Alcohol Industry vs. Public Health Presentations at Judicial Reviews of Liquor Licence Applications in Australia
Alcohol Industry vs. Public Health Presentations at Judicial Reviews of Liquor Licence Applications in Australia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102808
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Morrison, C. N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cook, M.;Livingston, M.;Morrison, C. N.
酒精出口的密度越大，与酒精相关的伤害发生率越高。在澳大利亚，旨在限制酒精供应的公共卫生倡导者花费了大量精力，在许可证和规划听证会上反对新的销售渠道。本研究确定并审查了行业和公共卫生代表在酒类和规划听证会上提出的关键科学论点，以确定有助于主持机构做出决定的因素，并为希望通过这些监管论坛促进危害最小化的研究人员确定前进的道路。2010年至2018年期间，来自维多利亚，新南威尔士州和西澳大利亚州的23例病例中的科学证据使用直接内容分析进行了评估。通过AustLii和Westlaw在线数据库确定病例。还审查了两个病例的完整记录，这两个病例被确定为代表了其他纳入病例中提出的科学论点。四个主要的论点，行业在听证会上使用的确定因果推理，非线性，差异化和风险缓解。这些论点被用于许多包括听证会在内的听证会，并提出了公共卫生证据往往无法回应的基本问题。在酒类和规划听证会上，行业论点的总体成功突出了将流行病学证据应用于个案研究的挑战。这些发现具有特殊的意义，将用于研究人员和公共卫生专家参加未来的许可听证会，特别是那些希望通过监管机制，如国家许可机构（即法院），以防止酒精相关的伤害。
Greater densities of alcohol outlets are associated with greater incidence of alcohol-related harms. In Australia, public health advocates aiming to limit alcohol availability expend significant energy objecting to new outlets in licensing and planning hearings. This study identifies and reviews the key scientific arguments put forward by industry and public health representatives in liquor and planning hearings to determine the factors that contribute to decisions by the presiding authority and to identify ways forward for researchers wishing to facilitate harm minimisation through these regulatory forums. Scientific evidence presented in 23 cases from Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia between 2010 and 2018 were assessed using directed content analysis. Cases were identified through the AustLii and Westlaw online databases. The full transcripts of two cases that were identified as representative of the scientific arguments presented in other included cases were also reviewed. Four main arguments that industry used during hearings were identified-causal inference, non-linearities, differentiation and risk mitigation. These arguments were used across many included hearings and raised fundamental questions that public health evidence was often ill-equipped to respond to. The overall success of industry arguments in liquor and planning hearings highlighted the challenges of applying epidemiological evidence to individual case studies. These findings have particular implications and will be of use for researchers and public health experts participating in future licensing hearings, especially those wishing to prevent alcohol-related harm through regulatory mechanisms such as state licensing authorities (i.e. courts).