OBJECTIVE: Alcoholic beverages can be highly calorific yet remain largely absent from obesity policy debates. This article seeks to identify how Scottish and English obesity policies have engaged with the issue of alcohol consumption since devolution.
METHODS: Obesity policy documents for England and Scotland from 1999 to 2023 were thematically analysed to identify their engagement with alcohol consumption. A stakeholder analysis was undertaken to identify key public health actors and commercial sector policy actors in the debate regarding the inclusion of alcohol in obesity policy. Their engagement with the issue of alcohol as an obesity policy issue was assessed through thematic analysis of consultation responses, along with documents, press releases, reports and other statements on policy (e.g. blog posts) available on stakeholder websites.
RESULTS: While alcohol was recognised as a risk factor for obesity within obesity policy documents, no specific measures to address this issue were identified until a consultation on mandatory calorie labelling on alcoholic beverages was proposed in 2020. Engagement with alcohol in the policy documents was mainly limited to voluntary and self-regulatory measures favoured by industry actors who portrayed themselves as a key part of the policy solution. They used the policy focus on childhood obesity as a pretext to exclude alcoholic drink from fiscal and labelling measures. Public health NGOs, by contrast, argued that obesity measures such as mandatory calorie labelling and other obesity policies should be extended to alcoholic beverages.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an insufficient engagement with alcohol as an obesity policy issue within policy documents and an over-reliance on voluntary and industry-partnership approaches. Alcoholic beverages and reduced alcohol products are excluded from beverage taxes and labelling requirements in ways which are hard to justify. As with other areas of public health policy, this represents an industry-favoured policy agenda, opposed by health NGOs. Further research is needed to understand the influence of these actors on the engagement of obesity policy with alcohol.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that the tobacco industry used research funding as a deliberate tactic to subvert science. There has been little wider attention to how researchers think about accepting industry funding. We developed, then tested, hypotheses about two psychological constructs, namely, entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism (CoI-C) among alcohol researchers who had previously received industry funding.
METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry.
RESULTS: 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers.
CONCLUSIONS: Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa is important to the future of alcohol and global health because the alcohol market there is expanding rapidly in a relatively young population. This entails a corresponding contest about whether the policy measures adopted will be shaped by scientific evidence or by industry interference in alcohol policy. This study examines how alcohol industry actors use social media.
METHODS: Uganda was selected for study because of high levels of alcohol harm and recent alcohol policy debates. Data on the X (formerly Twitter) activity of the Ugandan companies of AB InBev and Diageo, who are the two main brewers, and the trade association including both, were collected, coded and thematically analysed.
RESULTS: X is used overwhelmingly by alcohol industry actors in Uganda to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) and alcohol policy framing content. There is little direct product marketing. The framing of policy problems and solutions, and of the actors involved in policymaking and CSR resembles that used elsewhere in the political strategies of the transnational alcohol corporations. Content which appears more emphasised in Uganda includes material on farmers, illicit trade and contribution to the economy. As elsewhere, it avoids giving attention to the policy measures which would make a difference to the levels of alcohol harms endured by Uganda. Rhetorically, X is thus used to create a parallel universe, in which the actual harms and what is known about how to reduce them are conspicuous by their absence.
CONCLUSIONS: The alcohol industry presents itself as indispensable to Uganda\'s future and appears to have developed relationships with politicians, partnerships with government, and built a coalition with farmers. This means the alcohol industry may be well positioned to oppose public health policy measures, even though their arguments lack substance and are at odds with the evidence.

BACKGROUND: There are only two major statements which define alcohol policy development at the global level. There has not been any comparative analysis of the details of these key texts, published in 2010 and 2022 respectively, including how far they constitute similar or evolving approaches to alcohol harm.
METHODS: Preparatory data collection involved examination of documents associated with the final policy statements. A thematic analysis across the two policy documents was performed to generate understanding of continuity and change based on comparative study. Study findings are interpreted in the contexts of the evolving conceptual and empirical literatures.
RESULTS: Both documents exhibit shared guiding principles and identify similar governance challenges, albeit with varying priority levels. There is more emphasis on the high-impact interventions on price, availability and marketing in 2022, and more stringent targets have been set for 2030 in declaring alcohol as a public health priority therein, reflecting the action-oriented nature of the Plan. The identified roles of policy actors have largely remained unchanged, albeit with greater specificity in the more recent statement, appropriately so because it is concerned with implementation. The major exception, and the key difference in the documents, regards the alcohol industry, which is perceived primarily as a threat to public health in 2022 due to commercial activities harmful to health and because policy interference has slowed progress.
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30 potentially marks a pivotal moment in global alcohol policy development, though it is unclear how fully it may be implemented. Perhaps, the key advances lie in advancing the ambitions of alcohol policy and clearly identifying that the alcohol industry should not be seen as any kind of partner in public health policymaking, which will permit progress to the extent that this influences what actually happens in alcohol policy at the national level.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol industry organisations occupy a prominent position in UK alcohol policy, but their involvement has been contested by public health bodies on the basis that a conflict of interest (COI) exists between their economic objectives and those of public health. There are ongoing debates in the research literature about how to conceptualise COI and mitigate this in health research and practise. However, less attention has been paid to these issues in relation to the alcohol industry specifically. This article explores similarities and differences in beliefs among alcohol policy actors regarding COI and the implications of engagement with the alcohol industry in the context of UK public health policy.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a range of policy actors (n=26) including medical professionals, parliamentarians, civil servants, academic researchers, health campaigners, and alcohol industry representatives. Interviews with alcohol industry representatives were supplemented with an analysis of industry responses to a public consultation. All data was thematically coded using NVivo software.
RESULTS: Two competing \"coalitions\" were identified, expressing beliefs about COI linked to alcohol industry engagement. Both divergent and convergent beliefs were expressed by the two coalitions in relation to the type of industry actor, form of engagement, the policy issue under discussion and the stage of policy process.
CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol policy is a complex and contested space in which policy actors have differing, nuanced and contingent understandings of COI and identify varying risks associated with alcohol industry engagement. In identifying the areas of convergence and diversion in both understanding and evaluation of COI in alcohol-specific settings, these findings will assist both decision-makers and non-governmental actors in developing policies and guidelines to manage potential COI in future.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of alcohol harm has increased and is forecast to grow further without effective policy implementation. Public-private partnerships aiming to address global health, and other societal challenges, are a burgeoning feature of neoliberal governance. Rhetorically distancing themselves from tobacco, the major alcohol companies are committed to tackling \'harmful drinking\' and have created a distinct type of public relations organization for this purpose. The activities of such organizations are increasingly recognized as an impediment to the implementation of policies to reduce alcohol harm, including in low- and middle-income countries where markets are expanding.
METHODS: The approach of critical discourse analysis is used to examine the discursive tactics and strategies used in Working Together; a \'toolkit\' published by the key global level alcohol industry public relations organization, the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD). This study considers how it works discursively to set the terms of, and overcome skepticism about partnerships, to define aims and position various actors by constructing their roles. The construction of prospective partners provides insights into the alcohol industry itself.
RESULTS: The toolkit operates as an ideological resource for forming public-private partnerships across the world based on the accumulated know-how of the major companies through IARD. This allows the largest alcohol companies to exercise leadership of the industry, while remaining off-stage. The toolkit relies on a form of rhetorical work which creates distance from obvious corporate interests and the harms caused to population health and society. This is accomplished by working against evidence-informed population level approaches, and thus avoiding policies that will make any significant difference to overall alcohol harm. Unspecific \"complexity\" affords opportunity for preferred types of \"actions\", and \"partnership\" provides opportunity to gain credibility by association, further minimizing the likelihood of any material harm being reduced.
CONCLUSIONS: The toolkit is designed to not only legitimate the inclusion of alcohol industry actors as initiating \'partners\', but also assigns them roles as managers of a set of carefully constructed relationships. This vision of public-private partnership reproduces the hegemonic narrative that has successfully blocked policy advances for decades and led to growing alcohol harm globally.

Public health and alcohol industry actors compete to frame alcohol policy problems and solutions. Little is known about how sudden shifts in the political context provide moments for policy actors to re-frame alcohol-related issues. South Africa\'s temporary bans on alcohol sales during the COVID-19 pandemic offered an opportunity to study this phenomenon.
We identified Professor Charles Parry from the South African Medical Research Council as a key policy actor. Parry uses a Twitter account primarily to comment on alcohol-related issues in South Africa. We harvested his tweets posted from March 18 to August 31, 2020, coinciding with the first two alcohol sales bans. We conducted a thematic analysis of the tweets to understand how Parry framed alcohol policy evidence and issues during these \'extraordinary times.\'
Parry underlined the extent of alcohol-related harm during \'normal times\' with scientific evidence and contested industry actors\' efforts to re-frame relevant evidence in a coherent and well-constructed argument. Parry used the temporary sales restrictions to highlight the magnitude of the health and social harms resulting from alcohol consumption, particularly trauma, rather than the COVID-19 transmission risks. Parry portrayed the sales ban as a policy learning opportunity (or \'experiment\') for South Africa and beyond.
Crisis conditions can provide new openings for public health (and industry) actors to make salient particular features of alcohol and alcohol policy evidence.

This study examines the functions and purposes of the International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP) book series, published by Routledge between 1998 and 2010. The books were authored by invited academics, ICAP staffers, and alcohol industry representatives.The key data source for this paper was the framing material - forewords, introductions, conclusions - of the books. A thematic analysis positioned the contents with regard to ongoing alcohol research and public health policy issues.This was a project to \'shift the paradigm\'. ICAP frames alcohol policy choices in ways which direct policy attention to sub-groups rather than the population level. Population-level approaches are caricatured as \'ideological\'. The concept of \'balance\' is prominent and is employed in multiple ways. Business interests are elided and industry involvement in policy making is promoted on scientific grounds. The intellectual programme is lent credibility by leading scientists and the imprimatur of an academic publisher.While this attempt to change the paradigm in alcohol science has failed, ineffective alcohol policies remain common, uninformed by scientific evidence on how harms at the societal level may be reduced. The ICAP book series continues to serve its function as a resource to support the status quo in respect of alcohol policy.

BACKGROUND: The health and wellbeing impacts of commercial activity on Indigenous populations is an emerging field of research. The alcohol industry is a key driver of health and social harms within Australia. In 2016 Woolworths, the largest food and beverage retailer in Australia, proposed to build a Dan Murphy\'s alcohol megastore in Darwin, near three \'dry\' Aboriginal communities. This study examines the tactics used by Woolworths to advance the Dan Murphy\'s proposal and understand how civil society action can overcome powerful commercial interests to protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing.
METHODS: Data from 11 interviews with Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal informants were combined with data extracted from media articles and government, non-government and industry documents. Thematic analysis was informed by an adapted corporate health impact assessment framework.
RESULTS: Woolworths employed several strategies including lobbying, political pressure, litigation, and divisive public rhetoric, while ignoring the evidence suggesting the store would increase alcohol-related harm. The advocacy campaign against the proposal highlighted the importance of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups working together to counter commercial interests and the need to champion Aboriginal leadership. Advocacy strategies included elevating the voices of community Elders in the media and corporate activism via Woolworths\' investors.
CONCLUSIONS: The strategies used by the coalition of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups may be useful in future advocacy campaigns to safeguard Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing from commercial interests.

Important insights have been generated into the nature of the activities of the International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP). Its successor, the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD) is less well understood. This study aims to rectify evidence limitations on the political activities of the alcohol industry at the global level.
Internal Revenue Service filings were examined for ICAP and IARD each year between 2011 and 2019. Data were triangulated with other sources to establish what could be gleaned on the internal workings of these organisations.
The stated purposes of ICAP and IARD are near identical. The main declared activities were similar for both organisations and comprised public affairs/policy, corporate social responsibility, science/research and communications. Both organisations work extensively with external actors and it has become possible more recently to identify the main contractors supplying services to IARD.
This study sheds light on the political activities of the alcohol industry at the global level. It suggests that the evolution of ICAP into IARD has not been accompanied by shifts in the organisation and activities of the collaborative efforts of the major alcohol companies.
Alcohol and global health research and policy agendas should give careful attention to the sophisticated nature of industry political activities.