The intersection of public health initiatives and industry funding is often fraught with complexity and conflict of interest. A recent study by Maani et al. published in the International Journal of Health Policy and Management delves deep into the dynamics of such an intersection through a critical analysis of the “Drink Free Days” campaign, a collaboration between Public Health England (PHE) and Drinkaware, a charity funded by the alcohol industry. This case study illuminates the subtle yet profound ways industry-funded entities can influence public health messaging and policy-making to serve their interests.

Main findings:
The study unpacks the nuanced interactions and tensions between Drinkaware, PHE, and the Portman Group (an alcohol industry body) through a detailed examination of documents obtained via freedom of information requests. These documents revealed a pattern of strategic alignment and mutual dependency that often marginalizes more effective public health measures in favour of industry-friendly initiatives.

The documents highlighted discrepancies between internal communications and public statements. While outwardly supporting public health initiatives, internal communications suggest a concerted effort to shape policies in ways that mitigate potential negative impacts on the alcohol industry.

The partnership effectively sidelined more critical voices from the broader public health community, particularly those advocating for stricter alcohol control measures. This marginalization occurs through strategic public relations efforts and the cultivation of relationships with government bodies that emphasize the educational role of industry-funded organizations over their potential conflicts of interest.

The study pointed out that such partnerships could displace more impactful public health policies. By focusing on campaigns like “Drink Free Days,” which emphasize individual responsibility rather than structural change, the industry can continue to promote a less effective approach to alcohol moderation while avoiding policies that might directly impact sales, such as minimum unit pricing or advertising restrictions.

Implications for public health
The findings suggest that public health leaders must critically evaluate the potential trade-offs of partnering with industry-funded entities. The subtle yet significant influence these partnerships can exert on policy and public perception can undermine the effectiveness of public health campaigns and may even shift the discourse away from evidence-based interventions.

Conclusion
This case study cautions public health practitioners and policymakers about the complexities and potential pitfalls of engaging with industry-funded organizations. Such entities’ strategic interests can diverge significantly from public health objectives, often cloaked under the guise of cooperation and mutual benefit. As public health grapples with the commercial determinants of health, understanding these dynamics is crucial for safeguarding public interests against commercial influences.

Citation:
Maani N, van Schalkwyk MC, Petticrew M. The perils of partnership: interactions between Public Health England, Drinkaware, and the Portman Group surrounding the Drink Free Days campaign. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2024;13:8245. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8245