Volkskrant, 20th June 2026
In an extensive article, the Dutch national newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ focused June 20th 2026 on the way the alcohol industry has been attempting for decades to exert influence on scientific research, policymaking, and the public debate regarding alcohol through doctors and, above all, researchers. Journalist Maud Effting spoke with several people who can share their experiences on this.
The most recent remarkable affair regards the Dutch professor Joline Beulens of the University Medical Center of Amsterdam. She was removed as a member of the National Health Council’s Alcohol Committee because she had been insufficiently transparent about her ties to the alcohol industry. The National Health Council will deliver just this period a new advise about alcohol and health.
One of the most important ways to exert influence by the alcohol industry is through research funding. The interviewees emphasize that influence begins with determining which research questions receive funding (for example, the health benefits of light alcohol consumption) and which do not (for example, the effect of price increases and advertising restrictions). In this way, the research agenda is steered through funding. If you receive some money of the alcohol industry as a young researcher, it appears as if you can conduct independent research, but indirect steering is still taking place. Influence is generated not only through research funding, but also through travel allowances for attending conferences to become a member of new industry-related networks. And they invite you to write a chapter in a book or to be a guest at a dinner. As a result, researchers unconsciously develop a more positive view of the industry or become less critical.
Editor-in-chief Marcel Olde Rikkert of the Dutch Magazine for Health (NTG) states that many scientists believe they are immune to conflicts of interest, whereas research shows that even small financial incentives can have an influence.
Various experts, including the Irish researcher Jim McCambridge and Dutch university lecturer Luc Hagenaars, argue that the alcohol industry has adopted techniques from the tobacco industry. These include criticizing reliable independent institutes and organizations and funding clubs that ostensibly combat alcohol-related harm but are in reality lobby groups. The alcohol industry also attempts to convince the public and politicians that a small group of alcoholics is the main problem, rather than their product. Researcher Rob Bovens—who participated in meetings regarding the Dutch Prevention Agreement—also shares the experience that the industry essentially only wanted to talk about so-called- ‘problematic alcohol use,’ even though it had long been clear that there is no such thing as a safe amount of alcohol. Wim van Dalen of the Dutch Institute for Alcohol Policy STAP points out that the alcohol industry also copied another technique from the tobacco industry: sowing doubt, for example by releasing its own counter-report just before an important government study is published.
The article concludes with criticism of the prestigious Dutch Heineken Prizes for science. Luc Hagenaars finds it problematic that top scientists associate themselves with an alcohol brand through these prizes. Those involved, such as Robbert Dijkgraaf and Hans Clevers, defend the prizes by pointing to the independence of the family fund behind them. Gastroenterologist Bart Takkenberg calls the Heineken Prizes downright ‘absurd: “As a scientist, you must always check what you are attaching your name to. The funds for the Heineken Fund come partly from people who died because of that product. It is simply inexplicable that somebody want to be connected to that.”
Source: volkskrant.nl.