5.0 The Arguments of the Drinks Industry

5.1 The drinks industry's counter-argument to the WHO is based to a considerable extent simply on misrepresentation. Thus, for example, it claims that WHO's approach is flawed because it calls for across-the-board reductions in alcohol consumption rather than measures which target actual 'alcohol abusers'. In reality, WHO calls for both approaches which, it states correctly, are interrelated and complementary.

However, Target 17 specifies that the priority is to reduce 'harmful use'. Far from neglecting approaches targeted at 'alcohol abusers', WHO is actively promoting intervention strategies, particularly in primary health care settings, designed to enable 'alcohol abusers' to reduce their consumption to less harmful levels, and for this purpose is engaged in a collaborative study with primary health care centres in Denmark, Italy, the UK, Norway, Poland and the Russian Federation.⁷

5.2 The basic thrust of the drinks industry's argument is that:

• There is an absolute distinction between alcohol 'use' (which it defines as entirely harmless if not positively beneficial), and 'alcohol misuse' or 'abuse'.
• All alcohol problems are caused or experienced by a small, irresponsible minority of 'alcohol abusers'.
• Alcohol control policies such as alcohol taxation or liquor licensing are ineffective and inequitable means of tackling alcohol-related problems.
• The only appropriate, effective and acceptable approach is to target 'actual alcohol abusers', whoever these may be, and to promote 'sensible drinking' by educational programmes, preferably in cooperation with the drinks industry itself. ⁸