story

Brits overall drank less alcohol than usual in the first few months of the pandemic last year, despite scenes of frenzied panic buying.

There was a fall of around 10% in England and Wales and 5% in Scotland in the second quarter of 2020, according to figures published by Public Health Scotland yesterday. But these were just averages.

“Unfortunately we know that some of us—particularly heavier drinkers— have been drinking more. We need to make support available,” wrote Alison Douglas of Alcohol Focus Scotland. 

Average amounts may not have changed much but the average context has. We now drink more often alone at home to soothe anxiety or cheer ourselves up, uses in which alcohol backfires in the longer term.

This means, taking the population as a whole, the dramatic rise in the amount consumed at home was not enough to outweigh the amount they would normally drink in pubs and bars.

In England and Wales men’s drinking on average fell by just under 13% and women’s by 7%. In Scotland the falls were 7% for men and just 1% for women.

What happened in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 is currently unclear, with tax figures suggesting a rise in overall alcohol consumption and industry figures a fall. ■

Services for people with alcohol and other drug problems in England and Wales saw budgets cut 15% in the three years to last year, when associated deaths hit record numbers.

A record 7,423 people in England and Wales died from alcohol-specific causes and 4,561 people died from causes related to drug poisoning, another record.

“It is unacceptable public health services that tackle alcohol and drug addiction are left so weakened because of deep cuts when we know that they can cause huge harm and death,” said Jonathan Ashworth MP, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary.

Council spending on services to prevent them, meanwhile, fell to £690m from £762m in 2017, 15% after inflation, says analysis by the House of Commons Library for the Labour Party.

Four councils saw real-terms cuts in alcohol and drug services of over 40%, namely Medway, namely South Tyneside, Staffordshire and Wiltshire. Only ten saw a spending rise on these services.

“Treatment is essential to help those with alcohol dependence towards recovery but has long been underfunded and inaccessible to many,” said Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, Chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK. ■

Alcohol-free beer offers a harmless way to transform our mistaken beliefs about alcoholic drinks into something positive, so we should welcome its increasing availability.

Alcohol is the opposite of the joyful, relaxing “social lubricant” we are led to think it is. Drinking more than a small amount—the UK guideline maximum being around 14 units (140ml) a week—is liable to making us grumpier, tenser, more socially clumsy and sleep less soundly. 

Alcohol-free beer, by contrast, helps us fulfil many of the hopes we have of alcohol without suffering any downsides. Experiments show placebos like it make us more prosocial and at ease with each other, while leaving our brain function intact giving us no nasty side-effects.

This is partly because alcohol-free beer does a convincing impression of alcoholic beer, making us imagine some of the effects we want from its alcoholic brethren. Having a beer in hand also gives others the unmistakable signal we are up for some fun and laughter.

This amazing psychological freebie is growing ever more popular. Sales are spiking. Sainsbury’s said recently it is opening an alcohol-free pop-up pub to showcase its range of faux tipples. Heineken 0.0 launched in the US this year and alcohol-free Guinness is on Diageo’s drawing board.

Too good to be true?
The involvement of such corporate giants in the alcohol-free area raises understandable concerns. Surely they are using alcohol-free drinks as a trojan horse to turn consumers towards their alcoholic offerings? Surely they hope to gain the brand loyalty of our children?

Some liken selling alcohol free beer to minors to selling children candy cigarettes. We might be encouraged to get interested in Heineken 0.0 in our childhood to prime us for the real thing at 18. So it is that age restrictions for alcohol-free beer get the thumbs-up from many health advocates. 

The concern is not any harmful substance within, but that the crossover branding may smooth a psychological pathway to heavy alcohol drinking. The concern is understandable, but it is unclear whether it is justified or if alcohol-free beer sales-restrictions help?

Habits picked up in our teenage years are likely to be sustained later in life. Earlier alcohol drinking, as we know, significantly increases the chances of problem drinking later. This is one reason it seems wrong to bar teenagers from buying alcohol-free beer, by far the better choice.

As teenagers we experiment with being grown up, finding problems and solutions in the process, depending on which experiments we select. How can we sensibly deny a low risk product many adults find helpful? I was boggled by this anomaly as a teenager already drinking alcohol.

And the branding-blur that causes worries can is also part of the value of alcohol-free products. The confusion it causes allows us to drink socially sans alcohol without being singled out as oddballs, as we almost certainly would if we were, say, sipping a cup of tea.

It pays to be wary, of course, but stymying alcohol companies’ for the sake of it may not always be the best strategy. Co-branding does expose non-drinkers to an alcohol brand, but the reverse is also true: a popular alcohol brand is broadened to embrace a non-alcoholic alternative.

There might also be resistance from retailers concerned that some might think they are wrongly thought to be selling alcohol to minors. Some kind of solution could surely be found to minimise the risk of this happening. Perhaps they could use a “not alcohol” bag or sticker?

And others arguing for maintaining age restrictions may have less charitable motives. Keeping age restrictions hinders access to a harm-free alternative to their addictive product. I, for one, would have been better off for being allowed to discover alcohol-free beer’s potential earlier.

Staying open to solutions
This debate clearly needs to be informed by more research. We need to know how alcohol-free beer is used and seen by different age-groups. We also need to discover the real effects of alcohol-free/alcoholic co-branding rather than simply speculating.

There are some untoward effects we should investigate. People trying to curb their drinking sometimes complain that alcohol-free beer can trigger craving. This is not surprising when images of alcoholic drinks are enough to do this. And relying too much on alcohol-free beer could mean we enter social drinking situations where relapse is more likely.

But, while accepting these potential downsides, it seems alcohol-free beer does also help many adults in their bid to reduce their alcohol consumption. And it may well also help teenagers practice the key skills needed to establish a low-risk drinking habit from the off. It may prove to be a help overall, rather than a first step on a slippery slope to problem drinking. 

Alcohol-free beer has some profound lessons for us. It opens our eyes to the fact that having positive expectations and beliefs, coupled with an accepting social environment, can have uplifting effects. This part of our nature we would do well to recognise and harness early. 

Anyone involved in the discussion around alcohol can be forgiven for developing a cynical streak, but we must also be ready to make the most of solutions whenever they appear. ■

Limiting alcohol advertising spend could boost industry profits while testing the premise underlying our current approach.

Policy is often based on the assumption alcohol advertising is about battling for a share of a market of fixed size.

Cynics, of which I am one, doubt we are unmoved by the billions being spent on influencing our spending decisions.

Proving or disproving either case is nigh-on impossible, with the real world having too many complicating factors.

Accept the premise
With science offering no obvious way forward, the solution may lie taking the premise to its logical conclusion.

So, let’s say it is true, demand for alcohol is indeed immovable. It would mean nearly all advertising money was being wasted.

Most cash spent, say, promoting lager A over lager B, would be adding to the sector’s cost base for no extra income.

The route to higher shareholder returns can only lie in conducting this contest at lower cost.

Alcohol suppliers should, then, agree to cut their mostly fruitless marketing costs by agreeing a cap on advertising expenditure.

To maximise shareholder returns this cap would be best set as low as possible, allowing it to be returned as profit.

Guaranteed benefits 
There is no reason for shareholders to resist such a cap on wastage, unless the notion of having fixed market size is untrue.

A low adspend cap would also satisfy those doubting that it does not help boost overall alcohol consumption.

If the premise of current policy is right, alcohol sector’s profits will rise, if not, alcohol consumption will fall. 

Wherever the truth lies, someone would stand to benefit from putting this critical assumption to the test. ■