Your support helps us to tell the story
Some apps and websites backed by the alcohol industry – which are designed to help people manage their health – contain “blatant misinformation” and could persuade people to drink more, researchers say.
Academics claim there was evidence of “health misinformation and user experience features” in industry-funded tools that were “favourable to commercial interests and could negatively affect the accuracy or perception of health risk information”.
The study also identified “dark patterns” – features which aim to manipulate and influence consumers for their own interests – in their design.
These can prevent users from getting an accurate picture of their health and can nudge people towards continuing to drink, academics suggested.
Research by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) analysed the accuracy of information available on 15 digital tools and apps created by industry-backed organisations in the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
These included online unit calculators and the MyDrinkaware app created by Drinkaware, which is funded by donations from major UK alcohol producers, pub operators, restaurants and major supermarkets, as well as DrinkiQ, which was created by global alcohol producer Diageo.
The information on the tools was compared to that on 10 services not funded by the alcohol industry, such as NHS Drink Free Days and Alcohol Change UK’s Try Dry.
Dr Elliot Roy-Highley, who worked on the study as an MSc public health student, said: “In our study, we found evidence of cultural targeting and peer pressure messaging, all the way up to obfuscating the proven risks of excessive alcohol consumption with blatant misinformation.
“The public need to know the risks associated with the use of alcohol industry-funded apps and platforms which host these tools must work to remove apps which have been shown to contain misinformation.”
The NHS recommends drinking no more than 14 units of alcohol a week, spread across three days or more.
Researchers tested the platforms by inputting information based on a standard male and standard female with seven different alcohol consumption patterns.
This ranged from low intake to high intake and also included binge drinking within weekly limits – no more than 14 units in England – and over weekly limits.
The study identified contradictory messaging that could increase alcohol consumption on six industry-backed tools, while alcohol was framed as normal and social on seven industry tools and one non-industry tool.
The research – published in Health Promotion International – found all but one industry-backed platform omitted some information regarding the risks of alcohol consumption.
It also found only 20% of alcohol industry-funded tools provided information on the increased risk of cardiovascular disease, compared to 70% of tools not funded by the alcohol industry.
They were also less likely to include information on other harms.
Industry-backed platforms included information on the likes of mental health problems caused by alcohol, or social consequences such as missed work days.
This report has taken individual findings and generalised them across the industry, which is unhelpful and completely inaccurate when it comes to DrinkiQ— Diageo
However, non-industry backed tools included these harms and more, such as the risk of physical or psychological harm like brain damage or addiction.
Industry-funded services were also more likely to frame their messages to encourage some level of drinking.
Elsewhere, some tools, such as the Drinkaware unit calculator, misled users by suggesting only drinking above “binge levels” was harmful, researchers said.
“Misleading users about harmful quantities is consistent with the industry’s focus on ‘excessive’ and ‘heavy’ drinking, arguing that only drinking at very high levels is a concern,” they added.
Co-author Professor Mark Petticrew, who is based at LSHTM, said: “We hope that our work will help shine a light on the use of ‘dark apps’ by the alcohol industry and that our framework can now be used to screen future tools released for public use.”
A Diageo spokesperson said: “This report has taken individual findings and generalised them across the industry, which is unhelpful and completely inaccurate when it comes to DrinkiQ.
“Information cited in DrinkiQ is based on publicly available data and scientific evidence, with clearly referenced data sources. We remain committed to tackling harmful drinking, and we will continue to support DrinkiQ as a powerful and informative tool to do this.”
A Drinkaware spokesperson said: “Drinkaware uses the World Health Organisation’s internationally recognised Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for our digital tools and services.
“Our advice is based on the Chief Medical Officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, the latest research and approved by an independent panel of medical experts.”
Reacting to the study, Matt Lambert, chief executive of the Portman Group, which receives funding from the drinks industry and has firms signed up to its code of practice, said: “This is a deliberate and counter-productive attempt to discredit well-meaning resources and tools which are funded by the industry to prevent harmful drinking.
“It would be far harder to address harmful consumption without the active cooperation of a responsible alcohol industry, and let’s not forget that industry-funded initiatives have contributed to significant declines in harms such as underage drinking, binge drinking and drink driving over the last decade and more.”
