story

The current wave of attention might make it seem like tackling alcohol harm is a new thing, but far from it. Movendi International has been working in the area for nigh-on 170 years, with a name change from IOGT last month the latest evolution. Its president Katarina Sperkova talks with me here about the organisation’s legacy, its values, policies and hopes for the future.

Key points:

• “We can see a boom in coming out as a person who has a problem with alcohol and being confident in talking about it.”  [1m47s]
• Reasons for the name-change: “There are very few members in the organisation that understand what a ‘good templar’ is. They have never been part of any order.” [4m15s]
• “IOGT [the name adopted in 2006] was difficult to explain. … People were asking what it is? We didn’t have any good answer. We really needed to move away from that name.” [4m57s]
• On the use of ritual and regalia. “I have never experienced it as a member and I have been active in the organisation since 1999.” [6m29s]
• The number of member organisations with such practices “I would count them on one hand” [6m51s]. The practices are important for them as part of a recovery process.
• On being an umbrella organisation: “We are not taking active steps in finding individual members.” [10m13s] It might assist in creating an organisation when one does not exist.
• The situation in the global south, “It reminds us very much of the situation in 1851 in the US [when Movendi began].” [13m43s]
• 14 out of the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals are “negatively impacted by alcohol harm”. [16m57s]
• Areas where it has a negative impact are: Poverty, gender-based violence and sexist advertising undermining gender equality, access to water.
• What does “alcohol prevention” mean in the organisation’s catchline? “What we are talking about is to reduce harm caused by alcohol, or prevent harm caused by alcohol. … It is definitely not a prohibitionist term.” [20m16s] 
• The phrase also includes recovery because people who recover “create alcohol-free space”, which influenced people around them. [21m54]
• “We do not interfere in people’s personal choices. What is important for us is what a society offers to people.” [22m50]
• Have we got another 170 years of this same story? “I have a very strong belief this is about to change. … I think it has already changed.” [25m17s]

The heaviest drinking households bought 17 times more alcohol than the lightest drinking ones at the start of the covid pandemic, a study says, helping to explain record high levels of alcohol-induced death.

The polarisation of alcohol consumption found between the top and bottom fifth of households in the UK is likely one reason why there was a 19% rise in alcohol-specific deaths in 2020, reaching the highest level for 20 years.

The US saw an even bigger alcohol-induced death surge in 2020 Alcohol Review revealed last month (see chart). The CDC has since confirmed the 26% rise that year and now also estimates a similarly high level for last year.

The increase in US deaths has so far attracted scant public attention or research. But it is likely the lifestyle changes and stress of the covid crisis saw heavier drinkers in both sides of the Atlantic increase their intake to deadly levels, just as this research suggests they did in the opening phase of the covid crisis in the UK.

Late last year around 30% more people in England said they drank more than the official low risk guidelines of 14 units (140ml) a week compared to before the covid crisis, said a Office for Health Improvement and Disparities survey.

“It is also likely that reduced access to care and treatment during covid contributed to an increase in alcohol-related deaths,” said lead author Professor Peter Anderson of Newcastle University when asked if other factors played a part in the UK. 

Households in the more socially disadvantaged locations of northern England bought more alcohol. The pattern in Scotland and Wales was “less pronounced”, possibly because they have minimum alcohol pricing policies, the study says. 

 “This suggests that a focus on policies to reduce high levels of drinking are even more important in extraordinary times, such as those we’ve seen since March 2020,” said Professor Anderson from Newcastle University.

“By failing to implement minimum unit pricing as part of its plans for public health, England is now falling further behind the rest of the UK in the race to tackle alcohol harm,” said Professor Sir Ian Gilmore of the Alcohol Health Alliance.

The research is a joint project between Newcastle University and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) North East and North Cumbria. 

The study used retail data from Kantar WorldPanel for 30,000 UK homes for six years to 2020. ■

The leaders of a UK organisation representing traditional pub and ale enthusiasts have decided to hold an investigation into the effects of minimum alcohol pricing.

The move comes in response to a motion passed at the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) annual conference in Dundee last month calling for the organisation to back the “urgent introduction” of minimum pricing in England, after it was introduced in Scotland last year.

“The national executive are carrying out further investigation into the issue to determine the best way to deliver the decision taken by conference,” a CAMRA spokesperson said. “We are unlikely to have any different updates imminently.”

Alcohol has retailed for more than 50p ($0.66) per 10ml UK unit in Scotland since May last year. Supporters hope it will curtail the drinking of very heavy drinkers who gravitate towards cheap sources of alcohol. In England the price per unit starts at 16p.

The price of beer sold in pubs is unaffected by minimum pricing, typically being more than three times the 50p minimum price. Supporters within CAMRA argue minimum pricing may help counter the decline of British pubs by narrowing the price gap with supermarkets.

Others do not see it this way, saying on social media the pro-minimum price motion panders to “anti-alcohol” forces, threatening to cancel their CAMRA memberships. Some, however, wonder if an appreciation of untainted liberal economics is a necessary part of appreciating traditional beer.

Help may be at hand. An initial evaluation of the short-term economic impact of minimum pricing in Scotland is due later this year. And some insight into its effectiveness in achieving its goal of reducing harmful drinking is expected next year.

The conference also saw the arrival of a new CAMRA chairman, Nik Antona. ■