www.alkoholpolitik.ch

Tell State Legislators to Vote NO on LB 824!

In early March, the Nebraska Supreme Court confirmed that flavored malt beverages, AKA „alcopops,“ are distilled spirits according to Nebraska law. That wise ruling allows the state to tax alcopops at the $3.75 per gallon spirits rate, which is 12 times higher than the beer tax of 31 cents per gallon.

Increasing the price of alcohol reduces the amount of access young people have to these products, and is one of the most effective policies to reduce alcohol-related harm.

Unfortunately, Nebraska senators immediately went on the defensive and advanced a bill (LB 824) to negate the court’s decision. LB 824 would re-define beer to include alcopops, keep them cheap and widely accessible to youth.

It’s time to tell the senators to place the health and safety of our youth ahead of Big Alcohol’s concerns for profits. It’s time to tell the senators to kill this bill and let the Supreme Court ruling stand. It’s time to tax alcopops as distilled spirits.

Protect Nebraska Youth From Alcopops — Tell State Legislators to Vote NO on LB 824!
(Source: Alcohol Justice, 03/23/12)

The rumours were true; the new Government Alcohol Strategy: Choice, Challenge and Responsibility confirms minimum pricing is to be brought in for England. Although the unit price is still to be set, in a press release the Prime Minister said „if it is 40p that could mean 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 9,000 fewer alcohol related deaths over the next decade.“

Al201103-coverThe strategy sets out key policies including:

a minimum unit price for alcohol;
banning the sale of multi-buy discount deals;
zero tolerance of drunken behaviour in A&E departments;
a late night levy to get pubs and clubs helping to pay for policing; and
improved powers to stop serving alcohol to drunks.

The strategy sets itself out as a plan to reduce binge-drinking in a bid to drive down crime and tackle health issues. The decision to introduce a minimum unit price means that alcohol will not be allowed to be sold below a fixed price per unit – a policy advocated by health groups and Alcohol Concern for a number of years. As the release states, it „will put an end to cheap white ciders, spirits and super-strength lagers“. It is expected to go out for consultation, with a possible introduction by 2014.

Launching the strategy, the Prime Minister said:

“When beer is cheaper than water, it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home before they even set foot in the pub.

“[Minimum pricing] isn’t about stopping responsible drinking, adding burdens on business or some new kind of stealth tax – it’s about fast immediate action where universal change is needed.

“And let’s be clear. This will not hurt pubs. A pint is two units. If the minimum price is 40p a unit, it won’t affect the price of a pint. In fact, pubs may benefit by making the cheap alternatives in supermarkets more expensive.

“Of course, I know this won’t be universally popular. But the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing.

(Source: Alcohol Policy UK, 03/23/12)
our online-comment: Let’s hope the minimum price will be high enough and that the EU accepts it.
For a conservative government this is a strong signal. Other countries should follow.

See also comment by Eurocare, with which we fully agree.
See also „How significant is a minimum unit price for alcohol of 40p?“ by The Institute For Fiscal Studies.

Excessive alcohol consumption causes 79,000 deaths annually in the U.S., shortening the lives of those who die from it by approximately 30 years. Although alcohol taxation is an effective measure to reduce excessive consumption and related harm, some argue that increasing alcohol taxes places an unfair economic burden on “responsible” drinkers and socially disadvantaged people.

To examine the impact of a hypothetic tax increase based on alcohol consumption and sociodemographic characteristics of current drinkers, individually and in aggregate.

Data from the 2008 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey were analyzed from 2010 to 2011 to determine the net financial impact of a hypothetic 25-cent-per-drink tax increase on current drinkers in the U.S. Higher-risk drinkers were defined as those whose past-30-day consumption included binge drinking, heavy drinking, drinking in excess of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, and alcohol-impaired driving.

Of U.S. adults who consumed alcohol in the past 30 days, 50.4% (or approximately 25% of the total U.S. population) were classified as higher-risk drinkers. The tax increase would result in a 9.2% reduction in alcohol consumption, including an 11.4% reduction in heavy drinking. Compared with lower-risk drinkers, higher-risk drinkers would pay 4.7 times more in net increased annual per capita taxes, and 82.7% of the net increased annual aggregate taxes. Lower-risk drinkers would pay less than $30 in net increased taxes annually. In aggregate, groups who paid the most in net tax increases included those who were white, male, aged 21–50 years, earning ≥$50,000 per year, employed, and had a college degree.

A 25-cent-per-drink alcohol tax increase would reduce excessive drinking, and higher-risk drinkers would pay the substantial majority of the net tax increase.
(Source: Alcohol Reports, 03/19/12)

Plans for a minimum unit price for alcohol have been approved in principle by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish government’s alcohol bill passed its first major parliamentary hurdle without opposition, by 86 votes to nil, with 32 abstentions on Wednesday afternoon.
After a debate at Holyrood, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats supported the legislation, while Labour abstained. …

The Scottish government said it accepted that minimum pricing was not a „magic bullet“ but was an important part of its strategy.
Speaking ahead of the vote, Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon told Holyrood that decisive action must be taken to „stem the flow of cheap high-strength drink“. „The link between price and consumption, and between consumption and harm, is irrefutable”. She added: „It’s not some sort of magic bullet that will solve all of our nation’s problems with alcohol. However, it is essential if we are to make a significant contribution to reducing consumption.“
Ms Sturgeon promised she would announce what the minimum price per unit would be before Holyrood’s final vote on the legislation later in this parliament. …
(Source: Alcohol Reports, News, 03/19/12) bbc.co.uk, 03/14/12

The relationship of increased alcohol taxes to reductions in alcohol-related harm is well established. Few studies, however, have examined the effects of sudden decreases in alcohol tax rates or effects of narrow tax changes limited to specific beverage types. In the current study, we: (1) examine whether tax increases on spirits have similar effects in reducing alcohol-related disease mortality as increasing taxes on all types of alcoholic beverages simultaneously, and (2) evaluate effects of beer-specific tax decreases in New York State on mortality. …
(Source: Alcohol Reports, 03/01/12)

When considering the world’s worst killers, alcohol likely doesn’t come to mind. Yet alcohol kills more than 2.5 million people annually, more than AIDS, malaria or tuberculosis.

For middle-income people, who constitute half the world’s population, alcohol is the top health risk factor, greater than obesity, inactivity and even tobacco.

The World Health Organization has meticulously documented the extent of alcohol abuse in recent years and has published solid recommendations on how to reduce alcohol-related deaths, but this doesn’t go far enough, according to Devi Sridhar, a health-policy expert at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom.

In a commentary appearing today (Feb. 15) in the journal Nature, Sridhar argues that the WHO should regulate alcohol at the global level, enforcing such regulations as a minimum drinking age, zero-tolerance drunken driving, and bans on unlimited drink specials. Abiding by the regulations would be mandatory for the WHO’s 194 member states.

Far from prohibition, the WHO regulations would force nations to strengthen weak drinking laws and better enforce laws already in place, Sridhar says. …
(Source: Alcohol Reports, News, 02/20/12)lifescience.com, 02/16/12

In a recent answer to a questions regarding minimum pricing by a Scottish MEP George Lyon, the European Commission has shed some light on the ongoing debates.

In response to the following question:

Can the Commission detail the existing treaty provisions and case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the ability of a Member State to introduce minimum pricing for alcoholic drinks?

The Commission stated that Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 [1] does not prohibit Member States from setting minimum retail prices for alcoholic beverages.

The Commission further explained that a national measure of minimum pricing and its effects needs to be compatible with the Treaty (TFEU), including the rules on the free movement of goods (Articles 34-36) and on competition (Articles 101-102). …
(Source: Eurocare, 12/13/12)

Alcohol policy hit the headlines again this week with David Cameron talking tough on the „alcohol scandal“ costing the NHS close to £3 billion per year. Visiting a hospital in north-east England, the Prime Minister spoke of the unacceptable impact of public drunkenness on the NHS and police services across the country.

Cameron called for „innovative“ approaches including „drunk tanks“ to divert the intoxicated from busy A&Es, and for further enforcement from police to tackle alcohol-fuelled disorder. However the Police Federation criticised the calls saying they are already struggling to resource existing workloads.

The Prime Minister has attracted support from health groups for highlighting the issue of cheap alcohol as part of the problem. Cameron has previously sparked speculation that the Government will seek to introduce minimum pricing in the forthcoming national alcohol strategy.

However in truth the strategy is unlikely to set out direct pricing measures beyond the below cost ban due later this year, which is not expected to affect prices under a ‚Duty + VAT‘ definition of cost. But the Government is likely to continue to pursue taxation measures as already outlined and advised by the IFS, but strongly opposed by the on-trade.

Speaking on the issue, Cameron said:
„We are going to look at the issue of pricing. I am quite convinced that there’s deep discounting through supermarkets and sometimes convenience stores of alcohol that is causing part of the problem, but we’re looking at this carefully to try and find the right answer.

The issue has attracted widespread media attention. Channel 4 news explored the alcohol policy issue, highlighting conflicts between alcohol industry voices opposing minimum pricing instead in favour of education – an approach often rejected by health groups as ineffective. A Guardian comment also explored alcohol policy tensions, highlighting the controversial Responsibility Deal and Scotland’s determination to secure minimum pricing and test EU law on the issue. …
(Source: Alcohol Reports, 02/16/12) alcoholpolicy.net, 02/16/12

Abstract:
Aims: Minimum alcohol prices in British Columbia have been adjusted intermittently over the past 20 years. The present study estimates impacts of these adjustments on alcohol consumption.
Design: Time series and longitudinal models of aggregate alcohol consumption with price and other economic data as independent variables.
Setting: British Columbia (BC), Canada.
Measurements: Data on alcohol prices and sales for different beverages were provided by the BC Liquor Distribution Branch for 1989 to 2010. Data on household income were sourced from Statistics Canada.
Findings: Longitudinal estimates suggest that a 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic beverage reduced its consumption relative to other beverages by 16.1% (P<0.001). Time series estimates indicate that a 10% increase in minimum prices reduced consumption of spirits and liqueurs by 6.8% (P=0.004), wine by 8.9% (P=0.033), alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% (P=0.067), beer by 1.5% (P=0.043) and all alcoholic drinks by 3.4 % (P=0.007).
Conclusions: Increases in minimum prices of alcoholic beverages can substantially reduce alcohol consumption.
(Source: Alcohol Reports, 01/10/12) Full Report (pdf)

On January 1, 1991, the federal excise tax on beer doubled, and the tax rates on wine and liquor increased as well. These changes are larger than the typical state-level changes that have been used to study the effect of price on alcohol abuse and its consequences. In this paper, we develop a method to estimate some important effects of those large 1991 changes, exploiting the interstate differences in alcohol consumption.

We demonstrate that the relative importance of drinking in traffic fatalities is closely tied to per capita alcohol consumption across states. As a result, we expect that the proportional effects of the federal tax increase on traffic fatalities would be positively correlated with per capita consumption. We demonstrate that this is indeed the case, and infer estimates of the price elasticity and lives saved in each state. We repeat this exercise for other injury-fatality rates, and for nine categories of crime. For each outcome, the estimated effect of the tax increase is negatively related to average consumption, and that relationship is highly significant for the overall injury death rate, the violent crime rate, and the property crime rate. A conservative estimate is that the federal tax reduced injury deaths by 4.7%, or almost 7,000, in 1991. (Source: Alcohol Reports, 01/02/11) NBER Working Paper No. 17709, Dec. 2011