Minimum price for alcohol saving lives or killing savings?

The UK government’s proposal to introduce a 45 pence minimum charge on alcohol is now has been debated in Parliament. The proposal is now undergoing a 10 week Home Office consultation. It aims to reduce the levels of crime and illness related to alcohol.

Policy makers and health professionals concerned with the prevention and cure of chronic disease have long-since recognised alcohol consumption as one of the four major risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Along with smoking, diet, and physical inactivity, drinking alcohol can lead to a variety of NCDs, including cancer, liver cirrhosis, stroke, and cardiovascular diseases. Developing clear alcohol policies to lessen the burden of NCDs globally is key to this debate.

Two-for-the-price-of-one and special discount offers in supermarkets could become a thing of the past, and the new minimum would mean a bottle of wine could not be sold for less than £4.22.

Could save 2000 lives

Research from Sheffield University has been used to justify the proposals, with figures suggesting that at 45p consumption would drop by 4.3% and could save 2,000 lives over a ten year period. Further research indicates that a 50p minimum (as proposed in Scotland) could have even greater impact.

However, controversy has arisen over who constitutes this 4.3% drop in consumers, as it is feared the measures will affect moderate drinkers more than heavy consumers. It has been suggested by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the price increase would mean on average that alcohol expenditure would become 0.9% of grocery budgets. Many fear the policy will disadvantage average drinkers more than it will discourage heavy users. As it is irresponsible drinking that would most contribute to the risk of developing health issues and NCDs, how effective would this policy really be?

In 2011, a report by Robin Room, Jürgen Rehm, and Charles Parry suggested that the laissez faire education of consumers was not a successful tactic in reducing consumption. However, further educating the public about the risk associated with different levels of drinking and NCDs would allow them to make informed choices that affect their own health.

Perhaps the wise old proverb “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” should be reconsidered here. The government can lead the public away from alcohol- whether through education or increased prices-but how can they make people, especially dependent individuals, not drink?

Join the debate

How do you think the proposed minimum price would affect heavy and light consumers of alcohol? What policies would perhaps be more beneficial? Tell us what you think @gacd-media