the 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2022 participation periods. Interest groups were characterized considering their positioning, and arguments were identified and compared by position and type of initiative.
RESULTS: Opponents of changes to the structures of alcohol excise duties and cross-border regulations were mostly representatives of the alcohol and agricultural industries, and the proponents were mostly health-related nongovernmental organizations. Opponents of these initiatives used a wide variety of arguments, from economic and trade to health arguments, while proponents focused mainly on health arguments, such as the effectiveness of alcohol taxation in preventing alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the wide range of arguments used by opponents around alcohol control policies, contrasting with the health-centered arguments of proponents. It further shows that there is a lobbying network at the European Union level, combining national and international representatives of industry and non-governmental organizations. These findings provide an opportunity for better preparation for upcoming discussions on alcohol control at national and regional levels.
METHODS: We used qualitative content analysis on the comments submitted on the official European Commission website during the 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2022 participation periods. Interest groups were characterized considering their positioning, and arguments were identified and compared by position and type of initiative.
RESULTS: Opponents of changes to the structures of alcohol excise duties and cross-border regulations were mostly representatives of the alcohol and agricultural industries, and the proponents were mostly health-related nongovernmental organizations. Opponents of these initiatives used a wide variety of arguments, from economic and trade to health arguments, while proponents focused mainly on health arguments, such as the effectiveness of alcohol taxation in preventing alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the wide range of arguments used by opponents around alcohol control policies, contrasting with the health-centered arguments of proponents. It further shows that there is a lobbying network at the European Union level, combining national and international representatives of industry and non-governmental organizations. These findings provide an opportunity for better preparation for upcoming discussions on alcohol control at national and regional levels.
摘要：
背景：欧洲地区的人均每日饮酒量最高，与酒精相关的疾病负担也很高。欧盟层面的决策对利益集团的参与开放,从公共卫生组织到酒精行业代表。这项研究旨在绘制酒精税和跨境监管计划中存在的利益集团，并确定哪些论点被用来支持支持或反对他们的立场。
方法：我们对2017年，2018年，2020年和2022年参与期间在欧盟委员会官方网站上提交的评论使用了定性内容分析。利益集团的特点是考虑到他们的定位，和论点被识别和比较的位置和类型的倡议。
结果：反对改变酒精消费税和跨境法规结构的主要代表是酒精和农业产业，支持者大多是与健康有关的非政府组织。这些倡议的反对者使用了各种各样的论点，从经济和贸易到健康问题，虽然支持者主要关注健康问题，例如酒精税在预防酒精相关发病率和死亡率方面的有效性。
结论：这项研究强调了反对者围绕酒精控制政策使用的广泛论点，与支持者以健康为中心的论点形成鲜明对比。进一步表明,在欧盟层面有一个游说网络,结合工业和非政府组织的国家和国际代表。这些发现为更好地准备即将在国家和区域一级进行的酒精控制讨论提供了机会。
方法：我们对2017年，2018年，2020年和2022年参与期间在欧盟委员会官方网站上提交的评论使用了定性内容分析。利益集团的特点是考虑到他们的定位，和论点被识别和比较的位置和类型的倡议。
结果：反对改变酒精消费税和跨境法规结构的主要代表是酒精和农业产业，支持者大多是与健康有关的非政府组织。这些倡议的反对者使用了各种各样的论点，从经济和贸易到健康问题，虽然支持者主要关注健康问题，例如酒精税在预防酒精相关发病率和死亡率方面的有效性。
结论：这项研究强调了反对者围绕酒精控制政策使用的广泛论点，与支持者以健康为中心的论点形成鲜明对比。进一步表明,在欧盟层面有一个游说网络,结合工业和非政府组织的国家和国际代表。这些发现为更好地准备即将在国家和区域一级进行的酒精控制讨论提供了机会。
