Alcohol producers and sellers profess concern about public health but do nothing, writes Dr Joe Barry
The Irish Times recently published an article (June 1st) by Fionnuala Sheehan, executive officer of MEAS (Mature Enjoyment of Alcohol in Society Ltd, a body supported by the drinks industry). In that article, she asked us to suspend our disbelief that MEAS and the alcohol industry would do anything meaningful to tackle our drink problem in Ireland.
Unfortunately, our disbelief is well-founded since the industry hasn't made any credible attempts to lessen binge drinking or reduce the consumption of alcohol by under-18s. It is for that reason that the primary responsibility for regulating the industry needs to be taken out of the industry's hands. The creation of MEAS is an attempt to delay this development.
The interim report of the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol was published by the Minister for Health, Mr Martin, in May 2002. The task force was established because of rising concern about the harmful effects of alcohol consumption in Ireland.
The concerns were backed up with ample evidence: a 41 per cent increase in consumption over 10 years; numerous surveys showing Ireland had some of the highest rates of teenage drinking and binge drinking; consistent media reports of alcohol-related public disorder; 40 per cent of all fatal road accidents associated with alcohol; 25 per cent of hospital casualty attendances linked to alcohol; 26 per cent of male and 11 per cent of female mental illness hospital admissions linked to alcohol, and a range of other indicators. Behind these statistics lay much human suffering.
All this evidence was debated by the task force and a range of policy measures were recommended in an interim report. However, a minority report was issued within the interim report by the drinks industry representative.
A month after its publication, the drinks industry advertised for a chief executive for a new organisation called MEAS, Managing the Enjoyment of Alcohol in Society. By the time of appointment, the acronym had been changed to Mature Enjoyment of Alcohol in Society. It is not surprising that the industry feels under pressure. Consistent negative publicity is not good for any business.
Nor is it surprising that the drinks industry group issued a minority report. The task force recommended that the per-capita consumption of alcohol should decrease by 18 per cent. A perusal of the business pages of this newspaper on a regular basis will leave nobody in any doubt that the drinks industry wants us to drink more so as to maintain and enhance its profitability.
There is, consequently, an inherent conflict between the aims of the drinks industry and of all other 21 members of the strategic task force. It is difficult to see the basis for a partnership approach given these diametrically opposed aims.
MEAS talks about encouraging responsible drinking while the rest of the industry spends millions promoting alcohol. When did you last see a representative of the industry in a pub at 11 on a Friday night encouraging sensible drinking? The industry knows the profit on the tenth pint is the same as the profit on the first.
The industry claims it does not want any drunkenness. It is failing miserably in this, begging the question of its sincerity. The industry claims it does not want people under 18 to consume alcohol. Again, it is failing miserably.
Ms Sheehan was disingenuous in writing about MEAS's five-person "independent" complaints panel, set up to uphold the industry's code of practice for the sale and marketing of its products. MEAS's own website tells us the representative from the National Parents' Council (Primary) is "a hotel owner and manager . . . well-placed to see alcohol-related problems from the perspective of those who are running bars". Doesn't sound independent to me.
And it is surely incumbent on the academic member of the complaints panel to declare how much research funding he has received from the drinks industry over the past decade. The panel has been set up by the industry and is controlled by the industry.
Am I being unfair to the members of the panel? I hope not. I raise these matters because we are dealing with a very serious public-health issue causing enormous hurt to the people of Ireland.
Public policy on alcohol should operate on a precautionary principle - if in doubt, give precedence to a public-health approach over the commercial interests of multimillion-euro companies.
Alcohol is no ordinary commodity, and if we want to achieve benefits for public health, it has to be regulated. This regulation needs to be managed by our Government on our behalf and not by the industry. MEAS is an arm of he industry - another interpretation of the acronym might be Minimising Effective Action by the State.
Ms Sheehan asks me to suspend my disbelief. I am a public health physician and I cannot, because of the patterns of behaviour of the industry that I have observed. Comments such as "advertising doesn't increase consumption, it only transfers market share" are derisory and remind me of the tactics of the tobacco industry.
The Strategic Task Force is now producing its second report and is reiterating the public-health approach of the first report. The conflict between the industry's agenda and that of reducing overall consumption is again surfacing. The industry will fight hard behind the scenes to protect its interests.
For that reason, it is very encouraging that the recently published report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children on Alcohol Misuse by Young People has adopted a public-health approach. There is now a further opportunity for the Government to regulate for the common good.
Dr Joe Barry is senior lecturer in Public Health in Trinity College, Dublin