An academic has branded evidence used by the British Medical Association (BMA) in calling for a ban on alcohol advertising as "folk assumptions" based on studies that are a "joke".
Dr John Luik, a philosopher and senior fellow at independent think-tank the Democracy Institute, today argued the BMA "picked and choosed" the evidence it liked for its report Under the Influence, to justify its calls for a ban.
The BMA report also called for a cut in pub licensing hours, a ban on drinks promotions, a minimum price and above-inflation tax increases linked to alcohol strength.
"One of the most troubling aspects is the (BMA's) report seems so disconnected from the evidence," Luik said at an event hosted by the Democracy Institute in Central London.
Luik complained the government was being given a "handy soundbite" to address alcohol-related problems, but the BMA's answers would not tackle the issues.
He attacked the BMA's use of "recall studies" which he said did not properly measure the impact that alcohol advertising has on people.
Luik suggested the vast majority of studies looking at the link between alcohol advertising and consumption do not support the BMA's position.
Out of more than 30 "econometric" studies in the last two decades only a "handlful" showed alcohol advertising led to someone to start drinking or increased overall consumption, he said.
He argues that a young person's socio-economic standing and there success, or lack of, at school were the biggest influence on whether they develop a drinking problem.
Luik, in a paper entitled What's the BMA Been Drinking? The Case Against an Alcohol Ad Ban, concluded: "The casual claims of the BMA and the other members of the health community about the effects of alcohol advertising are not sustained… in consequence there is no public policy justification for measures to substantially restrict or completely ban alcohol advertising."