alcohol

Ireland’s upper house last week passed a long-awaited bill introducing minimum alcohol prices and requiring warnings of alcohol’s cancer risks and the protection of children from marketing.

According to the bill passed on Friday drinks labels will also need to list their ingredients for the first time. Ads as well as labels will have to include warnings of the cancer risk.

To stop children being weaned onto alcohol brands, shops will be required to hide alcohol marketing behind a 1.5m-high screen.

The bill will return to the Dáil, the lower house, next year. The government first introduced the bill in December 2015 and has been the subject of fierce lobbying since.

Ireland is the second country in the world to pass laws to require alcohol is sold above a minimum price after Scotland became the first in November.

Only Canada’s Yukon has so far introduced cancer warnings, and that is in a trial. ■

Minimum alcohol unit price advocates cast doubt on recent warnings that low-level drinkers would bear the brunt of Scotland’s plan to introduce the scheme next May.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said last week it may be “better to reform duties and not have a minimum price at all”. It estimated a 50p minimum would increase the price of around 70% of off-trade alcohol units purchased, unfairly impacting low-level drinkers.

But these calculations have some shortcomings, says John Holmes of the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group, which forecast the impact of Scotland’s scheme. These mean the IFS has over-estimated the cost to people who do not overdo it.

Most importantly the IFS figures to not recognise alcohol consumption is heavily skewed towards heavy drinkers, says Holmes. The one-in-four people in Scotland who exceed the old, looser guidelines together drink around three-quarters of the alcohol.

This top-loaded consumption pattern means it is heavy drinkers who purchase the vast majority of units, and an even greater proportion of units bought for under 50p. This means it is heavy drinkers who will feel the pinch as the result of heavy consumption under minimum pricing, as the scheme intends.

And, to add to this, the number of units bought in Scotland for under 50p is probably not the 70% of the total the IFS estimates, but more like 50%, Holmes says. This “more robust”percentage comes from sales data rather than the self-reports relied on by the IFS statistic.

Another point worth considering, according to another commentator, is that raising taxes on some categories of alcoholic drinks favoured by heavy drinkers instead, as recommended by IFS, would also have an unwelcome impact on some low-level drinkers. ■

Draft National Alcohol Strategy 2018-2026, key proposals:

• Introduce a minimum price for alcohol
• Volumetric taxation of alcohol, as recommended by the Henry Tax Review in 2010
• “Readable, impactful” health-related warning labels
• A single national advertising code protecting children from exposure
• Reduce young people’s alcohol advertising exposure, including in sport and on the internet
• Control alcohol promotion to protect at-risk groups, including youth and dependent drinkers
• Increase screening, assessment, referral and treatment

Source: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/55E4796388E9EDE5CA25808F00035035/$File/Consultation%20Draft%20National%20Alcohol%20Strategy%202018-2026.pdf

 

There was no narrowing of the rift in the UK’s bid to tackle alcohol harm, which sprang open on Monday when a government health agency went into partnership with an alcohol industry-funded campaign, despite hearing strong opposition to the conflict of interests.

The “drink-free days” campaign will be entirely paid for by Drinkaware, an organisation receiving 92% of its £5.4m annual income from alcohol producers and others with interests in selling alcohol. It has committed to spend over £1m on the campaign this year.

“We will work together with any partner that speaks to the evidence and shares the same commitment,” Public Health England (PHE) told Alcohol Companion. “We brought our public health expertise and track record on delivering behaviour change campaigns.”

Drinkaware says it shares the same “aims and principles” as its new public sector partner. But it did not answer when asked if it would risk donors’ business interests to achieve public health goals? Critics conclude this is because of a conflict of interests.

Head of the Wine and Spirits Trade Association Miles Beale also would not say if his association’s members would continue to contribute to Drinkaware if the organisation’s work threatened their business interests. The alcohol industry wants “long-term customers”, he says.

PHE head Duncan Selbie said he would be “fiercely vigilant” about Drinkaware’s governance. Many, however, remain horrified. “As a profession, this potentially brings public health into national ridicule,” wrote one commentator on Twitter.

A group of 40 health organisations, led by the Alcohol Health Alliance, objected to the deal last month. “We hoped they would see sense,” said one insider. AHA head Sir Ian Gilmore resigned as a PHE adviser this week and his tobacco counterpart John Britton may yet follow.

Drinkaware “misrepresents evidence and frames alcohol harms as solely an individual responsibility issue”, says Mark Petticrew, a long-time critic. The new venture “normalises the role of the alcohol industry in influencing public health”.

In particular Petticrew says Drinkaware downplays cancer risk as part of a wider strategy to neuter health advice to protect shareholder returns. A PHE evidence review has acknowledged potential problems of this kind.

PHE and Drinkaware say they will do separate evaluations and peer reviews of the campaign. Portman, the alcohol industry outfit which created Drinkaware, drew conclusions at odds with the findings of a joint health labelling study this year.

This site revealed Portman unilaterally dropped official health guidelines from its voluntary labelling standard in October. The attempt to restore them is led by the Department of Health and Social Care, but the PHE looked at the evidence and came down in favour of health labelling.

“Using labels to include information about the health risks and harms associated with alcohol can be implemented with relatively low-cost and will have a wide population reach,” the PHE’s review said in its 2016 review.

Few health professionals quibble with the idea behind “drink-free days”. Having two or more days a week without drinking alcohol may help older, steady drinkers cut down. It is already part of the Chief Medical Officer’s drinking guidelines.

A PR campaign for the idea began on Monday. This will be backed up with national radio and digital advertising which will direct people to a dedicated site. The Drinkaware board has yet to decide on budgets for 2019 and 2020.

Among the reasons the PHE gives for its partnership with Drinkaware is that the alcohol-business backed site had 9m unique visitors in 2017, an unaudited figure taken from Google Analytics. Most, it says, arrive from an organic search for an alcohol-related term.

“This is the first step in reframing our relationship with the alcohol industry,” PHE said its head, Mr Selbie. Some are finding the route being mapped out a more enticing prospect than others. ■