Globalisation:Think Tank involvement in Minimum Pricing Debate

The Minimum Pricing Debate

Think tank involvement in the Minimum pricing debate varies depending on what side of said debate the organization is representing. The main think tanks involved are the Center for Social Justice (CSJ), International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP), Centre for Economic Business Research (CEBR), the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS) and the Portman Group.

The Center for Social Justice (CSJ): Iain Duncan Smith

The CSJ is chaired by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader of the Conservative Party, and they support the implementation of an alcohol minimum price. This attitude firmly supports the Conservative party's election manifesto of higher taxation on alcohol. The main press release for the CSJ, from Sir Iain Duncan Smith, states that, “We are into unpopular territory, but to deal with something like alcohol that is damaging the fabric of the nation we need to raise prices. There is a direct connection between the price of alcohol and consumption.” From this mission statement one can see that the CSJ place a link between alcohol consumption and price, which is the central argument for the side promoting minimum pricing.

In July 2007, the CSJ published a report titled “Breakthrough Britain”, this report was focused on Britain's rising levels of poverty and concluded that there are five ‘paths to poverty’: family breakdown, economic dependency and worklessness, educational failure, addiction and serious personal debt. Within the section of the report on Harm Prevention, the link between alcohol consumption and price is made with the help of evidence from the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS). This report places alcohol misuse as one of the primary causes for the breakdown of British ‘family’ society and argues that there are three factors which have to be considered when looking at levels of taxation on alcohol: Firstly is whether the present price structure reflects the true cost associated with alcohol consumption, and the report shows that consumption has spiked (especially with women and younger people) in recent years, leading to increased levels of violence in the nation's city centres. This in turn puts extra strain on the NHS, a bill that is paid by the ordinary tax payer. Secondly, the CSJ claim that there is evidence (supplied by the economist of the IAS) that shows that people dependent on alcohol are affected by price increases. For obvious reasons this furthers their argument for a minimum pricing system. Finally, a proposed ‘treatment tax’ could be introduced to help pay for the medical services that people suffering from conditions brought on by alcohol abuse. As the CSJ is directed/run by a Conservative, present in the report are a number of attacks at the current Labour government's handling of poverty and alcohol abuse. Thus, one can conclude that this report is somewhat biased towards the opposition party and does not provide a comprehensive account of the debate. This fact is vindicated in one extract of the report, “Our recommendation in the light of these three factors is that an incoming Conservative Government seriously considers how to affect the price of alcohol including the possibility of a treatment tax. p 101”

The Times published an article in January 2010 which detail Ian Duncan Smith’s views on minimum pricing. He claimed that supermarkets are ‘as close to immoral as you can get’ because they sell alcohol so cheap which creates alcoholics. This is a harsh statement because it is not just the cheap price of alcohol which causes alcoholism; there are other factors which play a role such as personal and social circumstances. He claims that the political parties are cowardly for not increasing the cost of alcohol because they are afraid of ‘alienating voters for the election.’ He also says that Britain has become ‘alcohol-obsessed’ and that the level of excess drinking is too much. Alcohol is claimed to be just as dangerous as illegal drugs and causes many deaths and illnesses every year. Supermarkets reacted angrily saying that alcohol pricing has nothing to do with kids misbehaving. They say that the problem is a youth drinking culture and has nothing to do with the retailers. Jeremy Beadles of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association said that Mr Smith is wrong because millions of adults enjoy it responsibly so it should never be compared to something like heroin. Mr Smith stands by his view that alcohol is one of the main contributors to problems in our society and that the middles class drinker should have to pay as much as the binge drinker and the alcoholic.

Institute of Alcohol Studies / Alliance House Foundation

The Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS) provide information on alcohol policy to government, political parties, professional bodies, the media and the general public by bridging the gap between the scientific evidence on alcohol and the wider public. This Institute supplied the CSJ with statistics and data for their 2007 report ‘Breakthrough Britain’. The IAS claim that, “We are lucky in being one of the few organizations that do not depend on Government or alcohol industry for funds - so that we can be an independent voice on alcohol policy”. This is very true, however, they fail to publicize the fact that the vast majority of their funding comes from the Alliance House Foundation (AHF). This somewhat mysterious foundation has little to no coverage on the internet, which is strange as it was founded in 1853, allowing it over 150 years to move with the times. The AHF’s original name was the ‘UK alliance for the Suppression of the traffic in all Intoxicating Liquors’ and in 2003 it changed to its present title. By looking at this foundation's history one can easily see that this temperance group is totally against alcohol in general, thus, any institute which is affiliated with the AHF would primarily support the introduction of minimum pricing of alcohol. This conclusion is backed up by the foundation's aim, which tries to “spread the principles of total abstinence from alcoholic drinks” These think tanks/institutions are the main players who argue for the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol. It is interesting to note that each of them is inter linked with regards to the production of favourable data and the implementation of said data into ‘influential’ reports. Furthermore, the fact that the CSJ is essentially a political vehicle for the Conservative party sheds light onto the fact that think tanks will produce ‘research’/reports that coincide with their directors'/founders' wishes.

Sheffield University Research

In March this year researchers from Sheffield University supported the minimum pricing debate saying that it would “benefit all.” They claimed that by setting the minimum cost of one alcohol unit at 50 pence would save up to 50,000 people from illness in a decade. People aged 45 plus would benefit the most especially in terms of cardiovascular disease. England’s Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson has been calling for minimum pricing and the government says it wants to control cheap alcohol. The researchers said that minimum pricing will not stop promotions because supermarkets can still offer large discounts like buy one get one free, however there will be no drink what you like offers. The researchers also claimed that minimum pricing would reduce a moderate drinker’s weekly intake by 3.5% which adds up to a lot over time. Don MacKechnie, vice-president of the College of Emergency Medicine supports minimum pricing saying that policy makers should be considering this.

Global Alcohol Producers Group (GAP)

This group was established in 2005 and it represents a coalition between several international beverage producers. This coalition “provides a channel for the World Health Organization (WTO), member state governments and stake holders of the WHO to engage in constructive dialogue with some of the leading alcohol beverage companies on health problems caused by harmful drinking patters” The fourteen members of GAP are: Anheuser-Busch InBev, Asahi, Bacardi-Martini, Beam Global Spirits and Wine, Brown-Forman, Constellation Brands, Diageo, Heineken, Kirin, Molson Coors, Pernod-Ricard, Sapporo, Suntory and SABMiller. It is interesting to note that nine out of the fourteen members of GAP are the sole sponcers of the International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP), a think tank which attempts to raise awareness of the social and medical problems of excessive drinking and attempts to provide answers to why these problems occur.

International Center for Alcohol Policies (ICAP)

The ICAP is a nonprofit organization which is funded by a large number of the worlds leading beverage producers. The main sponcers of the ICAP are: Anheuser- Busch InBev, Asali Breweries, Bacardi - Martini, Beam Global Spirits and Wine, Brown- Forman Corporation, Diageo, Heineken, Molson Coors, Pernod Ricard and SABMiller. At its most basic premise, the ICAP produce research which is favored towards the beverage corporations who fund it. A recurring theme is the reversal of the minimum pricing debate, eg, the ICAP produce research that states that a minimum price would not effect the consumption patterns of people dependent on alcohol and it is the drinking culture which is to blame, not the price. Simplifying again, one can assert that the main purpose of this think tank is to remove the blame (created by the public sector) from the private sector and place it firmly on the public. ie. remove pressure from beverage corporations and redirect it onto the government. There are numerous examples of ICAP research which supports this argument, the most pertinant and recent examples coming in the form of a ‘peer reviewed’ journal; ‘Alcohol and the Burden of Disease’, written by Walter Gulbinat and a book, ‘Working Together: to reduce harmful drinking’, edited by Marcus Grant and Mark Leverton.

Portman Group & Wines and Spirits Association

This think tank is another sponsored by the major beverage corporations, with seven of its eight members (AB InBev, Bacardi Brown-Forman Brands, Beverage Brands, Diageo, Heineken, Molson Coors Brewing and Pernod Ricard) all being members of GAP, with the exception of Carlsberg. Consequently, it could be argued that the Portman Group is yet another vehicle for the major beverage corporations to produce and distribute their side of the minimum pricing debate. Present in their press releases are numerous examples of campaigns, implemented by the GAP companies that promote alcohol responsibility. Reading between the lines, one can make an educated assumption that these campaigns are yet another means of these corporations to subtly arguing their side of the debate whilst removing responsibility from themselves. By constantly stressing, on the packaging and in advertising, that their products should be consumed ‘responsibly’, these corporations are working with the research conducted by the ICAP and the Portman Group, with the end product being a comprehensive repost to the arguments for a minimum price for alcohol.

David Poley who is the Chief Executive for the Portman Group, which promotes sensible drinking set up by drinks manufacturers, said that hard working families would be hit the hardest who are already struggling to survive. He also claimed that the people who want to get drunk will still get drunk. Jeremy Beadles, the Chief Executive if the Wines and Spirits Association supported this saying that he was worried that during a recession the Government thought it was a sensible idea to talk about raising prices on alcohol for consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet. James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary disputed this saying that they wanted to focus on the irresponsible minority; however it can be questioned whether it is possible not to punish the sensible majority if prices are increased. One major issue which has to be dealt with if alcohol abuse is to be solved is people’s attitudes on the issue and also the culture which is a major factor in the consumption of alcohol. It should not just be the supply and price of alcohol which is addressed rather the attitudes and culture of alcohol should be considered.

The Center for Economic and Business Research (CEBR)

The CEBR is another think tank that is against the implementation of a minimum price for alcohol. It is not funded by beverage corporations directly, so it must be distinguished from the ICAP and the Portman Group. However, this centre has received money from retailers and brewing corporations to conduct research on the subject of alcohol minimum pricing, with the end reports always favoring their clients. The main example of this relationship comes in the form of a report on the economic concequences of the proposed introduction of a minimum price system for alcohol, commissioned by SABMiller. The report, ‘Minimum Alcohol Pricing: A Targeted Measure?’, was released in March 2009 and concluded that the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol would cost the Scottish consumers £81 million per year. It also dispelled the argument that the minimum pricing would vastly cut the NHS’s expenditure, by stating that there would be a £71 million deficit in the budget as the introduction of the minimum price would only have around £10 million a year. Furthermore, the CEBR used research conducted by Sheffield University to produce this report and tried to highlight the fact that heavy drinkers would still consume the same amount, regardless of the increase in price. Once again, one must view these findings with a critical eye; the evidence they provide has merit, however, the fact that a brewing corporation commissioned the CEBR to conduct this report forces one the believe that the results were altered to suit their wealthy and influential clients.