MEDIA RELEASE 27th September 2019
NZ Alcohol Beverages Council (NZABC) urges that caution is used when interpreting the results of a just-released survey [I] on the impact of minimum price on drinking behaviours in Scotland.
“The relationship between price and harmful drinking is complex and putting the price up does not necessarily mean harmful drinking will fall in a meaningful way,” says NZABC Executive Director, Bridget MacDonald.
“The survey from Scotland doesn’t look at harmful drinking but only at how much purchases fell – what internationally recognised research [ii] shows is that just because consumption might fall it in no ways means harmful drinking will fall by anywhere near as much.
“In fact, research shows it is the reasonable and responsible drinker that bears the brunt of price hikes like Minimum Unit Pricing,” says Bridget.
“We also need to understand that drinking cultures in Scotland, the availability of alcohol and the laws regulating its supply are very different to New Zealand.”
“In the end, population control measures such as MuP are a blunt and inexact instrument that target the 80% of those that drink responsibly and only have a small impact on those that drink to harm.”
While NZABC acknowledges drinking too much alcohol can cause harm, we are seeing a reduction in harmful drinking in New Zealand
i https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5274
Comment on research methodology: The International Alliance for Responsible Drinking notes that there are some limitations to this research, as it only covers eight months of MUP’s implementation and excludes on-trade sales data (i.e. from bars), so we’re not seeing a complete picture of changes in alcohol purchases. In addition, the Scottish and English samples differ (Scottish households sampled earned 40% less than the English households sampled) and from Scottish national statistics (sampled households had lower incomes, and spent less money on alcohol than Scottish households spend on average). The study itself acknowledges that heavy drinkers and single adult households are under-represented. The Scottish Government is undertaking its own evaluation of minimum unit pricing, so it will be interesting to see how the two studies compare and how the results of this study align with official figures.
ii Duffy J and Snowdon C., The Minimal Evidence for Minimum Pricing – The Fatal Flaws in the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model’ Adam smith Institute, 2012. http://www.adamsmith.org/research/the-minimal-evidence-for-minimum-pricing
Wagenaar, A. C., Salois, M.J. and Komro, K.,A., ‘Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies’, Addiction, 104, 2009; pp.179-190.
“The relationship between price and harmful drinking is complex and putting the price up does not necessarily mean harmful drinking will fall in a meaningful way,” says NZABC Executive Director, Bridget MacDonald.
“The survey from Scotland doesn’t look at harmful drinking but only at how much purchases fell – what internationally recognised researchii shows is that just because consumption might fall it in no ways means harmful drinking will fall by anywhere near as much.
“In fact, research shows it is the reasonable and responsible drinker that bears the brunt of price hikes like Minimum Unit Pricing,” says Bridget.
“We also need to understand that drinking cultures in Scotland, the availability of alcohol and the laws regulating its supply are very different to New Zealand.”
“In the end, population control measures such as MuP are a blunt and inexact instrument that target the 80% of those that drink responsibly and only have a small impact on those that drink to harm.”
While NZABC acknowledges drinking too much alcohol can cause harm, we are seeing a reduction in harmful drinking in New Zealand especially amongst young people, but there is more to be done to accelerate this.