ABSTRACT

This chapter starts from the observation that basic convictions related to specific worldviews shape the way facts are selected or omitted to frame lines of argumentation. Because of this, readiness to scrutinise methods and interpretations may be low if results support convictions while this may be much higher if results challenge these convictions. The emphasis in the account is on popular but flawed interpretations of research findings. The topics addressed are, firstly, approaches used to quantify ‘harm to others due to alcohol’ and, secondly, convictions concerning ‘drinking alcohol while lactating’.

The chapter first discusses proportionality as a central element of human rights legislation. It then proceeds to consider how in the alcohol field, there is a long tradition of epidemiologists and activists being in favour of a dedicated alcohol control policy. The chapter assesses the roles of evidence and values in arguments, focusing on the use of the idea of ‘passive drinking’ and advice given with regard to ‘alcohol consumption and breastfeeding’.

The chapter concludes by reviewing the different interest groups active in the alcohol field – producers, distributors, consumers, public health activists and temperance-oriented associations – and the differing ways each presents evidence on the risks and dangers linked to alcohol. It concludes by arguing that a way through this conflict would be for applied researchers to strive for a more meaningful research approach, one which allows problem areas to be described more precisely, to understand the mechanisms of problem genesis in more detail and to develop appropriate measures to reduce problematic alcohol consumption without unduly demonising moderate alcohol consumption.