EU blasted after 'teetotal' group helps write alcohol strategy
The European Commission (EC) has been blasted for paying "temperance-funded lobbyists" to write a damning report on how drinking is damaging health and causing crime.
The report could ultimately lead to higher alcohol taxes and more regulation of pubs because it will inform officials in Brussels as they devise a new alcohol strategy for Europe.
Increased violenceThe report, which cost the EC around 100,000 euros, says that extending pub opening hours leads to an increase in violence.
It says a 10% rise in alcohol taxes could save 9,000 lives a year across 15 European countries.
It's like asking a vegetarian to write a report on the benefits of meat-eating.Mark Hastings, British Beer and Pub Association.
Alcohol blamed for child abuse and murderThe study says 23 million Europeans are alcoholics, alcohol causes 16% of child abuse and 2,000 murders a year.
The report is released next month and will be used - along with reports from various bodies - to help the EC decide its new alcohol strategy, which is expected later in the year.
The report was commissioned by the EC in 2003 from the UK-based Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS).
Spread principles of abstinenceThe IAS is part of the Alliance House Foundation, which defines its mission as "to spread the principles of total abstinence".
The group has previously lobbied the Government against extending pub opening and in favour of higher alcohol tax.
British Beer and Pub Association director of communications Mark Hastings compared the situation to a vegetarian society writing a report on meat-eating.
However, Andrew McNeil of the IAS said the BBPA's comment were "total rubbish".
He told morningadvertiser.co.uk: "This report has undergone the most rigourous scrutiny - including by scientists nominated by the alcohol industry and even they gave it their seal of approval. Sooner or later the BBPA will have to respond to the issues raised in the report and stop the name-calling."
Commenting on the report, an EC spokesman said it would be "just one of several inputs into the Commission's work on alcohol and health".
Your CommentsChris Broscomb via email 16/05/2006"But this is the way of the modern world.
Most of us work, rest and play for the benefit of the country and cannot afford the time for political involvement.
I really wish I could get a job where I could spend all my time sorting out the lives of the people I hate."
Robert Feal-Martinez via email 17/05/2006"It is rare indeed that I agree with Mark Hastings however on this occassion he has a point. Having said that one assumes we will get to see the report and the analysis and not wait until after decisions are taken as with the SCOTH report on smoking and passive smoking which was released once Government polivy had been formulated. We know how fallacious that report is. But I have to say this Nanny intervention has been coming a long time and many of us predicted this would follow Smoking, closely followed I'm sure by eating. You shouldn't have mentioned vegetarians Mark, they will probably be funded now to tell us meat eaters how healthy we could be. As a man with a veggie wife, I'd rather stay my unhealthy self."
Andrew McNeil, Institute of Alcohol Studies. via email 17/05/2006"Your report `EU blasted after teetotal group helps write alcohol strategy' contains a number of false statements and allegations. For the sake of accuracy your readers may like to know that the IAS is not a teetotal group and the report is not in any case the same as the alcohol strategy. Given that these `facts' given in your news item are all fundamentally incorrect, your readers may like to judge the accuracy of the rest of your report for themselves when the document is published."
Robert Feal-Martinez via email 17/05/2006"The obvious question Andrew, when will the report be published, will it be before or after a strategy for tackling a 'perceived' problem is delivered or not. So what is the role of the IAS and are you funded by organisations who are againgst the use of alcohol. Readers have a right to know, or will we have to search to discover the truth, as with ASH, who are another self appointed group of moralists."
Liz Barber, 17/05/06As a smoker and (according to the new dictat)- binge drinker how NOT surprised I am to read this article. When we (smokers) said it was only the start we were not in the least bit wrong. If people do not wish to have their 'lifestyle choices' imposed upon them, they had better start defending the right to Freedom to choose - including the rights of smokers. I would add however, that I entirely agree that there ARE genuine victims of 'passive drinking' and enourmous costs associated with the victims of alcohol abuse - unlike the mythical menace of passive smoking.
E B Cant, 18/05/2006Hope big brother will read this, instead of funding the cost of this report on alchol, it would have been more constructive to have funded a report of why people drink in the first place, no1 is stress in the work place, now we have all worked for some axxx holes some time in our working life, which can often send people to drink, nothing is done about this or these people who cause this stress, no2 expensive mortgage over priced energy bills, just general cost which will drive people to drink, this all leads to stress. Again this goverment will do nothing about this, we all meet people in our pubs who will tell you what a sxxt day they have in work. Now who do i send this bill to, don`t you all just feel that we are banging our heads against a brick wall
John Boyd via email 20/06/2006"I am always intrigued that whilst the alcohol industry and users of alcohol can produce authoritative reports on alcohol use, those identified as non-drinkers are always seen as having a subjective view so thier reports should be discounted. I don't follow the logic. Should only those who supply or use heroin, cocaine or cannabis be allowed to comment on their use and the rest of us mind our own business?"
