Alcohol ad ban: whose freedom of choice is served by the media industry?

The degree to which change without sacrifice is possible depends entirely upon the problem at hand. In response to Chris Moerdyk's article "Curbing alcohol abuse by banning ads is like trying to cure Aids with beetroot", I suggest that he consider where on this spectrum of sacrifice-for-change alcohol advertising falls.

Alcohol advertising is effective

First off, we need to acknowledge that alcohol advertising does indeed increase drinking. Multi-billion dollar companies would not be spending hundreds of millions of rands advertising alcohol if it were ineffective.

Indeed, a research review of all longitudinal studies between 1990 and 2008 assessed the impact of advertising on more than 38 000 young people and found that, out of 13 studies, 12 demonstrated that exposure to alcohol advertising is associated with higher initiation of drinking, as well as heavier drinking with risks proportional to the amount of advertising seen.

But does this mean we should ban alcohol advertising?

Until South Africans recognise that alcohol abuse is an important problem in need of urgent change, the need for making any type of sacrifice to address this will not be accepted.

Top five heaviest drinkers in the world

Do most of us know, for example, that South Africans rank amongst the top five heaviest drinkers in the world? Or that we have the highest rates of alcohol-related harm in the world: ten-fold the global average of male violence, double the global average of road deaths and among the highest rates of HIV, TB and fetal alcohol syndrome in the world? Weekend binge drinkers cause most of the harm, not alcoholics.

I am wondering if Mr Moerdyk has fully thought through his own comments before criticising others. In a country where alcohol is one of the top three leading causes of death and disability, what good reasons are there for us promoting drinking so heavily?

His article seems to suggest we should do so to save jobs in the media industry, but should we promote jobs at any cost?

One of the most admirable features of humanity is that we do not knowingly support industries that are harmful. This is why we test consumer products for safety, such as medications or motor vehicles and is why we do not promote tobacco, cocaine or child labour.

Saving lives

Alcohol is a dangerous product, causing the loss of approximately 130 lives per day in SA. Is saving 130 lives a day worth the alleged R3 billion projected loss in advertising (Mr Moerdyk's calculation)?

How does this balance with the further R38 billion rand annual cost of alcohol to our economy incurred through alcohol-related violence, crime, HIV, absenteeism, low productivity, and incarceration, for example?

A recent economic study for the Department of Trade and Industry has indicated very clearly that the economic benefits of the alcohol industry, which tend to accrue to the wealthier sectors of society, are more or less equally matched by the economic costs of alcohol abuse, which tend to accrue to the poorest sectors of society.

Why do South Africans not know these things about alcohol? Why do so many South Africans falsely believe that it is only harmful to drink excessively if you are driving or pregnant?

Alcohol advertising limits our freedom of choice

Most of the messaging we get about alcohol is from the alcohol industry that has a vested interest in selling more alcohol. What gives the liquor industry the right to constantly bombard us (including people under the age of 18) with images and messages about alcohol on radio, billboards, television, sports matches and the Internet?

At the same time, it makes little effort to advertise responsibly or educate people about the harms of alcohol, with budgets for this being less than 10% of that for promoting drinking. The liquor Industry Association for Responsible Advertising (ARA) has a staff of two people and only advertises its advertising complaints hotline on its website*.

It is true that alcohol advertising bans alone are not sufficient to curb alcohol abuse; a global body of evidence has demonstrated that, to be most effective in reducing alcohol-related harm (by up to 44%), one should simultaneously reduce access to alcohol (shorter hours of trade, lower liquor outlet density and/or increase the price of alcohol).

This is, of course, another highly controversial issue - its effectiveness is beyond dispute (to those aware of the evidence), but of course we drinkers do not like the idea of less convenience in a world where we are used to companies ensuring us the easiest possible access to their goods at all times.

If nothing changes, nothing changes

The solution to alcohol abuse that appeals most to people's sense of agency and self-determination is to educate people. Unfortunately, hundreds of research studies show us that just telling people to drink less because alcohol may harm them is about as effective as using beetroots to cure AIDS.

Education is, however, a necessary adjunct to a broader alcohol policy that includes reducing demand for alcohol (through less advertising, for example), as well as reducing the supply of alcohol.

Both of these measures require some sacrifices but we should not forget that there is strong evidence to show that the nett effect will be positive. This is why we make sacrifices because, if nothing changes, nothing changes.

*Readers should be aware that information on the ARA website is not always evidence-based and is provided from the perspective of the liquor industry, which has a vested interest in selling alcohol.