philcain.com

journalism, books, events

Pro

Alcohol education is essential

by

Knowledge is necessary to inspire, shape and sustain positive change, with its dissemination providing the conditions for this change to occur. Alcohol is no exception.

We cannot require anyone to learn about alcohol, no more than we can require them to learn about physics or the Brontë sisters, but everyone should have the chance.

An accurate understanding of alcohol based on scientific research offers a solid basis for us to safeguard our wellbeing, both as individuals and as a society. 

Regulating alcohol prices, availability and ads are more effective as direct interventions, but education is necessary for these measures to be designed, justified and accepted.

Increasing the alcohol knowledge base of politicians, citizens and the media are preconditions for the implementation of effective alcohol policy. 

An asset for individualists 
A coherent understanding of alcohol is far better for us as individuals than relying on traditional rules of thumb, enabling us to avoid a wide array of misfortunes.

Those informed about alcohol can help themselves and others to avoid mistakes. Informed people can better help those who suffer alcohol harm and become a positive influence.

An understanding of the reasons for guidelines and regulations makes them far more likely to make people take heed than blind trust or irritation born of confusion.

The effects of alcohol are inherently misleading. We are bombarded by misleading ads with flimsy regulation and alcohol industry-run information platforms.

Inaccurate beliefs are therefore common, just as they are in stock market bubbles and politics. Grassroots education is the only way to put a lid on the spread of misconceived ideas.

Underpinning change
Financial education does not provide a safeguard from financial mistakes, but it does make us justifiably wary and recognise the benefit of robust regulation.

And, should we fall prey to financial misfortune, we can find the financial knowledge we need to understand what went wrong and how to avoid it in future.

Reliable alcohol knowledge can fulfil a similar role, helping to improve the lives of those who embrace it, for next to nothing, and enabling us to make the best of mistakes.

Alcohol education does not offer immediate, measurable payoffs, but a lack of understanding rarely has positive outcomes in any other area. Alcohol should not be shrouded in mystery.

Education ranks low on the policymakers’ alcohol to-do list, but it still remains vital to achieving a less harmful relationship with alcohol long term.

Learning about alcohol, a topic with enormous social, psychological, economic, health and political reach, can help us engage more fully as citizens as well as students. ■

Alcohol safety labelling may be about to get worse

by

An apparent forward step on alcohol safety labelling last week may, in fact, signal that it is about to get worse.

The alcohol industry Portman Group (PG) says it agreed with the health department “for the removal of out-of-date information” by September 1st. But it does not mention adding current low-risk guideline amounts.

Adding the weekly guidelines is not among the minimum “best practice options”. Instead, PG offers advice on how to “reflect” weekly consumption guidelines it refers to as “revised” though current since January 2016.

PG emphasises it offers advice while ignoring the fact that none of its members are committed to follow it. So years of foot-dragging on safety labelling may yet morph into a full-blown reverse.

The health department agreed a September 1st deadline for the alcohol industry action in March 2017. The existence of the “grace period” was unknown until a speech by then junior minister Steven Brine in January.

Few may yet realise it, but the grace period may have just been quietly extended and also expanded to green-light alcohol suppliers to offer no weekly consumption guidelines at all. ■

Tepid reception for industry alcohol labelling pledge

by

News the biggest players in the UK’s alcohol industry have agreed to put weekly drinking guidelines on their labels, a month before a government deadline to do so, has prompted little jubilation among health advocates.

The Portman Group, an alcohol industry mouthpiece, dribbled out the news in a piece in the Daily Mail, couching its promise with a caveat about it being subject to “feasibility”. Jubilation was muted, with the UK’s trust-based system taking some 1,300 days to get this far.

The government agreed to let the alcohol industry have a “grace period” until September 1st to comply in March 2017, only making the agreement widely known in January this year. The terms of any new arrangement underlying today’s statement are unknown.

“This half-hearted pledge, by some parts of the alcohol industry, is a strong indicator that the UK deserves a fair system that sets a level playing field for all food and drinks producers,” the Alcohol Health Alliance told Alcohol Companion.”

“All alcohol products must advise drinkers about both the contents and consequences of consumption to empower consumers to make fully- informed choices about their health.”

“While this marks a half-step forward, it shows that the current system of alcohol industry self-regulation is failing consumers,” said Katherine Severi, head of the Institute of Alcohol Studies, which provides a health slant on alcohol policy

It remains to be seen what effect the Portman Group agreement will have, if any. It could prove to be mostly about refreshing the label for a period of inaction from “grace period” to “feasibility period”. ■

Exclusive: Alcohol safety labelling “grace period” kept quiet for 22 months

by

The UK government kept quiet for 22 months about the “grace period” it gave alcohol suppliers to omit the official safety guidelines, Alcohol Companion has discovered.

The department agreed the alcohol industry could omit the information from labels until September 1st this year in March 2017, only formally telling the public of the deal in January this year.

The deal was struck under Jeremy Hunt (left), who was thwarted in a bid to become prime minister this week. Hunt handed over the health department reigns to fellow would-be leader Matt Hancock (right) last summer.  

The silence meant even the most informed onlookers were taken-aback when Alcohol Companion revealed the alcohol industry had suddenly dropped the guidelines from its voluntary code in October 2017.

The grace period first became a matter of public record in January thanks to a speech to parliament by Steven Brine (below), who started as a junior minister three months after the little-known pact.

Health minister gives UK the alcohol
 industry until September to introduce health guideline labelling

The health department says an eagle-eyed observer might have inferred the industry had been offered the delay in labelling from a Food Standards Agency update issued in September 2017.

It also says it issued guidance on how to communicate the low-risk guidelines at the same time as it quietly agreed the alcohol industry could have 30 months more omitting them.

“We are starting to see more products with labels that reflect the new guidelines and the department will continue to work with industry to implement the guidance,” the department said.

Only around 14% of alcoholic drinks labels tell consumers of the 14 UK unit (140ml) a week guideline, according to a BBC Panorama investigation into the issue last month.

The guideline was first introduced in January 2016. As few as one-in-six UK consumers know it. ■

Alcohol worsens disadvantages

by

With a welcome spotlight being shone on rising inequality this week it is worth noting that alcohol makes it harder for poorer people to succeed in a game already heavily weighted against them.

This fact is not as widely acknowledged as it should be. A large charity told me to call elsewhere because it focuses on poverty not alcohol. Of course, specialism is necessary, but not when it means neglecting clear links. Luckily it seems they will not be ignored much longer.

On the radar
“One cause for concern is a rise in ‘deaths of despair’” said the IFS Deaton Review, launched in the UK this week, referring to deaths from suicide, drug and alcohol overdose and alcohol-related liver disease. They have overtaken deaths from heart disease in recent years (see chart).

Of course death is the most stark outcome. With luck, the review’s army of sociologists, demographers and epidemiologists will also shed light on a myriad more nuanced inequalities to which alcohol contributes. As the Alcohol Change UK campaign pointed out alcohol harms poorer people more in many other ways.

Poorer people tend to live with fewer healthcare facilities, more crime, more stress and higher levels of alcohol availability, so slipping more easily into heavy drinking. The middle classes have their difficulties, but generally nothing to compare with the perils faced by people struggling to get by.

A dicey game
The board game snakes and ladders, or chutes and ladders in the US, can help picture how circumstances alter our chances of success or mishap. Each player moves along the board and when landing on a ladder takes a big step up and when they land on a snake they slip a long way down.

But, crucially, we do not all play on the same board. Poorer people start further away from the giddy heights of their terrain. And, to reflect their less fortunate circumstances, they face more penalties and fewer bonuses, so fewer and shorter ladders, and more, longer snakes. Consequently a smaller percentage of poorer people make as much progress.

To make it more realistic we should test a skill to decide whether we necessarily slide down a snake or climb a ladder. Maybe we have to answer an exam question or, something silly like catch a ball in a cup, anything really to mimic a real life test. Adding this extra obstacle simply multiplies the extra difficulties faced by poorer people.

Now, finally, we can add another level of realism to the model, alcohol. Consuming alcohol impairs our skills, judgement and planning, so meaning we fall down even more snakes and can take advantage fewer lucky breaks. Adding alcohol to the equation tips the balance of an unfair game even further against poorer people.

At the same time advertising relentless associates alcohol with success and winning, deliberately obscuring the fact that it is far more likely to increase our chances of losing.

Clear, not less subtle
The “alcohol paradox”, the name often given to the way alcohol disproportionately harms poorer people is unhelpful, adding intrigue to something which is not mysterious. It is not paradoxical that poorer people are harmed more It is simply a testament to the combined effect of more challenging circumstances and substance blunting our abilities.

It is, of course, vital for the review unveiled this week to go beyond this simplistic model and to shed light on the details. But, as a starting point, the reason alcohol tends to compound inequality can be an unfortunate effect everyone can readily understand and find ways to avoid. With luck, more policies will emerge to make it easier. ■