Our study, which focussed on the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks posed by alcohol, builds
on previous evidence in analyzing how efforts to address public health threats, including
alcohol harms, may be undermined by commercial actors. Previous research across many harmful products documents how
corporate social responsibility activities form a critical arm of efforts in fomenting doubt
about product harms.,While we welcome constructive critique of our work, Mr Sacy does not appear to have
understood how we conducted our research. The Methods section explicitly states that webpage
content constituted the dataset, and that websites were accessed during June 2019. The table
which he presents forms part of a PDF report, not a public facing webpage where people can
readily access key facts on alcohol and CVD.Mr Sacy also claims that his information is unbiased, and similar to non-industry-funded
information. Contrary to this statement, we have analyzed Educ’ Alcool’s materials as part of
multiple larger studies of alcohol industry misinformation. It is clear that industry-funded
organizations including Educ’ Alcool selectively misinform the public about pregnancy harms,
cancer and now CVD. This is consistent with evidence on the nature, function and effects
of alcohol industry corporate social responsibility efforts more generally.The Educ’ Alcool report, which Mr Sacy cites in his response, is itself very problematic. It
contains framings consistent with many of the misinformation techniques which we have
previously documented. These include the strong selective positive framing of alcohol
consumption, and overclaiming of the benefits of alcohol. For example, discussion of ‘Harmful
effects’ features on p9, after multiple sections detailing ‘Helpful Effects’ and ‘Protective
Effects’. This sort of ‘nudging’ of readers away from clear evidence on harms, while
foregrounding benefits, is a common alcohol industry misinformation tactic.His table is also concerning, consisting of a cherry-picked, unreferenced selection of five
studies; it is unclear how this is supposed to represent the wider evidence base. It is also
unclear what purpose it is intended to serve, but it certainly does not represent any
meaningful or unbiased representation of the evidence.The tone and content of Mr Sacy’s comments may surprise readers, but are consistent with
research by Bartlett and McCambridge, who recently analyzed how alcohol industry and related
actors aggressively respond to criticism; their response is characterized by ‘making narrow
claims about accuracy while ignoring substantial engagement with the issues of framing,
context, and impacts on readers … The SAO [AI-funded Social Aspects Organisations]
interventions are thus highly defensive, designed to protect the reputations of the
organizations. The replies, printed in peer-reviewed journals, thus operate as public
relations exercises given legitimacy by being located within the scientific literature
…’.Edu’alcool’s materials and Mr Sacy’s response are entirely consistent with the growing
evidence on alcohol misinformation and what has been called its ‘strategic ambiguity’. As we concluded previously,
independent bodies (such as government health departments) should not use or signpost to
material from SAPRO’s, given that it has the characteristics of other unhealthy commodity
industry-funded misinformation, and significantly misrepresents the evidence.
Funding
N.J.M. is supported by a Harkness Fellowship in Healthcare Policy and Practice from the
Commonwealth Fund. M.C.I.v.S. acknowledges funding from the National Institute for Health
Research Doctoral Fellowship (NIHR300156). M.P.P. and N.J.M. are investigators in the
SPECTRUM Consortium, which is funded by the UK Prevention Research Partnership, a consortium
of UK funders [UK Research and Innovation Research Councils: Medical Research Council,
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council,
and Natural Environment Research Council; charities: British Heart Foundation, Cancer
Research UK, Wellcome, and The Health Foundation; government: Scottish Government Chief
Scientist Office, Health and Care Research Wales, National Institute of Health Research
(NIHR), and Public Health Agency (NI)]. Grant Reference: UKPRP_CO1_103.Conflicts of interest: None declared.