Minimum pricing: Drinks industry 'distorted evidence' 23 April 2013 Last updated at 22:25 The alcohol industry has been accused of distorting evidence in an attempt to influence the Scottish government over its minimum pricing policy. Academics examined submissions made by the industry to the government's public consultation in 2008. They said their research suggested the responses had "ignored, misrepresented and undermined" scientific evidence. The Portman Group, which campaigns for the drinks industry on social responsibility, strongly disputed this. The Scottish government's public consultation had looked at policy proposals aimed at introducing minimum unit pricing and ending drinks promotions including below-cost selling of alcoholic drinks. The proposals were widely supported by health professionals and the police, but were opposed by large sections of the alcohol industry, including supermarkets, drinks companies, and trade associations. Key players in the alcohol industry constructed doubt about this wealth of scientific evidence and instead chose to promote weak survey-based evidence End Quote Dr Jim McCambridge The team of three researchers, led by Dr Jim McCambridge at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said many submissions from the industry were critical of the evidence used by the government to justify the policy. But the industry failed to provide any strong evidence of its own, the report said, and instead relied on "unsubstantiated claims" and "weak evidence" such as opinion polls, to justify its opposition. The report pointed to an assertion made by the Portman Group that "there is a raft of contradictory evidence of the influence of price and promotions on harm. In the absence of strong evidence, it seems imprudent to tackle alcohol misuse by acting against price and promotions. However, no details of any contradictory evidence were provided by Portman or in any of the other industry submissions, it said. The report, which was funded by the charity Alcohol Research UK, stated: "The Portman Group made unsubstantiated claims that the proposals could "increase the appeal of alcohol to young people by creating a 'mystique'" and thereby "turning alcohol into a 'forbidden fruit'." "They also claimed that the approach taken by the Scottish government had been "widely discredited in research studies" when in fact there is broad consensus among researchers, who strongly support the approach as the correct one." Trade rules The researchers said Tesco criticised the data supporting the Scottish government's proposals, and had claimed there was "little in the way of evidence" to support the impact of price on consumption. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association heavily promoted "weak evidence" in their submission by citing a small community trial which lacked thorough data, the academics said. And the study accused Asda of making "unsubstantiated claims" about the adverse effects of the policy proposals, which the supermarket chain said would "create incentives for the black market and criminals and illegal door to door sales." Public policy should focus on tackling the irresponsible elements of our drinking culture and not penalise the majority of moderate, responsible drinkers who are doing the right thing. End Quote Spokeswoman Portman Group It also said some drinks firms had claimed marketing activities contributed to harm reduction when they were actually directed towards increased sales and thus greater consumption. For example, Diageo stated that it "uses brand sponsorships to raise awareness of responsible drinking, including Guinness's sponsorship of the Rugby Premiership." Dr McCambridge said: "There is a broad consensus internationally among researchers that the most effective measures to control problems caused by alcohol are to raise the price, control availability and restrict marketing activities. However, our study shows that key players in the alcohol industry constructed doubt about this wealth of scientific evidence and instead chose to promote weak survey-based evidence as well as making unsubstantiated claims to their advantage. These tactics mean it is harder for governments to make evidence-based policy where industry is involved. The public interest is not served by the alcohol industry's misinterpretation of research evidence and we must consider to what extent we should allow the health of the population to be compromised by these commercial interests. In a strongly-worded statement the Portman Group said its response to the 2008 Scottish government consultation has been published on its website for almost five years. "The whole point of a consultation is to invite a range of views to inform government policy," said a spokeswoman. We say that public policy should focus on tackling the irresponsible elements of our drinking culture and not penalise the majority of moderate, responsible drinkers who are doing the right thing. Better education, early interventions to support problem drinkers and enforcing existing laws are more targeted ways to do this than introducing population-wide controls. MSPs passed The Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012 in May 2012, setting a 50p minimum unit price as part of an effort to tackle alcohol misuse. However, the government has undertaken not to introduce the measures until after the conclusion of a challenge brought at the Court of Session in Edinburgh by the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) and several European wine and spirits bodies. They argue that it breaches EU trade rules. Scottish Health Secretary Alex Neil will be in Brussels on Wednesday to lay out the government's case for alcohol price controls. His visit coincides with new research which demonstrates that significant health benefits were observed when minimum alcohol prices in British Columbia were increased.