1. Alcohol industry in EU The economic function of the alcoholic drinks industry is considerable in many European states. Alcohol excise responsibilities in the EU15 states amounted to ˆ25 billion in 2001. excepting gross revenues revenue enhancements and other revenue enhancements paid within the supply concatenation – although ˆ1. 5 billion is given back to the supply concatenation through the Common Agricultural Policy. Due to the comparative inelasticity of the demand for intoxicant. the mean revenue enhancement rates are a much better forecaster of a government’s revenue enhancement gross than the degree of ingestion in a state.
1. 1 Alcohol and the economic system of Europe Europe plays a cardinal function in the planetary intoxicant market. moving as the beginning of a one-fourth of the world’s intoxicant and over half of the world’s vino production. Trade is even more centred on Europe. with70 % of intoxicant exports and merely under half of the world’s imports affecting the European Union ( EU ) . Although the bulk of this trade is between EU states. the trade in intoxicant contributes around ˆ9billion to the goods account balance for the EU as a whole.
Monetary value differences play more of a function in the degree of legitimate cross-border shopping. where persons lawfully bring back intoxicant with them from cheaper states. At least 1 in 6 tourers returns from trips abroad with alcoholic drinks. transporting an norm of over 2 liters of pure intoxicant per individual in several states. The economic function of the alcoholic drinks industry is considerable in many European states. Alcohol is besides associated with a figure of occupations. including over three-fourthss of a million in drinks production ( chiefly vino ) .
Further occupations are besides related to alcohol elsewhere in the supply concatenation. e. g. in saloon or stores. However. the size of the industry is non needfully a good usher to the economic impact of intoxicant policies – for illustration. tendencies in intoxicant ingestion show no rough correlativity with tendencies in the figure of occupations in associated countries such as hotels. eating houses. and bars. proposing that the consequence of alterations in ingestion may be comparatively weak. A decrease in disbursement on intoxicant would besides be expected to liberate consumer financess to be spent on other countries. with the economic impact depending on the exact nature of the new outgo.
While farther research needs to be done on this issue. current grounds from intoxicant and other sectors suggests that worsening ingestion may non needfully take to occupation losingss in the economic system as a whole. Based on a reappraisal of bing surveies. the entire touchable cost of intoxicant to EU society in 2003 was estimated to be ˆ125bn ( ˆ79bn-ˆ220bn ) . tantamount to 1. 3 % GDP. which is approximately the same value as that found late for baccy. The intangible costs show the value people place on hurting. agony and lost life that occurs due to the felon. societal and wellness injuries caused by intoxicant.
In 2003 these were estimated to be ˆ270bn. with other ways of valuing the same injuries bring forthing estimations between ˆ150bn and ˆ760bn. While these estimations consider a figure of different countries of human life where intoxicant has an impact. there are several farther countries where no estimation has been made as it was impossible to obtain informations. Similarly. while the estimations take into history the benefits of intoxicant to wellness systems and loss of life ( valued intangibly ) . there is no research that would enable the other societal benefits to be evaluated. 1. 1 The usage of intoxicant in Europe.
The EU is the heaviest imbibing part of the universe. although the 11 liters of pure intoxicant rummy per grownup each twelvemonth is still a significant autumn from a recent extremum of 15 liters in the mid-1970s. The last 40 old ages has besides seen a harmonisation in Austria. Belgium. Denmark. France. Finland. Germany. Greece. Ireland. Italy. Luxembourg. Netherlands. Portugal. Spain. Sweden. and the United Kingdom. Most Europeans drink intoxicant. but 55 million grownups ( 15 % ) abstain ; taking this and live ingestion into history. the ingestion per drinker reaches 15 liters per twelvemonth.
Merely under half of this intoxicant is consumed in the signifier of beer ( 44 % ) . with the remainder divided between vino ( 34 % ) and liquors ( 23 % ) . Within the EU15. northern and cardinal parts drink chiefly beer. while those in southern Europe drink chiefly vino ( although Spain may be an exclusion ) . This is a comparatively new phenomenon. with a harmonisation visible over the past 40 old ages in the EU15. Around 40 % of imbibing occasions in most of the EU15 involve devouring intoxicant with the afternoon/evening repast. although those in southern Europe are much more likely to imbibe with tiffin than elsewhere.
While the degree of day-to-day imbibing besides shows a north—south gradient. non-daily frequent ingestion ( i. e. imbibing several times a hebdomad but non every twenty-four hours ) seems to be more common in cardinal Europe. and there is grounds for a recent harmonisation within the EU15. While 266 million grownups drink alcohol up to 20g ( adult females ) or 40g ( work forces ) per twenty-four hours. over 58 million grownups ( 15 % ) consume above this degree. with 20 million of these ( 6 % ) imbibing at over 40g ( adult females ) or 60g per twenty-four hours ( work forces ) .
Looking at dependence instead than imbibing degrees. we can besides gauge that 23 million Europeans ( 5 % of work forces. 1 % of adult females ) are dependent on intoxicant in any one twelvemonth. In every civilization of all time studied. work forces are more likely than adult females to imbibe at all and to imbibe more when they do. with the spread greater for riskier behavior. Although many adult females give up intoxicant when pregnant. a important figure ( 25 % -50 % ) continue to imbibe. and some continue to imbibe to harmful degrees. Forms in imbibing behavior can besides be seen for socio-economic position ( SES ) . where those with low SES are less likely to imbibe intoxicant at all.
Despite a complex image for some facets of imbibing ( with some steps demoing opposite tendencies for work forces and adult females ) . acquiring rummy and going dependant on intoxicant are both more likely among drinkers of lower SES. Every state in the European Union ( EU ) has a figure of Torahs and other policies that set alcohol apart from other goods traded in its district. frequently for grounds of public wellness. Despite the ubiquitousness of intoxicant policies. merely under half the EU states still do non hold an action program or organizing organic structure for intoxicant.
Even so. most states have programmes for one facet of intoxicant policy. of which school-based instruction programmes are the most common throughout Europe. All states besides have some signifier of drink-driving limitations. with everyplace except the UK. Ireland and Luxembourg holding a maximal blood intoxicant bound for drivers at the degree recommended by the European Commission ( 0. 5g/L ) . However. many European drivers believe that there is merely a slender opportunity of being detected – a 3rd overall believe they will ne’er be breathalyses. although this is lower in states with random breath testing.
Gross saless of intoxicant are by and large capable to limitations in most EU states. in a few instances through retail monopolies but more frequently through licenses. while the topographic points that intoxicant can be sold are often restricted. Over one-third of states ( and some parts ) besides limit the hours of sale. while limitations on the yearss of sale or the denseness of off-premise retail merchants exist in a little figure of states. All states prohibit the sale of intoxicant to immature people beneath a certain age in bars and saloons. although four states have no policy on the sale of intoxicant to kids in stores.
The cut-off point for leting gross revenues to immature people besides varies across Europe. be givening to be 18 old ages in northern Europe and 16 old ages in southern Europe. Alcohol selling is controlled to different grades depending on the type of selling activity. Television beer adverts are capable to legal limitations ( beyond content limitations ) in over half of Europe. including complete prohibitions in five states ; this rises to 14 states for prohibitions on liquors adverts. Billboards and print media are capable to less ordinance though. with one in three states ( chiefly in the EU10 ) holding no controls.
Sports sponsorship is capable to the weakest limitations. with lone seven states holding any legal limitations at all. The revenue enhancement of alcoholic drinks is another consistent characteristic of European states. although the rates themselves vary well between states. This can be seen clearly for vino. where about half the states have no revenue enhancement at all. but one in five states has a revenue enhancement rate above ˆ1. 000. adjusted for buying power. In general. the mean effectual revenue enhancement rate is highest in northern Europe. and weakest in southern and parts of cardinal and eastern Europe.
Four states have besides introduced a targeted revenue enhancement on alcopops since 2004. which appears to hold reduced alcopops ingestion since. When the different policy countries are combined into a individual graduated table. the overall stringency of intoxicant policy ranges from 5. 5 ( Greece ) to 17. 7 ( Norway ) out of a possible upper limit of 20. with an norm of 10. 8. The least rigorous policies are in southern and parts of cardinal and eastern Europe. and the highest in northern Europe – but the tonss do non all lessening from north to south. as seen in the high mark in France.
This image of intoxicant policy is really different from the one seeable fifty old ages ago. with the overall degrees of policy now much closer together. mostly due to the increased degree of policy in many states. specific in the country of drink-driving where all states have a legal bound. Selling controls. minimal ages to purchase intoxicant. and public policy constructions to present intoxicant policy are besides much more common in 2005 than in 1950. Main involvement groups in the industry and their leader in buttonholing activities Eurocare: Who we are and what we do.
Eurocare. is an confederation of around 50 voluntary and non-governmental organisations across Europe created in 1990. working on the bar and decrease of alcohol-related harm2. One of the chief ends is to advance the bar of alcohol-related injury in European Union decision-making ; this is achieved by supervising all EU degree policy enterprises. and transporting out protagonism runs directed at the European Commission ( EC ) and the European Parliament ( EP ) to guarantee that intoxicant issues are included in relevant policy treatments.
The accelerator of our work in recent old ages ( and the concrete consequence of 15 old ages of lobbying ) has been the “EU Strategy to Support Member States in Reducing Alcohol Related Harm” . published by the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection ( DG Sanco ) of the European Commission in October 20063. A basis of this scheme is the late launched Alcohol and Health Forum. a multistakeholder platform conveying together the industry and good as NGOs4 plighting to perpetrate to concrete actions to cut downing alcohol-related injury.
The cross-sectoral nature of intoxicant policy includes the Television Without Frontiers Directive ( concerned with immature people’s exposure to alcohol advertisement ) . Minimum Excise Duties ( a study from the EP proposed to trash these in order to avoid cross boundary line trade and smuggling ) . and Labeling ( the EC is to show a bill of exchange Directive on labeling at the terminal of the twelvemonth ) . For Eurocare. buttonholing on intoxicant nowadayss several troubles: foremost the EU has limited competency to pass in the sphere of public health5. DG Sanco’s Alcohol.
Scheme is therefore utile for protagonism in Member States ; at EU degree. it has allowed intoxicants to procure a topographic point on the political docket. despite being weakened by the influence of the Commission’s more powerful “big brothers” ( DG Trade. DG Market. DG Agriculture. etc. ) ( Ulstein 2006 ) . Second. at European degree. the purpose of cut downing alcohol-related injury is viing against other strong public wellness discourses for illustration in the field of baccy. nutrition and physical activity. the latter exemplified in the EU Platform for Diet. Physical Activity and Health on which the Alcohol and Health Forum is modeled.
Roizen and Fillmore ( 2000 ) joint this from the researchers’ position. but it is besides true for advocators that “our consumerist or dangerous-commodity orientation to alcohol ( … ) obliges us to vie in a public-health-information-offering market topographic point already crowded with wellness warnings of many kinds” . The specificities of intoxicant service to farther perplex the image ; analogues with baccy or debris nutrient are obvious: incontestable public wellness loads ; links with societal inequalities. and of class. powerful industries.
What sets alcohol apart though. is the extremely debatable. misunderstood and misused grounds on the “benefits of intoxicant consumption” ; like it or non. the “ambiguous molecule” intoxicant forms an built-in portion of most civilizations across Europe. “causing deceases while salvaging lives. bring downing hurting while bring forthing pleasure” The intoxicant industry: no ordinary stakeholder The intoxicant industry is undeniably a rival voice in the political procedure of “weighing up the evidence” ; a strong economic plus. with progressively seeable corporate societal duty policies. the industry represents a valid stakeholder.
Alcohol manufacturers unite under“legitimate fronts” through societal facets ( SA ) organisations6. such as the International Centre for Alcohol Policies ( ICAP ) or the European Forum For Responsible Drinking ( EFRD ) . both of which are take parting in the Commission’s Alcohol and Health Forum. Under these streamers. research. policy analysis and of class. lobbying are carried out: in fact. it has non been uncommon to happen such groups walking the same corridors of power as ourselves.
To the layman. the “research” and “policy analysis” ( e. g. : ICAP Blue Book ) carried out by these administrations may look methodologically sound. and conclusive. and the ( simplistic ) theoretical accounts as comprehensive and logical. For illustration. that “patterns of imbibing are the best manner to understand the topographic point of intoxicant in society” ; that “targeted intercessions are most sensitive to cultural differences” . and that “partnerships offer the best chances to develop policies” .
Queerly plenty “Drinking in Context: Patterns. Interventions and Partnerships” . an ICAP collaborative publication ( Stimson et al. 2006 ) was late publicised at a tiffin meeting held in the European Parliament. hosted by German MEP Renate Sommer. Staff from the Eurocare Secretariat attended this tiffin ; the event was reminiscent of the spirit of the movie “Thank You For Smoking”8 ; a subsequence named “Thank You For Drinking” should be considered. and would be extremely entertaining.
This illustration highlights the tensenesss involved in the political procedure. and how seemingly sound and legitimate grounds can be put frontward by the industry. in order to counter what is regarded by the public wellness community as “legitimate” grounds. When the Institute of Alcohol Studies published the Alcohol in Europe study. the British Beer and Pub Association ( besides take parting in the Alcohol and Health Forum ) attempted to sabotage its scientific objectiveness by “denouncing” vested involvements. viz. . links to temperance ; they likened this to “vegetarians composing a study about the benefits of eating meat” .
The EFRD’s position ( in Baumberg & A ; Anderson 2007 ) was that those recommending a stronger EU intoxicant scheme “had a colored position of the grounds base” . It is exactly through the usage of “evidence” and their battle in research. policy analysis and lobbying ( activities mirroring our ain work ) that the industry tries to procure a topographic point at the policy tabular array. which may be potentially hard for the public wellness community to contend off.
The WHO ( 2007 ) stresses the “importance of the engagement of civil society administrations without the struggle of involvements in intoxicant policy development. as a counter influence to the vested trade involvements. which might otherwise rule political determination making” . International Center for Alcohol Policies MISSION Sphere of engagement • Tobacco Product Advertising • Product ordinances • Taxation • Smoking in Public Places/Workplaces • Low/ Reduced Ignition-Propensity Cigarettes ( LIPs/RIPs ) Examples of consequences achieved Lobbying manner • Indirect • Rent seeking • Advantage of moderate sentiments • Silent • Informal.
