Better alcohol regulation will save lives and money
Alcohol harm costs England at least £27bn a year – almost double what the Treasury collects in alcohol duty. These harms aren't incidental to the alcohol market; they are intrinsic to it. While the industry promotes 'moderate drinking', evidence shows that its profits and growth depend on the heaviest drinkers. It's no coincidence that Diageo's CEO recently described moderation as the industry's 'biggest disrupter'.
Policies that reduce alcohol consumption are consistently shown to be sound investments, recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank and the World Health Organization. In Scotland, the introduction of minimum unit pricing (MUP) led to a 13% drop in alcohol-specific deaths and a 4% fall in hospital admissions. If adopted in England, MUP could reduce premature mortality while saving the NHS millions and help create a healthier workforce.
England urgently needs a national alcohol strategy. Bold, evidence-based measures like MUP must be at its core, with commercial vested-interest groups kept at the margins.Dr Katherine SeveriChief executive, Institute of Alcohol Studies
• Your editorial reflects the serious concerns that we at World Cancer Research Fund and many other organisations have around the ineffectiveness of England's alcohol regulation. The evidence shows that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption when it comes to cancer risk. And there are around 17,000 alcohol-related cancer cases in the UK every year, as well as 200 other associated health conditions caused by alcohol.
In our Cancer Prevention Action Week (23-29 June), we will showcase polling that highlights the chasm between public perception about alcohol and cancer risks. We want the public to have correct health information at their disposal so they can understand their cancer risks and make informed choices. Now is the time for direct action. The UK government urgently needs to join the dots on regulation around alcohol marketing and labelling.
We urge members of the public to do their part and sign our petition to advocate with us for better regulation in England. Dr Giota Mitrou Executive director of research and policy, World Cancer Research Fund
• Nearly half of UK adults now drink alcohol-free products, and our research shows that 68% of them use these drinks to cut down on alcohol. But despite this momentum, outdated labelling rules are holding people back.
For over a decade, governments have delayed a straightforward change: allowing drinks at or below 0.5% ABV to be labelled 'alcohol-free'. This is already the international standard and reflects the reality – drinks at this level contain no more alcohol than a ripe banana, sourdough bread or even some soft drinks. Yet UK producers are still forced to use the term 'low alcohol' for these drinks, confusing consumers and deterring many from trying them.Laura WilloughbyCo-founder, Club Soda
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Study reveals best way to communicate link between alcohol and breast cancer
A new study has revealed the best way to communicate the link between alcohol and breast cancer. The research, undertaken by Oxford Brookes University which has a campus in Swindon, and funded by the charity Prevent Breast Cancer, focused on women aged 40 to 65 in the UK. It found that many women in this group were unaware of the connection between alcohol consumption and breast cancer. Read more: 250-year-old Wiltshire estate launches summer adventure series The study, titled 'Rethinking the message on alcohol and breast cancer with UK women: a Delphi study', was published in the journal Health Promotion International. It involved a three-stage process, which began with a survey of 260 women, followed by seven online focus groups and a collaborative workshop. The study's lead author, Dr Emma Davies, said: "We often think of alcohol as causing liver disease, but there's plenty of research showing that drinking alcohol can lead to seven types of cancer, including breast cancer. "Evidence shows that people who are aware of the link between alcohol and cancer are more supportive of stronger and more effective alcohol policy. "This means that raising awareness isn't just about individual behaviour change, it is about changing how we think about alcohol at all levels of society." The study found that several factors, including cultural norms, mistrust of official messaging, psychological defence mechanisms, and stigma, reduced the effectiveness of health warnings. Fear-based messaging was also found to be counterproductive, as it often led to denial rather than proactive change. Dr Davies said: "It's clear that fear, blame and shame don't work when it comes to raising awareness of the risks associated with drinking alcohol. "Cutting back on alcohol can help to reduce the chance of getting cancer, but can also give us plenty of other benefits, such as better sleep and improved mood." The study concluded that narrative-based framing, using personal stories from peers who have experienced breast cancer, was more effective than stark statistics or scare tactics. Messages were most accepted when framed positively, highlighting how reducing drinking can empower women and protect their health, rather than through guilt or blame. Dr Davies added: "Importantly, we need a clear and evidence-based alcohol policy to reduce risks across the population. Read more: WHSmith shops to be renamed as firm sells up at cut price "We need to understand why people drink and what the emotional and cultural barriers are to giving up or cutting down. "We hope our study will equip policymakers, charities, clinicians, and health communicators with an evidence-based roadmap to reshape prevention campaigns and reduce alcohol-related harms, including breast cancer and other cancer cases." For more information and advice on alcohol and cancer, visit the World Cancer Research Fund's Cancer Prevention Action Week page.
UPI
6 days ago
- UPI
Dozens of Palestinians killed in Israeli airstrikes in Gaza
Displaced Palestinians wait to receive aid from World Food Program USA on Thursday. Starvation is intensifying amid more Israeli airstrikes against Hamas on the Gaza Strip. Photo by Mohammed Saber/EPA-EFE June 28 (UPI) -- Dozens of Palestinians died in several rounds of Israeli airstrikes from Friday night until Saturday morning, officials said. At least 44 people died in the Gaza Strip since dawn, hospital sources told Al Jazeera Arabic. The Guardian reported at least 62 people died in overnight strikes. The Gaza Health Ministry, which is controlled by the Iran-funded militant group Hamas, said 81 people have died and 422 were wounded over 24 hours. Al Jazeera reported an airstrike in a residential building in Gaza City killed at least 20 Palestinians, including nine children. "We were sitting peacefully when we received a call from a private number telling us to evacuate the entire block immediately -- a residential area belonging to the al-Nakhalah family. As you can see, the whole block is nearly wiped out," Mahmoud al-Nakhala told Al Jazeera. "We still don't know why two, three-story homes were targeted ... It's heartbreaking that people watch what's happening in Gaza -- the suffering, the massacres -- and stay silent. At this point, we can't even comprehend what's happening here anymore," he added. Rescuers were working to remove victims from under rubble. Those hurt were taken to al-Ahli Hospital, which is lacking medical resources. There were also drone strikes elsewhere on Gaza Strip, including in the city of Khan Younis and the Bureij refugee camp. The Guardian reported that a dozen people were killed near a displacement camp near Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, after which a nearby airstrike nearby killed at least 11 people and a family sleeping in a tent was reported to have died in a strike in al-Mawasi, southern Gaza. At least 56,412 Palestinians have been killed 133,054 wounded since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Hamas' attack on Israel that day killed approximately 1,200 people and 251 hostages were taken. President Donald Trump on Friday said there could be a cease-fire agreement "within the next week" despite no signs of negotiations underway. Humanitarian conditions in Gaza have worsened since Israel resumed airstrikes on March 18 after a cease-fire that ran from Jan. 19 to March 1. Unicef said last week that 60% of water production facilities in Gaza weren't working and acute child malnutrition increased 51% from April to May. In a separate strike in southern Lebanon on Friday, Israel Defense Forces killed Hezbollah terrorist Hassan Muhammad Hammoudi, the military told the Jerusalem Post on Saturday night. Lebanon's President Joseph Aoun accused Israel of continually violating the U.S.-brokered cease-fire deal.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Putting cancer warnings on alcohol would help me drink less
Back in the early noughties, the indoor smoking ban led to an outcry over 'the nanny state'. The same happened when cigarette advertising was banned, and when manufacturers were required to plaster packs with images of diseased lungs. Yet over the past 40 years, according to Cancer Research, lung cancer rates in men have dropped by around 60 per cent. We may think we crave the rugged freedoms of the Marlboro Man, but given the facts, it turns out we don't actually want to die. And yet when it comes to alcohol, one of the world's biggest killers, a key driver of cancers, heart disease, strokes and obesity, there are no images of rotting livers on the chilled Sauvignon. The presentation of booze in the supermarket aisles is as benign as kitchen roll and chicken pie. It's described on restaurant menus with biblical reverence, it's advertised on TV in a hazy, golden-hour glow, and every other greetings card carries a hilarious reference to the booze-addled nature of the recipient. It is both normalised and celebrated, despite being the fifth greatest risk factor for death in the UK. Now, a group of major medical and health organisations have signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for alcohol to carry explicit warnings that its consumption can cause cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund, which spearheaded the letter, cited 'shockingly low' public awareness that alcohol raises the risk of seven types of cancer – these being breast, bowel, stomach, head, neck, liver and mouth – and insisted that 'bold and unambiguous labelling' is urgently need to help save lives. Token efforts have long been made by the industry to toe a wavering line of responsibility – the number of units a bottle of wine contains written in a font the size of a gnat's IKEA instructions, or a glancing mention that pregnant women shouldn't drink. According to the Advertising Standards Authority, 'Lively, but responsible, social interaction or party scenes with alcohol present are allowed but…no behaviour may be adolescent or childish.' If only that diktat held true in real-life 'party scenes.' Initially, like much of Gen X and our wine-necking Boomer parents, I was resistant to the idea of cancer warnings. If I wanted to slowly kill myself in a responsible and socially acceptable manner, I felt it should be my choice to do so. But after another night of drinking slightly too much with friends, waking bathed in shame and a light prosecco sweat, I reconsidered. Women, particularly, are at risk of harm from alcohol, simply because we're smaller. If every time I picked up the wine bottle to top up my glass – over a healthy dinner! So civilised! – it reminded me that I was increasing my risk of cancer, I suspect I might put it back down. Humans like to ignore the dangers when it's something we want to do until it becomes impossible to turn a blind eye. But this time, it's not so much the consumers resisting warnings as the enormously powerful drinks industry. It's already up against Gen Z's wellbeing crusade, with a tsunami of kumbucha and kefir washing away the old-school shots and spirits from nights out. The risk of drinkers murmuring, 'Actually, I don't think I do want seven types of cancer' and switching the kettle on instead is a step too far. A spokesperson for the Portman Group, which oversees UK alcohol labelling in the UK, says: 'Whilst we do not dispute the link between alcohol and certain cancers… blanket cancer warning labels…can create unnecessary anxiety, eroding trust in health advice and alienating the very people who require support.' As an argument, this is weaker than a sixth-form debating point scribbled on the bus. Imagine the motor industry saying, 'Road signs create unnecessary anxiety. Let's not warn people that they might crash, lest we alienate drivers.' The spokesperson added that most alcohol products already include advice to limit drinking to 14 units a week, and claimed that 'most people drink within guidelines.' According to NHS Digital, however, 24 per cent of Brits drink more than this, while the charity Drinkaware has found that 32 per cent of men and 15 per cent of women regularly sink more than the recommended limit – and it is a limit, not a target. Doctors repeatedly warn that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and in April, the World Health Organisation advised that women should drink no alcohol at all to avoid a heightened risk of breast cancer. I'm aware that even reading this is annoying. I share the general British resentment over finger-wagging admonishments from the Fun Police. I want to say, 'You'll prise my Picpoul from my cold, dead hand.' The only thing is, I'd rather not be cold and dead – and I'm increasingly convinced that warning labels can only be a good thing. Although, of course, we must be careful how we approach this new regime. After all, we wouldn't want to alienate anybody.
