‘We can't go on like this,’
says David
Cameron of Britain’s binge drinking problem in
The
government’s alcohol strategy
(see news story, page
4). Fifty years ago, the UK had one of the lowest
drinking levels in Europe, the document points out,
while last year saw almost 1m alcohol-related
violent crimes and 1.2m hospital admissions, a state
of affairs it attributes to a ‘combination of
irresponsibility, ignorance and poor habits – whether
by individuals, parents or businesses’. It’s a
situation that the strategy intends to attack ‘from
every single angle’, he states.
So how has the strategy been received, hoo-
hah about whether it was rush-released to divert
attention from the Budget aside? Despite the
inclusion of a commitment to introduce a minimum
price – something that no one thought was even on
the agenda until recently – health groups have
regarded it as something of a damp squib. While all
welcome the intention to address the issues,
Alcohol Concern pointed out that the strategy will
do little good without the government putting its
money where its mouth is and committing real
resources to alcohol treatment, while Mentor UK
said it ‘missed an open goal’.
Press reaction has been mixed, with op-ed
columns taking strongly different lines even within
the pages of the same newspaper. Much of the
press has long wanted to have its cake and eat it
when it comes to alcohol harm, running apocalyptic
‘binge Britain’ stories on an almost daily basis and
then crying ‘nanny state!’ at any attempt to address
the issue through action on pricing or advertising.
‘Binge drinking is a serious problem,’ said David
Cameron’s introduction, ‘and I make no excuses for
clamping down on it,’ which – speaking of open
goals – inevitably invited countless references to his
Bullingdon Club days. There does, however, seem
to be less willful misunderstanding of the likely
impact of minimum pricing than when chief medical
officer Sir Liam Donaldson first proposed the idea
under Labour (
DDN
, 23 March 2009, page 5)
Reaction from the industry, although inevitably
negative, has mostly been reasonably measured,
despite some talk of ‘legal challenges’ (regarded as
likely to fail). While the big manufacturers and
industry groups will obviously defend their interests
to the last, they’re also aware that they can’t be
seen as too eager to put profits before public
health and welfare. The Portman Group seized on
the ‘good progress’ being made with the much-
derided alcohol responsibility deal, while The Wine
and Spirit Trade Association said it opposed
minimum pricing on the grounds that there was no
evidence to prove it would tackle alcohol misuse.
Opinion is split even within different parts of the
industry, however. While the British Beer and Pub
Association (BBPA) welcomed the strategy’s focus
on the retail sector, as recent years had seen
‘alcohol policy aimed squarely at pubs when more
and more drinking is done at home’, the British
Retail Consortium said it was ‘a myth to suggest
that supermarkets are the problem or that a pub is
somehow a safer drinking environment’.
Ultimately, of course, we’re a long way from any
of this becoming legislation, and the industry wields
a lot of economic and lobbying power in these
straitened times. Perhaps tellingly, David Cameron’s
introduction addresses itself exclusively to the crime
and anti-social behaviour aspects of alcohol misuse,
without a single mention of health. According to
British Liver Trust chief executive Andrew Langford,
this reflects the fact the Home Office led on the
strategy. ‘The health issues around alcohol are well
publicised and on their own probably wouldn’t have
gained the traction needed for the policy change
that we witnessed on Friday,’ he tells
DDN
. ‘That
said, we will be doing everything we can to ensure
the health impacts of alcohol are well understood by
the strategy team in the government.’
Was he surprised that minimum pricing ended
up in there at all? ‘Yes, and we were delighted to see
the government recognising the clear link between
price and consumption,’ he says. ‘It also highlights
the differences in departments at the government –
some are more ambitious than others.’
The trust called the strategy ‘the beginning of a
process’. Ideally, what would it like to see happen
now? ‘There is still lots to be done and we’ve
always been very clear that minimum unit price
shouldn’t be hailed as the silver bullet, nor the only
solution to the problem. Alcohol cuts across
society, and the issues associated with it need a
population approach. We will be pushing very hard
for action on other aspects of alcohol marketing,
such as the way it is promoted, labelled and
advertised. We are very keen that alcohol treatment
services get the investment they so desperately
deserve, too.’
The trust dismissed the latest alcohol
responsibility deal initiative – to 'remove one billion
units' – as an empty, headline-grabbing gesture, but
much of the industry reaction to the strategy has
been to emphasise the 'good work' being done
here. How long can it be before these sort of
conflicts become unsustainable?
‘The deal is a poorly constructed strategy from
Andrew Lansley and offers the alcohol industry far
too much leeway in doing things their way rather
than what is good for public health,’ he says. ‘The
inherent conflicts of interest and lack of meaningful
pledges have become a joke amongst the alcohol
health community and, due to the fact we witnessed
decades of inaction driven by ‘voluntary’ agreements
on various issues, such as labelling, it makes it very
hard to believe the claims they now make.’
DDN
6 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| April 2012
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
News focus |
Analysis
HAS THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO
STAND UP TO THE DRINKS INDUSTRY?
The government’s alcohol strategy is finally with us.
DDN
assesses the reactions
‘
There is still lots to be
done and we’ve always
been very clear that
minimum unit price
shouldn’t be hailed as the
silver bullet, nor the only
solution to the problem.
Alcohol cuts across
society, and the issues
associated with it need a
population approach.’
Andrew Langford