When it comes to alcohol awareness, is the government under the influence of the drinks industry?

The stated aim of the Portman Group is to promote social responsibility in the alcohol industry, with a particular focus on responsible marketing. Established in 1989, it claims to "show leadership on best practice in the area of alcohol responsibility" and to "foster a balanced understanding of alcohol-related issues."^{1 2}

Its former chief executive, Jean Coussins, rejected any suggestion that the group "represent[s] the industry" or acts as a "trade association or lobby group."³ However, the evidence of its involvement in research and policy consultations indicates that it is not independent of the industry and that it lobbies on behalf of the industry.

In its statements the group emphasises individual responsibility, blaming a minority of heavy drinkers for alcohol related problems. This ignores many aspects of alcohol related harm and is inconsistent with the evidence base that supports current public health thinking.^{4 5} The group recently flexed its muscles in the debate around the Scottish government’s plans to introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol—a policy that is supported by public health professionals worldwide but that has been criticised by the group.^{4 6 7} The group also attacked⁸ recent work from Sheffield University that found that minimum pricing in England and Wales would reduce the number of deaths directly attributable to alcohol by 3400 and the number of unnecessary hospital admissions by 100 000 a year.⁵ The chief medical officer for England, Liam Donaldson, supported the Sheffield University findings and minimum pricing in his annual report on public health.⁹ The group claims that alcohol advertising has no effect on the level of sales and therefore is not a driver of consumption but only of brand choice.⁸ It subsequently criticised Sir Liam, the BMA, and Alcohol Concern for their evidence based calls for such a ban.^{10 11}

The Portman Group was set up by the alcohol industry, reportedly at the suggestion of a Tory peer.¹² Twenty years later the same companies (Bacardi, Beverage Brands UK, Carlsberg UK, Coors UK, Diageo GB, InBev, Pernod Ricard, and Scottish & Newcastle) continue to finance the group. Its directors are all alcohol industry executives.¹³

The group’s influence on the UK government was evident in the 2004 alcohol strategy for England and Wales.¹⁴ The final strategy ignored government commissioned testimony from a group of 17 independent experts who called for restrictions on alcohol pricing and availability. Instead the Portman Group was the only "alcohol misuse" group cited in the final report. Alex Stevens, at the European Institute of Social Services at the University of Kent, said that the strategy adopted the "language and ideas of the alcohol industry . . . This seems a clear example where external pressure on government by a powerful group has influenced the use of evidence in policy."¹⁵

In 1994 the group was shown to have paid academics £2000 (2200; $3200) each to write anonymous critiques of a report from the World Health Organization that opposed the alcohol industry’s position on effective alcohol control policies.^{16 17} Professor Tom Babor of the University of Connecticut, one of the most respected experts working in the field of addictions and public health, commented: "When one begins to see scientists with industry connections being encouraged to attack independent researchers, industry supported commentators attacking publicly supported policy makers and commercial interests trying to set the research agenda, this is not only a cause for concern, but a recipe for disaster."¹⁸

Existing alcohol policy and the government’s close relations with the alcohol industry came in for criticism in the parliamentary health select committee’s recent report on alcohol, which stated: "We are concerned that government policies are much closer to, and too influenced by, those of the drinks industry and the supermarkets than those of expert health professionals."¹⁹ The Portman Group’s chairman, Seymour Fortescue, accepted that alcohol related harm is growing but argued that consumption was falling and advocated persevering with the current strategy of educational campaigns and targeted measures towards binge drinkers and alcohol dependent consumers.²⁰ This position contradicts a growing body of evidence that overall consumption is too high and that educational campaigns are of limited practical use.¹⁹ The select committee report is valuable to those fighting for coherent and effective alcohol policy, not least for its endorsement of a public health centred approach to alcohol control. However, the alcohol industry and trade organisations such as the Portman Group are well placed in UK policy circles to defend their position. The UK still has some way to go before the sentiments expressed in the select committee’s recent report are translated into a policy that provides effective alcohol control.

Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:b5659

The author has completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declares: (1) no financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than their employer; (2) CH has been reimbursed for travel and accommodation by Alcohol Action Ireland and by the Nordic Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research and is negotiating over a report with Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems; (3) no spouses, partners, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; and (4) CH is editor of the Alcohol Portal on www.spinprofiles.org.

See also Editorial, BMJ 2010;340:c372, doi:10.1136/bmj.c372; Analysis, BMJ 2010;340:b5650, doi:10.1136/bmj.b5650; News, BMJ 2010;340:c390, doi:10.1136/bmj.c390.

References

1. Portman Group. About us. www.portmangroup.org.uk/?pid=2&level=1.
2. Portman Group. History. www.p.ortmangroup.org.uk/?pid=14&level=2.
3. Coussins J. The Portman Group does not represent alcohol industry. BMJ 2004;329:404.[Free Full Text]
4. BMA Scotland. Written response to the Scottish government’s proposed strategy to tackle alcohol misuse in Scotland. www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/249251/0071801.pdf.
5. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield. Model-based appraisal of alcohol minimum pricing and off-licensed trade discount bans in Scotland: a Scottish adaptation of the Sheffield alcohol policy. www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/09/24131201/0.
6. Portman Group. Changing Scotland’s relationship with alcohol: a response from the Portman Group to the consultation document from the Scottish government. www.portmangroup.org.uk/assets/documents/Response%20to%20Scottish%20consultation%20-%20Sep%2008.pdf.
7. Scottish Government. Changing Scotland’s relationship with alcohol: a discussion paper on our strategic approach. www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/227785/0061677.pdf.
8. Portman Group. BMA ignores world class regulations. www.portman-group.org.uk/?pid=26&level=2&nid=337.
9. Donaldson L. 150 years of the annual report of the chief medical officer: on the state of public health 2008. www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_096231.pdf.
10. BMA. Under the influence: the damaging effect of alcohol marketing on young people. www.bma.org.uk/images/undertheinfluence_tcm41-190062.pdf.
11. Alcohol Concern. Leading health charities call for ban on advertising alcohol price promotions. www.alcoholconcern.org.uk/servlets/doc/1472.
12. Carey J. Recreational drug wars: alcohol versus ecstasy. http://ecstasy.org/info/jim.html.
13. FAME Database. Company report: the Portman Group. www.bvdinfo.com/Products/Company-Information/National/FAME.aspx.
14. Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office. Alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/caboffce%20alcoholhar.pdf.
15. Stevens A. Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Social Policy and Society 2007;6(1):25-35.[CrossRef]
16. Edwards G, ed. Alcohol policy and the public good. Oxford University Press, 1992.
17. Smith R. Questioning academic integrity. BMJ 1994;309:1597-8.[Free Full Text]
18. Babor TF, Edwards G, Stockwell T. Science and the drinks industry: cause for concern. Addiction 1996;91:5-9.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. House of Commons Health Committee. Alcohol, Report of First Session 2009-2010. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmhealth/151/15102.htm.
20. Portman Group. Health committee response. www.portmangroup.org.uk/?pid=26&level=2&nid=344.