Minimum pricing for alcohol: the red-faced ranters have won | Katherine Brown: Intense lobbying from alcohol producers would appear to have killed-off this ground-breaking policy.
The absence of minimum pricing for alcohol in today's Queen's Speech is a chilling reminder of the influence big business still has on public health in the UK.
In March 2012, David Cameron committed to tackle head-on the problems caused by cheap drink. The coalition's alcohol strategy set out to "attack it from every angle" and curb the sale of "beer cheaper than water" with a new minimum unit price. This groundbreaking policy promised to prevent tens of thousands of crimes each year and save thousands of lives – not to mention give some much needed breathing space to the overloaded NHS and emergency services. And all of this without affecting the price of a pint down the pub.
So what has changed since these bold commitments were made? Has the burden of alcohol on society lessened? Has the evidence to support minimum pricing weakened? Has there been mass public outcry? The answer to all of the above is no.
There are still one million alcohol-related hospital admissions each year; rates of alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder continue to plague our streets and alcohol harm is estimated to cost the UK economy more than £25bn each year.
New evidence from Canada shows a 10% price increase for the cheapest drinks led to a 32% reduction in wholly alcohol-related deaths and a 9% reduction in hospital admissions.
Recent polls show that people want tough action on alcohol, with the costs to the NHS, police and antisocial behaviour listed as major concerns.
However, it appears that those who have the biggest budgets shout the loudest, as the supporters of minimum pricing cannot be heard over the red-faced rants from the multinational drinks corporations. Rumoured to be "furious" at the proposals, threats were made to walk away from the government's Public Health Responsibility Deal if minimum pricing were introduced. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA), representing companies such as Diageo, Bacardi and Pernod Ricard, launched a colossal lobbying campaign, both behind closed doors and in the public eye to "kill minimum pricing".
With the strapline "why should responsible drinkers pay more?", the campaign website urges members of the public to write or tweet a template message to their MP, stating that minimum pricing "will not work" and will penalise responsible drinkers. These statements fly in the face of the evidence that shows minimum pricing targets the heaviest (and youngest) drinkers, saving lives and reducing crime, while having minimal impact on those who drink moderately.
Fudging scientific evidence is a well-established tobacco industry tactic happily adopted by the drinks producers. A recent report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine outlines how major alcohol producers ignored, misrepresented and undermined international evidence on effective alcohol control policies in representations to the Scottish government. Similar findings (pdf) from the Institute of Alcohol Studies showed that criticisms of the evidence to support minimum pricing, much of it from groups with vested interests, was inaccurate and misleading.
The legal challenge mounted by the Scottish Whisky Association to block the introduction of minimum pricing, which had been approved by the Scottish parliament, is yet another copycat manoeuvre. A court ruling last week found no grounds for such a challenge. However, the drinks industry has pledged to delay further the introduction of the policy by appealing this decision.
The World Health Organisation director-general has recently spoken out about the threat posed by the alcohol industry to public health policies. Responding to an article in the British Medical Journal, Dr Margaret Chan warned that alcohol policy must be "protected from distortion by commercial or vested interests".
With no concrete evidence or commonsense reasoning to explain why the government has decided to renege on its commitment on minimum pricing, the only conclusion to be drawn is that intense lobbying from the alcohol producers has prevailed over public health interests. When minimum pricing was defeated in the Scottish parliament at the first attempt in 2010, SAB Miller sent a crate of beer to all opposition MSPs as an act of gratitude. One wonders how many glasses will be clinking in Westminster as a result of this latest U-turn? The Guardian
The absence of minimum pricing for alcohol in today's Queen's Speech is a chilling reminder of the influence big business still has on public health in the UK.
In March 2012, David Cameron committed to tackle head-on the problems caused by cheap drink. The coalition's alcohol strategy set out to "attack it from every angle" and curb the sale of "beer cheaper than water" with a new minimum unit price. This groundbreaking policy promised to prevent tens of thousands of crimes each year and save thousands of lives – not to mention give some much needed breathing space to the overloaded NHS and emergency services. And all of this without affecting the price of a pint down the pub.
So what has changed since these bold commitments were made? Has the burden of alcohol on society lessened? Has the evidence to support minimum pricing weakened? Has there been mass public outcry? The answer to all of the above is no.
There are still one million alcohol-related hospital admissions each year; rates of alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder continue to plague our streets and alcohol harm is estimated to cost the UK economy more than £25bn each year.
New evidence from Canada shows a 10% price increase for the cheapest drinks led to a 32% reduction in wholly alcohol-related deaths and a 9% reduction in hospital admissions.
Recent polls show that people want tough action on alcohol, with the costs to the NHS, police and antisocial behaviour listed as major concerns.
However, it appears that those who have the biggest budgets shout the loudest, as the supporters of minimum pricing cannot be heard over the red-faced rants from the multinational drinks corporations. Rumoured to be "furious" at the proposals, threats were made to walk away from the government's Public Health Responsibility Deal if minimum pricing were introduced. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA), representing companies such as Diageo, Bacardi and Pernod Ricard, launched a colossal lobbying campaign, both behind closed doors and in the public eye to "kill minimum pricing".
With the strapline "why should responsible drinkers pay more?", the campaign website urges members of the public to write or tweet a template message to their MP, stating that minimum pricing "will not work" and will penalise responsible drinkers. These statements fly in the face of the evidence that shows minimum pricing targets the heaviest (and youngest) drinkers, saving lives and reducing crime, while having minimal impact on those who drink moderately.
Fudging scientific evidence is a well-established tobacco industry tactic happily adopted by the drinks producers. A recent report from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine outlines how major alcohol producers ignored, misrepresented and undermined international evidence on effective alcohol control policies in representations to the Scottish government. Similar findings (pdf) from the Institute of Alcohol Studies showed that criticisms of the evidence to support minimum pricing, much of it from groups with vested interests, was inaccurate and misleading.
The legal challenge mounted by the Scottish Whisky Association to block the introduction of minimum pricing, which had been approved by the Scottish parliament, is yet another copycat manoeuvre. A court ruling last week found no grounds for such a challenge. However, the drinks industry has pledged to delay further the introduction of the policy by appealing this decision.
The World Health Organisation director-general has recently spoken out about the threat posed by the alcohol industry to public health policies. Responding to an article in the British Medical Journal, Dr Margaret Chan warned that alcohol policy must be "protected from distortion by commercial or vested interests".
With no concrete evidence or commonsense reasoning to explain why the government has decided to renege on its commitment on minimum pricing, the only conclusion to be drawn is that intense lobbying from the alcohol producers has prevailed over public health interests. When minimum pricing was defeated in the Scottish parliament at the first attempt in 2010, SAB Miller sent a crate of beer to all opposition MSPs as an act of gratitude. One wonders how many glasses will be clinking in Westminster as a result of this latest U-turn? The Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment