By blaming the consumer for Ireland's alcohol problems, the drinks industry is reneging on its responsibilities to whose in misery and ill-health caused by toxic and addictive products, writes John Dervan
Rosemary Garth is the director of Drinks Manufacturers of Ireland. What she says matters, and in her article "Society needs to tackle its alcohol problem" (Opinion & Analysis, April 24th) she proved herself an effective spokeswoman for some powerful vested interests.
The sensible starting position in any discussion about alcohol is straightforward: alcohol is a toxic, addictive drug. That's not an opinion, it's a pharmaceutical fact. One of the most significant differences between alcohol and, for example, heroin, is that only one of them is legal.
In the course of her article, Ms Garth makes a number of claims that demand closer examination. She suggests it is common sense that a ban on alcohol advertising would be "impractical and ineffective".
Impractical - why? Ineffective - for whom? She supplies no discussion, nor any supporting argument.
The advertising of tobacco products is banned by law in Ireland. A ban on alcohol advertising would be a body blow to the drinks industry, certainly. But "impractical"? Surely not.
If the promotion of drinking through advertising is effective in sustaining or increasing sales - and €50 million spent in 2005 suggests Ms Garth's employers think it is - it seems likely that a ban on such advertising would affect the consumption of alcohol.
No doubt Ms Garth would respond - as did the tobacco industry in its day - with talk of promoting brand loyalty and brand switching. That is certainly a valid point. The wider issue, however, concerns the industry's ongoing need - as with the tobacco industry - to bring its products to the attention of potential new consumers, young people not yet habituated to drinking.
Ms Garth believes "it is not in the interests of this industry to see its products abused".
Well, it's easy to see how at least some individuals within the industry might be embarrassed by the more brutal side effects that inevitably accompany the wide availability of alcohol. Viewed objectively, and in light of its known social, medical and psychological effects, the marketing of a toxic, addictive drug has to be an unsavoury business.
It is a primary duty of company executives to maximise returns to their shareholders.
They carry out that duty, as is their right, by maximising alcohol sales by whatever means possible, as long as these remain within the law.
For example, the alcohol industry produces cloying, distasteful, syrupy beers containing levels of alcohol of 9 per cent or more because there is a market for them. That market is composed mainly of alcohol addicts who need access to cheap, strong liquor every day. Six 500ml cans of this stuff roughly equates in alcohol content to a bottle of spirits.
Clearly the alcohol industry could do without the bad press arising from anti-social behaviour on the streets, but it would be very badly hit indeed if the largely silent but far more widespread misuse of alcohol were suddenly to cease.
"There is no advantage to us," suggests Ms Garth, "in making profits today from behaviour not acceptable to society in the longer term."
There is truth in this, and no doubt the industry has taken careful note of how perceptions of smoking - addiction to another toxic drug - changedso quickly over recent decades.
The regulatory action taken against tobacco products has been highly effective and the drinks industry must surely be concerned that it will be next. Whether it is yet afraid enough to take meaningful steps to curb alcohol misuse remains to be seen.
As in the UK, current Irish concerns about alcohol-related harm centre on anti-social behaviour, alcohol-related crime and the huge costs to the health services, but usually emphasise only the impact on A&E departments. These concerns are most often also associated with young people. Ms Garth wisely acknowledges these problem areas.
Drinks industry lobbyists both here and elsewhere have had considerable success in focusing attention away from areas of even greater concern.
The role of alcohol in disturbances of the peace, street crime and acute pressure on the health services is not a matter of dispute.
No one can deny that something radical needs to be done. But the discussion needs to be broadened far beyond issues of teenage bingeing and criminal justice.
There is a very real risk, especially for legislators, of failing to respond to the quiet and often desperate levels of human misery caused to hundreds of thousands of individuals through alcohol misuse.
These include the people who are quietly and methodically drinking themselves into ill health and premature death as well as the countless numbers of family members and friends helplessly bearing witness to them.
Alcohol is directly implicated in more than 1,400 deaths a year in Ireland. That is more than three times the number of deaths from the carnage on our roads, an issue where alcohol also plays a major part.
Rosemary Garth's response to all of this is simply breathtaking.
"The problem," she says, "lies with people choosing to drink too much." She goes further, saying: "If we really wish to change attitudes and behaviours about alcohol misuse then we as consumers, parents or citizens need to lead by example."
It's that simple. Consumers, parents and citizens are to unite against alcohol misuse!
We are to unite in exonerating the alcohol industry from any responsibility for aggressively marketing a toxic addictive substance, whose cost to the Irish economy has been estimated at close to €3 billion. The cost in human misery and loss is, of course, incalculable.
We are to deny the very addictiveness of alcohol and to deny the reality that anyone who drinks enough, often enough and for long enough is at high risk of becoming dependent upon and physically addicted to the nation's favourite drug.
John Dervan was the director of City & Hackney Alcohol Service in London from 1993 to 2004.