The alcohol debate goes on and on
In May the alcohol beverage industry in Australia continued to be subjected to increasing pressures from legislators, the community and the media as concerns the problems caused by excessive consumption of alcohol.
Although the total per capita consumption of alcohol in Australia continues to fall and binge drinking is by no means a new phenomenon, it seems inevitable that the community spotlight is once again on the industry, reports John Harvey from Adelaide.
Although everybody seems to have a notion of what constitutes the phenomenon of binge drinking, a consensus definition is still a long way off. Speaking in Auckland at the convention of the Asia Pacific Section of IBD, Stephen Swift (Australasian Association of Brewers) suggested that binge drinking should be better defined…”if a binge is consuming to intoxication, then it is not too common but if it is drinking more than two standard drinks a day [as per the new proposed guidelines] then there are a lot of binge drinkers out there…”.
A recent meeting of state and territory police called for a better and nationally standardised definition of intoxication. A definition given during a radio talkback session on 30 May suggested consuming six standard drinks in a “session” is binge drinking.
A sense of déjà vu? Over eight years ago, in January 2000, the federal government was concerned about Australia´s growing teenage drinking crisis. Health minister Wooldridge then said “teenage binge drinking was now one of Australia´s major public health problems” and a hard-hitting television advertising campaign would commence in February. Alcopops were seen as the main culprit. However, words and actions differed widely. Commentators are now reminding us that the alcopops problem was created in 2000 when, with the introduction of GST (a tax), pre-mixed spirit based drinks were given special treatment for reasons hard to understand. Prices dropped dramatically and sales rose by 80 percent in two months and a national survey in 2001 showed that alcopops/RTDs were the most popular beverages for girls aged 14 to 19. At that time, many authorities expressed concern and now are justified in saying their warnings were disregarded. It has taken a long time to tackle a problem that should not have been created in the first place.
However, not even the big tax increase on “alcopops” in April this year had a dampening effect on the category´s popularity. The young (and old) now mix their own alcopops. Reports indicate that young people are choosing to buy and mix spirits themselves rather than pay more for RTDs. Some outlets report significantly lower sales of many RTDs but big increases in purchases of spirits in 700 mL bottles. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in some South Australian venues at least, the impost has had little or no effect on the demand for alcopops as sales to young women are still flourishing. Still, sales of RTDs favoured by male drinkers eg. rum & coke have dropped sharply. Lion Nathan said that, although sales have fallen “substantially” since the increase, it is too early to predict the long-term impact and 94 percent of respondents to a phone poll in Adelaide thought that the increased tax will not stop binge drinking.
Moreover, cheap wine appears to have become a substitute for pricey alcopops. The Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia (DSICA) warns that young drinkers will simply shift from pre-mixed spirits to cheaper wine-based mixed drinks (to qualify as wine products such drinks must have 8% - 22% ABV, while most alcopops are in 3% - 5% ABV range). According to DSICA, modelling used to justify the tax increase did not take possible substitution into account when predicting that consumption levels would fall. The Health Minister Roxon rejected DSICA´s and other industry claims, saying most health bodies endorsed the new impost, which simply closed a tax loophole. Political commentator Glenn Milne said “government is vulnerable on the issue because it´s not good policy…why tax only spirit-based products when wine-based RTDs attract half the tax for twice the alcohol content?”
The new tax on alcopops is a cynical measure to gouge hundreds of millions of dollars out of consumers for a doubtful impact on binge drinking. Australia´s Treasury Department estimates that alcopops consumption will fall by about 42 million bottles. However, experience in Europe (France, Germany and Switzerland, where these drinks were more heavily taxed in 2004) suggests that, although sales fell, excessive teenage drinking did not.
Federal budget Treasurer Swan in his first budget confirmed “that our national binge-drinking strategy brings the tax treatment of RTDs in line with full-strength spirits to help address binge-drinking among young Australians.” The Treasurer cited the effects of alcopops on his own children while defending the decision to introduce the new tax, saying “that some of these drinks are dangerous because you have a mix disguising the alcohol content.”
Federal, state and territory governments agreed on 23 May 2008 that early morning lockouts from bars and clubs could be enforced nationally as part of a unified approach to combat binge drinking. In moves to fast-track the AUD 33.5 million national drinking strategy trials already under way or planned with reduced trading hours will be reviewed by the relevant ministers in December 2008 as will a new framework for the responsible service of alcohol, options for reducing alcohol contents and new standards for advertising.
In Adelaide, police, pubs, clubs and the Liquor & gambling Commission have agreed to a 3am lockout trial for three months in the city. In some quarters, moves for tighter control are seen simply as further evidence of an increasing “nanny” society.
