Calls for minimum pricing
A leading New Zealand researcher has renewed calls for the Government to change the country’s alcohol laws, saying pricing restrictions would have an immediate effect on the health of the majority of drinkers and reduce alcohol-related harm.
Massey University’s Dr Andy Towers, from the School of Public Health, said although there was no ‘‘silver bullet’’ to fix the country’s alcohol problem, the inclusion of a minimum unit price was the best place for a Government to start.
‘‘It ends loss-leading promotions at supermarkets by saying: ‘You cannot sell alcohol below this.’’’
Pre-mix alcohol and ciders would likely be hardest hit, Towers said.
The introduction of a minimum unit price could allow for a similar pattern as seen following tobacco regulation, where it eventually became less socially acceptable to smoke, he said.
‘‘Sub-groups who continue to smoke, even though it’s socially unacceptable and expensive, they’re addicted. The same would happen with alcohol if minimum unit pricing came in.
‘‘It will reduce across the board the number of people drinking, but you’ll have a core group that need help.’’
In 2018, Scotland increased the minimum unit price on alcohol sales and early indications showed less alcohol had been bought in the country since the changes.
According to the New Zealand Drug Foundation, research has shown that consumption – and therefore harm – falls when alcohol prices go up. It also helps prevent moderate drinkers becoming heavy drinkers.
In a submission to the Health Select Committee on the sale and purchase of alcohol laws last year, the NZ Drug Foundation echoed calls for a minimum unit price, saying a ‘‘floor price’’ per standard drink – 10 grams of alcohol – would make it illegal to sell alcohol for less than that.
Towers said it was a complex issue, made more confusing by research funded by alcohol companies – a trend he was seeing more of.
‘‘We’re just habituated to think alcohol is fine and we’ve got a very strident alcohol industry, not just here but internationally, who are very close to politicians. They’re literally funded,’’ he said.
‘‘In New Zealand, like internationally, the alcohol industry has a strong voice because they are funded by strong voices. It is in their best interest to be very clear about what they would want. And they are provided a seat at the table by policy makers.
‘‘You wouldn’t be treating the tobacco industry like that. We wouldn’t say we have a problem with smoking and then sit with the tobacco industry and figure out a solution. So why are we doing that with alcohol? We wouldn’t do it with cannabis, we wouldn’t say: ‘Let’s sit with gangs and see how we can sell better.’’’
Towers said there was a weird relationship between the alcohol industry’s loud voice and loose government structures.
‘‘There’s a lot more we could do just overnight based on really good evidence, but governments ignore it.’’