So Many Questions

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi is firmly backing proposed legislation to ban alcohol advertising. Chris Barron asked him ...

How your decision? much research went into The whole move to deal with noncommunicable diseases by looking at sectors like alcohol, tobacco and poor diet is driven by the World Health Organisation, from whom we take most of our policies. There evidence seems that to alcohol be little adverts scientific increase banning them consumption, reduces demand. or that What evidence do you want? Three alcohol-producing companies in South Africa are spending R1billion to advertise alcohol. Do you think those companies, run by boards that understand the corporate world, which wants profit, can just spend R1billion for nothing? As a play? Just to create jobs and not getting anything out of it? Isn’t adverts the to purpose increase of the the market particular share brands of rather than alcohol? to increase demand for When you want you them advertise to be any bought goods, more — you want the demand to increase for those goods. That’s why you advertise something. Because you want to increase the consumption of, or demand for, that particular product. What about research suggesting that the adverts do not increase consumption, they only affect market share? It depends who the research comes from. If you are using research from organisations that fund industry-friendly research, then you’ll quote that. Remember, this is a battle. Why is it that in New Zealand consumption is falling while money on alcohol advertising is increasing? Because, as I told you, other methods are at play. Advertising at all times is to make sure that they increase the market share of their product. So you agree it’s about increasing market share, not growing the market? You increase market share by making sure that those who do not yet drink, the youngsters, start drinking. And that those who start to drink late will start to drink early. That’s why the advertising of alcohol in South Africa is in prime time when young people, who are very impressionable, are watching TV. They are targeting those people. That’s why they are using well-known sports stars and celebrities. The advertising people say that the adverts are about persuading people to drink one brand rather than another.

You are choosing sides. You’re choosing to believe industryfriendly research. But I am saying you don’t need any research to tell you that advertising increases consumption. It is just common sense. Do you also discount research suggesting that the most important thing influencing young people to drink is role models such as parents and teachers? If advertising is not important, why are people fighting so hard to keep it? Why is it a matter of life and death that they must all defend it? A child will listen to the teacher or to his parents who tell him not to drink. Then he sees a soccer icon drinking on TV. That icon is a much stronger influence than the parent or teacher. What about the fact that banning alcohol adverts has been tried in at least three countries and it has not reduced consumption? Let me repeat. If you use alcohol advertising as the only method, then, yes, you are likely to have these results. But when you also reduce access . . . Are you going to start banning shebeens? That is being done by other departments, not us. I am just dealing with the issue of advertising at the moment and education at schools. You believe in one set of research, but there is another set of research that shows something different. Can you, when the research is so divided, afford to go ahead with something that will have a damaging economic impact? You are telling me that if alcohol advertising is banned then the economy will collapse. They said that when we banned tobacco advertising, but it didn’t happen. Isn’t that because it coincided with the arrival of cellphone companies and their adverts plugged the gap? Precisely. Other industries will always come to the fore and occupy that space. Shouldn’t you be concentrating on your core function, which is to get the hospitals working properly? Are you saying we must allow people to get sick as long as we fix them in the hospital? Are you going after the easy stuff because you can’t tackle the hard stuff? Do you think my core function is to make hospitals work?

Isn’t it? No, that’s wrong. My core function is to prevent ill health and to promote health.