By Phil Cain
Sir Keir Starmer’s government could find much-needed focus by committing to policymaking process reform, with the delivery of effective mandatory alcohol health labels being an excellent place to start.
If Sir Keir is more about processes than vision, as pundits say, then why not play to his strengths? A rigorous policy process which successfully delivered impactful health labels would be good in itself. We have a right to know about what we consume. But it could also show the way in other areas.
It could help win votes too. Showing that policies affecting millions of lives are not the result of backstairs arm-twisting or bungs would tick populist boxes left, right and centre. It would, to borrow a phrase or two, deliver change, be for the many not the few, level up and be the reform Britain needs.
Major omissions
The government fell far short of meeting such aspirations last week with its ten-year plan for health in England, which left health experts fretting about delivery.
On alcohol harm it mentioned none of the three most effective evidence-based alcohol policies, despite illness prevention being top priority in its manifesto. Their absence drew stinging criticism from expert bodies working to reduce still soaring rates of alcohol harm.
The leadup to the plan’s launch saw the media and alcohol industry subject the government to a humiliating public hazing for even considering policies counter to alcohol interests. The government’s plan quelled the assault, but it came at the price of the health and finances of tens of millions.
It was a “dereliction of duty”, said Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, Chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance. “Alcohol-specific deaths have risen by 42% in recent years—an increase that would not be tolerated if it were any other health condition.” It is hard to separate the Punch and Judy show of last minute revisions only fuelled suspicions.
It is inevitable effective health policies will be omitted if alcohol interests are given sway. The answer is to ensure interests running counter to health policy play no part in the process of forming health policy, with transparency mechanisms put in place to ensure it.
Labelling go-ahead
There was one significant crumb of comfort left in the plan for alcohol health advocates, despite it being a letdown overall. The government said it would “introduce mandatory nutritional information and health warning messages”.
Even done at their best these messages would likely save precious few lives near term, but they would boost awareness. Labels are taken to tell the truth. Wider and deeper awareness of alcohol health harms would make it easier to take effective policy action in future. For the same reason the alcohol industry will fight effective labels tooth-and-nail.
Standing up to alcohol interests on labels offers an immediate chance for the government to redeem itself. It would narrowly avoid disappointing those who believed its manifesto promise to prioritise prevention. And every alcohol health label would show the benefits of a more robust policy formation process.
An impactful health alcohol label would be a highly-visible legacy. Some might even begin to see a versatile new way of forming robust, effective policy as visionary. ■
