Drug and Alcohol Review (1993) 12, 131-132

EDITORIAL

Taking the alcohol industry seriously

The 1992 International Council on Alcohol and Addictions (ICAA) Congress in Glasgow, held under the auspices of the Scottish Council on Alco- hol, was perhaps not surprisingly conducted in the shadow of the alcohol industry. The export of whisky is one of Scotland's largest foreign currency earners and a not inconsiderable contributor to the British economy. The paper delegates wrote on, indeed the pens they wrote with, were contributed by the alcohol industry, as was one of the receptions. Representatives of the alcohol industry occupied favoured seats at the opening ceremony and sessions convened by them were included in the official programme.

Some of those attending the Congress, particu- larly its younger participants, objected to this seeming acceptance of the legitimacy of the alcohol industry's presence. For their part the industry repre- sentatives seemed very comfortable, asking the first question from the floor following the opening plenary session. They clearly believed themselves to be welcome and had no compunction in declaring themselves "major players in encouraging the re- sponsible use of alcohol".

Wha t then are we to make of the increasing tendency for the alcohol industry to claim a major role in the inculcation of responsible drinking? How seriously are we to take them? Very seriously indeed, if we are to believe their spokesmen [1].

In essence, what the industry would seem to be arguing is that the introduction of what they call draconian, dogmatically adhered to control measures to reduce the consumption of alcohol is premature until it is established that the goal of reducing alcohol-related harm cannot be achieved more pain- lessly by education. In other words, give education a chance. To give substance to their claim the alcohol industry has, of late, committed large sums of money to demonstrating that education can be effective.

To the claim made by researchers that education has not been notably successfid in reducing the harm associated with alcohol, they retort that if this was the case how is it that most people drink respon- sibly? The argument would appear to turn not so much on whether education has contributed to con- vincing the majority to drink sensibly, clearly it has, but rather whether education is likely to effect changes in the minority who regularly drink exces- sively or the majority who occasionally drink excessively? Apologists for the alcohol industry be- lieve that education must be given another chance, while researchers in the public health mould are likely to conclude that education has had its chance and that more effective measures need now to be adopted.

If, however, we do take the industry's claim seri- ously, what can they intend to achieve? It certainly cannot he a downturn in their own profitability and yet, superficially, this would appear to be the case.

I f those drinking in excess of what are considered the upper limits of safe drinking are persuaded to drink down to these limits, unless a corresponding number of more temperate drinkers drink up to them, a substantial decline in per capita consumption will occur (the bulk of all alcohol is consumed by a minority of hea W drinkers) [2]. Yet, the industry claims that it is not their intention to persuade people who do not drink to start drinking or prevail on people who drink moderately to increase their consumption.

One of the bases on which industry profitability can be increased or maintained while discouraging excessive drinking, and at the same time not increas- ing the drinking of those moderate drinkers, is for the population to drink less alcohol in absolute terms, while maintaining or increasing the volume of beverage drunk, i.e. by increasingly promoting the low alcohol variants of the several beverages.

131

132 Editorial

I f this is indeed the industry's intention, it would be encouraging if they were to declare it. Failing that, it can only be assumed that implicit in their effort to educate people to drink responsibly is an intention to encourage everyone to drink responsibly, i.e. to encourage people to drink to the upper limit of what is considered safe; a scenario which, at least in the Australian context, would represent a significant increase in per capita consumption [2].

There are at least two other occasions fi~r ques- tioning whether the alcohol industry "is serious" to paraphrase a well known American phrase. Industry spokesmen together with their advertisers and the Advertising Standards Council have argued fi~r some years now that the system of self-regulation observed in Australia is second t o none--this in spite of the fact that a number of surveys [3], including one commissioned by the industry [4], report disquiet with the observance of the code and a widespread perception that its requirements are frequently ignored. When required to defend their stewardship of the code industry representatives have again asked for more time to demonstrate that self-regulation can work. In some cases the defcnce has taken the form of blaming the advertisers or certain sections of the alcohol industry and proposing beverage-specific codes and more independent, but still industry paid fbr, forms of vetting.

It remains to be seen whether the plea for more time to make the existing system work in support of responsible drinking merely represents a further at- tempt to delay government regulation of advertising. The recent controversial blue heeler advertisements for Eagle Bitter beer would suggest that self-regula- tion still f~ils to provide the assurance of responsible advertising.

Of greater potential significance, however, is the industries' claim to have endorsed the responsible serving of alcohol as evidenced by the proliferation of industry led campaigns, pub cards, skipper projects, safely home programmes and distribution of a jointly produced "Guidelines for the Respon- sible Serving of Alcohol".

Unfortunately, what is lacking is any evidence of the implementation of these guidelines. Recent re- search suggests that some patrons are still being served greatly in excess of the recommended safe levels [5], that a significant percentage of patrons are leaving licensed premises with blood alcohol levels in excess of 0.12 [6], that pseudo drunks and pseudo young people are regularly served alcoholic drinks

despite ensuring that they draw attention to them- selves. All of this is to be contrasted with the lack of effective prosecution of the law regarding the serving of intoxicated patrons and a deluge of promotions calculated to contribute to rapid intoxicated drinking sufficient to persaude the Victorian Commissioner of Liquor Licensing to write an open letter to all licensees discouraging such promotion [7].

If the alcohol industry is to be taken seriously, as it would wish, it surely behoves it to demonstrate that it can regulate its members rather than merely claim their endorsement of its policies. [7ntil they can demonstrate this, the public have a right to demand that governments exercise more control of the industry.

References

[1] Rca J. The drink industry's contribution to preventing alcohol misuse. A presentation on behalf of the Port man Group, 36th International Congress on Alcohol & Drug l)ependence, Glasgow, 1992.

12] l tawks I)V. Is it possible to recommend safe drinking levels without increasing per capita consumption? An- other aspect of the prevention paradox. Br J Addict 1989;84:371-375.

[3] NCAI)A (National Campaign Against Drag Abuse). A study of attitudes towards alcohol consumption, labelling and advertising. A report prepared fi)r the Drugs of Dependence Branch 1)epartment of Commu- nity Services and ftealth by Rcark Research, Melbourne, l'ebruary 1991.

[41 Mackay H. A study of community attitudes: alcohol advertising. A survey conducted for the National Alco- holic Beverages Industries Council by Mackay Research Pry Ltd., Lindfield NSW, December 1990.

[5] Lang E, Stockwell T, Rydon P, Gamble C. Drinking settings, alcohol related harm and support fbr preven- tion policies. Results of a survey of people residing in the Perth metropolitan area. Curtin University of Technology, Perth: National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, 1992.

[6] Stockwell T, Rydon P, Gianatti S, Jenkins E, Ovenden C, Syed D. Levels of drunkenness of customers leaving licensed premises in Perth, Western Australia: a com- parison of high and low 'risk' premises. Br J Addict 1992;87:873-881.

[7] Geelong Advertiser. Booze gimmicks banned, 4 June 1992.

DAVID HAWKS Director, National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box UI987, Perth, Western Australia 6001