alcohol

In this issue: Public health welcomes end of alcohol tax freeze; Asian flush linked to cancer; Ads create harmful online environments

Public health welcomes end of alcohol tax freeze

Public health advocates this week welcomed a UK Budget heeding its call for alcohol duty to rise at least in line with inflation, as well as a move intended to lower pub prices relative to retail.

It could have gone further still, public health representatives said, including by closing the loophole responsible for ultra-cheap cider. Pubs themselves argued that more effective support would come by helping with their energy costs, VAT and business rates. It remains to be seen how much of the duty fall reaches pump prices. Big alcohol interests expressed their unhappiness, but saw their share prices rise.

Alcohol Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The government estimated that it had given away £405m to the alcohol industry by freezing duty in December (see table below). The lower tax rate for pubs announced in this budget will cost £80m a year, the same estimates say, just over a twentieth of the £1.3bn annualised loss of public income forecast had it kept the blanket duty freeze.

The inflationary linkages of duty may be the new normal, with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt saying it was done “in the usual way” though it is a rarity in recent years. News of the special rate for pubs was leaked via the Bloomberg news service, which hosted Hunt at an event on budget day evening also attended by owner Michael Bloomberg, a proponent of heath taxes.

Press materials released by the Treasury also quoted Michael Bloomberg giving a glowing assessment of the UK’s economic prospects.

In brief

East Asian people with a low tolerance to alcohol, commonly known as “Asian flush”, have an increased chance of developing a hard-to-cure type of stomach cancer if they drink alcohol, according to a study in Nature Genetics.

Alcohol companies are creating online environments for harm, according to a new report which found nearly 40,000 alcohol ads are placed on Facebook and Instagram each year in Australia. They are often come with a button saying ‘shop now’.

Break-ins were down 45%, domestic violence was down 30% and youth disturbances were down 36%, said a leaked police briefing a month after the reintroduction of alcohol restrictions in parts of Northern Territory. Others doubt the figures.

Alcohol Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Policies and individual choices are normally seen as completely separate, but in reality they merge. So why not ring in the New Year by road-testing some effective alcohol strategies at home?

We all set some rules, or policies, for our homes, for example. Few let outdoor shoes go beyond a certain threshold. Weaponry, road vehicles, fire, smoke and harmful chemicals also typically have their perimeters.

These are not prohibitions. They are regulations. By crossing borders we can have access to all of the things verboten in some places. Out there is a target-shooting, tanker driver who only smokes when scrubbed up, unarmed on the veranda.

The regulatory systems of our private lives often operate on the basis of unwritten policies picked up from parents, partners, and common sense. They offer an easy way to keep a safe, livable and inexpensive environment. 

These policies are typically adopted and applied without any democratic mandate. But we will also, sometimes, decide to set new policies, often through a process of thought, negotiation and compromise.

So why not consider adding evidence-based alcohol policies to the mix. We might take, for instance, government policies reckoned to curb harm at a population level as a starting point: increase the price, and reduce availability and marketing.

A few calculations might allow us to set a minimum unit price. This we might do by identifying products which are below it. Or we might levy a alcohol per unit “tax”, setting aside revenue for household running costs and infrastructure.

Implementation of these might be complicated. Perhaps an easier option would be reducing alcohol availability. We might bar keeping alcohol at home; Or to limit the stockpile; Or not put what we have in the fridge; Or, maybe, not to buy online. 

Limiting home availability would have a knock-on effect. It bumps up the price of alcohol at home, imposing on inhabitants the cost of leaving the house to buy it. This also gives us a chance for second thoughts. 

Reducing marketing exposure is trickier, because alcohol advertising targets us without our consent. But we can reduce it, by putting alcohol brands out of sight at home. We can also filter some online ads. And we can try to avoid alcohol retail.

Harmful levels of drinking are best addressed with the aid of medical advice. But making our own environments less alcohol loaded makes low-risk drinking the easy option. And home drinking is the source of the bulk of alcohol harm.

We all set and live by policies to create environments which are safe and best serve our needs. We need politicians to do this for us in environments we share. ■

There are maybe 770,000 part-time and full-time jobs connected with alcohol business in the UK, according to an IAS estimate. And there are about 638.000 people who are alcohol dependent, meaning they experience side effects when not inebriated. ■

Western culture makes a fetish of strenuous effort. Put in lots of effort, we are told, and we can reliably expect cracking results. I, like a lot of people, was brought up to believe it. Media reinforce the idea. But it is not true.

Many of us often work extremely hard and get very limited results in return. What we invariably get, however, is fatigue. Over the long term we often get chronic fatigue. We also increase our chances of injury and becoming jaded.

We also boost the chances we crave relief from the pain and strain we have induced. Enthusiastic efforts to improve our health can lead us to look for relief using alcohol or in other counterproductive ways.

I was brought up to be a firm believer in the try hard ethos. Whether it was memorising irregular foreign verbs or running round a playing field until we puked. It was all quite unpleasant, but rest assured the pain would have a pay off.

There is something to be said for seeing where our limits are and experiencing what happens when we reach them. It is instructive, but constantly pushing our gauges into the red is a flawed long-term strategy.

Real achievements typically emerge from steady, sustainable and enjoyable effort. Bodies strengthen, but they take time. Books, academic papers and brick walls take shape, but not thanks to an afternoon of frantic exertion.

Willing ourselves to regularly hit our pain thresholds can induce endorphins that soothe strain and stress. But over the long term this can backfire when we no longer want to endure discomfort simply for a painkilling payoff.

My own experience was that I became tired of the satisfaction and reward of enduring things as an end in itself. Eventually I found what Chinese philosophy calls wu wei, a slippery idea one might say means “never pushing”.

The idea is to never strain oneself. One should look at ways to sail rather than row to a destination. Rather than giving oneself a pat on the back for labouring, one should focus on technique, reducing effort and enhancing enjoyment.

It is an approach that can be well embodied in some tai chi classes. If you feel any pain or strain you are told to stop moving quite so much. The lesson for an inveterate try-harder is stop trying so hard, progress will come anyway.

I did no more than the tai chi basics, but “never pushing” works with anything. I swam this way for three years. I was never injured, tired or stressed and was able to enjoy every minute. I emerged far stronger and with technique improved. 

The ultra low intensity meant there was no pain or discomfort during or after. This meant there was not the slightest temptation to self-medicate with alcohol or anything else. Swimming itself became a longed-for stress relief.

Making never pushing and enjoyment the key parameters of success make activities themselves the rewarding relaxation it should be.  Well-being not effort is the most reliable basis for progress. ■

The discussion over parliamentary groups is important to tackling alcohol harm, with some promoting alcohol interests while another looks to curb alcohol harm. They are not mutually exclusive.

The chair of a group of UK parliamentarians focused on reducing alcohol harm is also co-chair of another recently revealed to have taken money from an alcohol-industry-linked group.

Christian Wakeford, who switched from the Conservatives to Labour in January, is chair of the Alcohol Harm All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), supported by charity Alcohol Change for a figure of £3,000.

But Wakeford is also co-chair of the alcohol-industry supported group on the Night Time Economy, which has the mission, “To recognise the cultural and economic importance of nightlife to the UK.” 

Records show this APPG received £7,500 or more from the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA), which campaigns to #SaveNightlife for pubs, clubs and alcohol companies including Pernod Ricard and Jägermeister.

Wakefield and Alcohol Change were both contacted for comment on the issues raised by this story, but had yet to respond at the time of publication. Any replies will be added accordingly.

Just over half the £25m put into all-parliamentary bodies since 2018 was from the private sector, says research from the Guardian newspaper, a sum which critics say gives them undue sway in politics.

Journalists and members of the public are, arguably, encouraged to confuse reports written and published by commercial interests with one which has had politically balanced parliamentary oversight.

The smallprint of a 46-page NTIA report on the impact of covid-19 last year was billed, “An inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Night Time Economy,” and bears the parliamentary portcullis logo. 

But, in a small footnote, it adds, “This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees.”

The disproportionate role of commercial interests in establishing and being the real power behind All-Party Parliamentary Groups has wider implications for alcohol harm too.

There APPGs for beer, recipient of £30,000 from beer business; scotch, set up by the Scotch Whisky Association; and wine and spirits, the brainchild of the Wine and Spirits Trade Association.

The wine and spirits APPG produced a report last week on the “unworkability” of the government’s tax proposals. Some of its contentions were inaccurate but still gained uncritical media attention. ■