True to themselves: excessive commercialisation and the alcohol industry

We all know New Zealand has an alarming binge drinking culture, but who’s to blame? Doug Sellman argues that not enough attention is paid to the role the alcohol industry plays in keeping Kiwis liquored up.

-----

My interest in the commercialisation of alcohol stems from a long-standing academic interest in the question: “What causes alcohol addiction?” The simple answer is “regular heavy drinking”, which begs the follow-up question: “What causes regular heavy drinking?”

The answer to this question has to do with multiple, interacting genetic and environmental factors. At the turn of the century and the start of human genome mapping there was bold hope that diseases such as alcoholism might be reduced to a number of identifiable variant genes that could be dealt with pharmacologically. This hope has become strangled, however, by research indicating much greater genetic complexity than previously understood. There could be hundreds of genes underlying alcohol dependence.

Attention has therefore turned to the environment, which, 20 years ago, seemed to be so complex, compared with the new genetic hopes, that it was almost not worth thinking about. However, the tide has turned and there is a resurgence of interest in environmental factors, one of which is the way alcohol is marketed, advertised and sold. The more commercialisation existing around a drug within a population, the more that drug will be used by members of that population.

Blame for the binge drinking culture that exists in New Zealand is more often directed towards the irresponsibility of the users than the producers and marketers of alcohol. The mantra drummed out by the industry in various guises is that if people took more personal responsibility for themselves, the harms associated with their product would be mitigated; they are only there to help responsible people enjoy themselves and fulfil their chosen lifestyles.

But there are a number of things to do with its product that the alcohol industry prefers to not be upfront about with the New Zealand public. Rather than facilitate subtle blame at the problematic end users while it exploits the enormous commercial freedoms available in the service of its international shareholders, I suggest the alcohol industry needs to use its considerable power and influence more responsibly in terms of its customers – ordinary New Zealanders who choose to drink alcohol.

For example, alcohol has been classified by the World Health Organization as a Class 1 carcinogen. This means it has been demonstrated to be “definitely carcinogenic” and sits in a list alongside asbestos, formaldehyde, mustard gas and plutonium-239. Why doesn’t the industry inform its customers that if you drink alcohol you increase your risk of a variety of cancers, most particularly cancers in the mouth, voice box and oesophagus? There is at least a doubling of the risk of cancer of the breast if you drink a bottle of wine a day.

It is also now well-known that the alcohol industry targets young people in its advertising. It uses very clever and subtle messages through a variety of media and formats, drawing on the best marketing science available. For instance, it exploits human needs, which are most intensely expressed in youth, as part of its promotion of alcohol. These include the need for inclusion as part of the ‘in crowd’, the ‘winners’ and the need to feel grown up. These marketing tactics appear very similar to those of the tobacco industry.

Further, ‘ready to drink’ alcohol was long denied by the alcohol industry to be targeting minors through its sweet flavour. However, these lies have now been exposed by industry insiders who have gone public with the truth.

Finally, some of our New Zealand research was published last year in the internationally peer-reviewed Journal of Psychopharmacology demonstrating that if alcohol was examined by the New Zealand Government’s Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs using the same criteria it uses to classify new recreational drugs, it would be classified as a Class B drug [Class A (Very High Risk), Class B (High Risk), Class C (Moderate Risk)].

Professor David Hawkes has outlined what a socially friendly industry would look like. It would promote alcohol in a truthful way and not make false associations, encourage overconsumption or target vulnerable populations. It would not deliberately cultivate intoxication as part of the sale and serving of its product or subvert public education messages and public health policies enacted to ensure the safer use of its product. Instead it would acknowledge that its product is potentially dangerous and should not be regarded as a commodity sold as cheaply and as freely as cabbages to an ever expanding market.

There are at least five regulatory changes required that would together make a real difference in decreasing regular heavy drinking in New Zealand. These are supported by the best scientific information at hand and are as follows: increase the price, increase the purchase age, decrease advertising/marketing, decrease accessibility (including supermarket bans) and increase drinkdriving surveillance. Finally, there needs to be an increase in intervention opportunities for problem drinkers.

The Law Commission is currently engaged in a ‘first principles’ review of the full range of New Zealand’s liquor laws and the new National Government, to their credit, has encouraged an earlier than expected reporting of recommendations.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer is heading this review. Watch this space.

• Doug Sellman is Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine at the University of Otago, Christchurch.