Kypros Kypri1, Luke Wolfenden2, Melinda Hutchesson3, John Langley4, Robert Voas5. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Australia; Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Electronic address: kypros.kypri@newcastle.edu.au. 2. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Australia. 3. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, and Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Australia. 4. Injury Prevention Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 5. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2005 a Bill was introduced to the New Zealand parliament to increase the alcohol minimum purchasing age (MPA) from 18 to 20 years and submissions were invited from interested parties. We sought to characterise and critique the arguments tendered for and against the proposal. METHODS: We used template analysis to study written submissions on the Bill from 178 people and organisations in New Zealand. Independent raters coded submissions according to the source, whether for or opposed, and the arguments employed. RESULTS: The most common sources of submissions were members of the public (28%), the alcohol industry (20%), and NGOs (20%). Overall, 40% opposed increasing the MPA, 40% were in favour, 4% supported a split MPA (18 years for on-premise, 20 years for off-premise), 7% were equivocal, and 8% offered no comment. The most common proponents of increasing the MPA were NGOs (36%) and members of the public (30%) and their arguments concerned the expected positive effects on public health (36%) and public disorder/property damage (16%), while 24% argued that other strategies should be used as well. The most common sources of opposition to increasing the MPA were the alcohol industry (50%) and the public (20%). It was commonly claimed that the proposed law change would be ineffective in reducing harm (22%), that other strategies should be used instead (16%), that it would infringe adult rights (15%), and that licensed premises are safe environments for young people (14%). There were noteworthy examples of NGOs and government agencies opposing the law change. The alcohol industry maximised its impact via multiple submissions appealing to individual rights while neglecting to report or accurately characterise the scientific evidence. Several health and welfare agencies presented confused logic and/or were selective in their use of scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the fragmented and inconsistent response from government and NGOs, the alcohol industry was organised and united, with multiple submissions from the sector with most at stake, namely the hospitality industry, and supporting submissions from the manufacturing, import, and wholesale sectors. Systematic reviews of research evidence should be routinely undertaken to guide the legislature and submissions should be categorised on the basis of pecuniary interest.
BACKGROUND: In 2005 a Bill was introduced to the New Zealand parliament to increase the alcohol minimum purchasing age (MPA) from 18 to 20 years and submissions were invited from interested parties. We sought to characterise and critique the arguments tendered for and against the proposal. METHODS: We used template analysis to study written submissions on the Bill from 178 people and organisations in New Zealand. Independent raters coded submissions according to the source, whether for or opposed, and the arguments employed. RESULTS: The most common sources of submissions were members of the public (28%), the alcohol industry (20%), and NGOs (20%). Overall, 40% opposed increasing the MPA, 40% were in favour, 4% supported a split MPA (18 years for on-premise, 20 years for off-premise), 7% were equivocal, and 8% offered no comment. The most common proponents of increasing the MPA were NGOs (36%) and members of the public (30%) and their arguments concerned the expected positive effects on public health (36%) and public disorder/property damage (16%), while 24% argued that other strategies should be used as well. The most common sources of opposition to increasing the MPA were the alcohol industry (50%) and the public (20%). It was commonly claimed that the proposed law change would be ineffective in reducing harm (22%), that other strategies should be used instead (16%), that it would infringe adult rights (15%), and that licensed premises are safe environments for young people (14%). There were noteworthy examples of NGOs and government agencies opposing the law change. The alcohol industry maximised its impact via multiple submissions appealing to individual rights while neglecting to report or accurately characterise the scientific evidence. Several health and welfare agencies presented confused logic and/or were selective in their use of scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: In contrast to the fragmented and inconsistent response from government and NGOs, the alcohol industry was organised and united, with multiple submissions from the sector with most at stake, namely the hospitality industry, and supporting submissions from the manufacturing, import, and wholesale sectors. Systematic reviews of research evidence should be routinely undertaken to guide the legislature and submissions should be categorised on the basis of pecuniary interest.
Authors: Jim McCambridge; Kypros Kypri; Trevor A Sheldon; Mary Madden; Thomas F Babor Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Eloise Howse; Katherine Cullerton; Anne Grunseit; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Adrian Bauman; Becky Freeman Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Simone Pettigrew; Claire Hafekost; Michelle Jongenelis; Hannah Pierce; Tanya Chikritzhs; Julia Stafford Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-07-31