Explore the vast range of titles available.

This is a story of 14 years in American history, the story of prohibition.

Despite their economic significance, taverns face numerous challenges that might hinder their sustainable growth. Therefore, this study investigated the sustainable growth of taverns, which are small enterprises mainly selling liquor within the informal sector. The primary aim of the study was to present a framework for supporting the sustainable growth of taverns. This qualitative study employed a case study strategy where 12 tavern owners in Gqeberha, South Africa, were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule. The thematic data analysis revealed five main challenges hindering taverns’ sustainable growth: finance, government interventions and facilities, competition, the COVID-19 pandemic and crime. This study contributes to the understanding of Small Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) in the informal sector and offers practical recommendations for enhancing their sustainable growth. By addressing the identified challenges, policymakers and stakeholders can create a more supportive environment for these enterprises, ultimately contributing to economic development and poverty reduction.

BackgroundThe alcohol industry shapes policy and public narratives through their strategic engagement with research. Spiking – giving someone alcohol or another drug without their consent or knowledge – has recently re-emerged as a source of public health concern amongst the UK public, the police and Government. This concern represents a reputational threat to the alcohol industry (AI) by linking alcohol consumption with vulnerability and harm.We aimed to investigate how AI-funded organisations have used evidential claims to frame drink spiking, and its public health implications.MethodsWe conducted a critical appraisal and discourse analysis of research commissioned in 2021 by the Alcohol Education Trust (AET) and DrinkAware. Both organisations undertook surveys to establish the prevalence and nature of spiking which we appraised used the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme’s checklist for cross-sectional studies. DrinkAware also commissioned a venue survey, evaluation of drink testing kits , and urine and drinks testing.We analysed the resulting research reports, associated press releases and coverage in the written media, identified via the NewsBank database. Critical discourse analysis – informed by feminist approaches and Commercial Determinants frameworks – was conducted. Data were managed in NVivo.ResultsSerious methodological flaws and reporting errors were identified in the AET survey (n=747). Drinkaware’s prevalence survey methods were found to be more robust (n=16,791). Both organisation’s press releases contained similar messaging that spiking can happen to any drink, anyone and anywhere, a questionable interpretation of their reported data.Thirty-two documents were included in the critical discourse analysis. Both organisations included alcohol when describing spiking but subsequent framing – via the text and imagery used – steered towards spiking with drugs. Individual-level responses such as testing and reporting were foregrounded over preventative and structural measures.ConclusionAI-funded organisations are misrepresenting and overstating their evidence on spiking with the very low-quality Talk About Trust survey widely covered in the UK media and cited as evidence at the House of Commons inquiry.Characterising spiking based on low-quality research and/or incomplete reporting may cause public harm by misrepresenting its true nature, the effectiveness of proposed responses and deflecting from the substantively larger issue, alcohol consumption itself.Whilst our methodological limitations include the small sample size, this study provides a novel example of the strategic use of research by health harming industry-funded organisations to mould public and policy opinion on a current public health concern.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170366.].

Abstract Background There is growing awareness of the detrimental effects of alcohol industry commercial activities, and concern about possible adverse impacts of its corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, on public health. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize and examine what is known about CSR initiatives undertaken by alcohol industry actors in respect of harmful drinking globally. Methods We searched for peer-reviewed studies published since 1980 of alcohol industry CSR initiatives in seven electronic databases. The basic search strategy was organized around the three constructs of ‘alcohol’, ‘industry’ and ‘corporate social responsibility’. We performed the searches on 21 July 2017. Data from included studies were analyzed inductively, according to the extent to which they addressed specified research objectives. Results A total of 21 studies were included. We identified five types of CSR initiatives relevant to the reduction of harmful drinking: alcohol information and education provision; drink driving prevention; research involvement; policy involvement and the creation of social aspects organizations. Individual companies appear to undertake different CSR initiatives than do industry-funded social aspects organizations. There is no robust evidence that alcohol industry CSR initiatives reduce harmful drinking. There is good evidence, however, that CSR initiatives are used to influence the framing of the nature of alcohol-related issues in line with industry interests. Conclusions This research literature is at an early stage of development. Alcohol policy measures to reduce harmful drinking are needed, and the alcohol industry CSR initiatives studied so far do not contribute to the attainment of this goal.

The 2011 UN high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) called for multisectoral action including with the private sector and industry. However, through the sale and promotion of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink (unhealthy commodities), transnational corporations are major drivers of global epidemics of NCDs. What role then should these industries have in NCD prevention and control? We emphasise the rise in sales of these unhealthy commodities in low-income and middle-income countries, and consider the common strategies that the transnational corporations use to undermine NCD prevention and control. We assess the effectiveness of self-regulation, public–private partnerships, and public regulation models of interaction with these industries and conclude that unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD policy. Despite the common reliance on industry self-regulation and public–private partnerships, there is no evidence of their effectiveness or safety. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the unhealthy commodity industries.

Tobacco industry interference has been identified as the greatest obstacle to the implementation of evidence-based measures to reduce tobacco use. Understanding and addressing industry interference in public health policy-making is therefore crucial. Existing conceptualisations of corporate political activity (CPA) are embedded in a business perspective and do not attend to CPA's social and public health costs; most have not drawn on the unique resource represented by internal tobacco industry documents. Building on this literature, including systematic reviews, we develop a critically informed conceptual model of tobacco industry political activity. We thematically analysed published papers included in two systematic reviews examining tobacco industry influence on taxation and marketing of tobacco; we included 45 of 46 papers in the former category and 20 of 48 papers in the latter (n = 65). We used a grounded theory approach to build taxonomies of \"discursive\" (argument-based) and \"instrumental\" (action-based) industry strategies and from these devised the Policy Dystopia Model, which shows that the industry, working through different constituencies, constructs a metanarrative to argue that proposed policies will lead to a dysfunctional future of policy failure and widely dispersed adverse social and economic consequences. Simultaneously, it uses diverse, interlocking insider and outsider instrumental strategies to disseminate this narrative and enhance its persuasiveness in order to secure its preferred policy outcomes. Limitations are that many papers were historical (some dating back to the 1970s) and focused on high-income regions. The model provides an evidence-based, accessible way of understanding diverse corporate political strategies. It should enable public health actors and officials to preempt these strategies and develop realistic assessments of the industry's claims.

Objectives. We assessed the short-term ability to increase retail prices of the first US 1-cent-per-ounce excise tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), which was implemented in March 2015 by Berkeley, California. Methods. In 2014 and 2015, we examined pre- to posttax price changes of SSBs and non-SSBs in a variety of retailers in Berkeley and in the comparison cities Oakland and San Francisco, California. We examined price changes by beverage, brand, size, and retailer type. Results. For smaller beverages (≤ 33.8 oz), price increases (cents/oz) in Berkeley relative to those in comparison cities were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36, 1.03) for soda, 0.47 (95% CI = 0.08, 0.87) for fruit-flavored beverages, and 0.47 (95% CI = 0.25, 0.69) for SSBs overall. For 2-liter bottles and multipacks of soda, relative price increases were 0.46 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.89) and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.21, 0.77). We observed no relative price increases for nontaxed beverages overall. Conclusions. Approximately 3 months after the tax was implemented, SSB retail prices increased more in Berkeley than in nearby cities, marking a step in the causal pathway between the tax and reduced SSB consumption.

Details the development of a measurement tool, based on a collaboration between researchers in 12 diverse countries including New Zealand, to assess stringency and ‘on-the-ground’ impact of four key alcohol policy domains (availability, pricing policy, alcohol marketing, drink driving) to create an alcohol policy index suitable for benchmarking alcohol policy and assessing change over time in middle- and high-income countries. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

BackgroundCorporations use a range of strategies to dispute their role in causing public health harms and to limit the scope of effective public health interventions. This is well documented in relation to the activities of the tobacco industry, but research on other industries is less well developed. We therefore analysed public statements and documents from four unhealthy commodity industries to investigate whether and how they used arguments about complexity in this way.MethodsWe analysed alcohol, food, soda and gambling industry documents and websites and minutes of reports of relevant health select committees, using standard document analysis methods.ResultsTwo main framings were identified: (i) these industries argue that aetiology is complex, so individual products cannot be blamed; and (ii) they argue that population health measures are ‘too simple’ to address complex public health problems. However, in this second framing, there are inherent contradictions in how industry used ‘complexity’, as their alternative solutions are generally not, in themselves, complex.ConclusionThe concept of complexity, as commonly used in public health, is also widely employed by unhealthy commodity industries to influence how the public and policymakers understand health issues. It is frequently used in response to policy announcements and in response to new scientific evidence (particularly evidence on obesity and alcohol harms). The arguments and language may reflect the existence of a cross-industry ‘playbook’, whose use results in the undermining of effective public health policies – in particular the undermining of effective regulation of profitable industry activities that are harmful to the public’s health.