A flagship SNP health policy failed to curb problem drinking but forced alcoholics to go without food, a major study has found.
Scotland became the first country in the world to introduce minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in May 2018, currently fixed at 50p per unit.
But in a landmark report on the effectiveness of the policy, researchers from Sheffield and Newcastle universities found “no clear evidence” it dissuaded alcoholics from drinking.
In some cases, heavy drinkers spent up to 29 per cent less on food, utility bills and other items, according to data collected from 100,000 participants.
The average total spending on alcohol among this group increased by nearly 30 per cent, rising from £83 to £107 per week.
Findings from 170 interviews revealed the policy drove alcoholics to borrow money from family and friends, pawn their possessions, run down their savings, and forced them to rely on food banks or other forms of charity.
Nicola Sturgeon had lauded the policy in 2016 as “a vital public health measure with strong support from those who work in the frontline of alcohol misuse”.
“It will save lives,” she wrote on Twitter the day after the Scottish courts agreed to back the controversial policy following four years of legal challenges from the Scotch Whisky Association.
‘Increased financial strain’
The report, published by Public Health Scotland, revealed those with alcohol dependence “received little support or information before the policy was rolled out”.
In the report’s conclusions it says: “There is no clear evidence that this (MUP) led to reduced alcohol consumption or changes in the severity of alcohol dependence among people drinking at harmful levels.
“There is some evidence it increased financial strain among some economically vulnerable groups.”
The report adds there was no “clear evidence” the policy led to an increase in criminality and drug use.
The Institute of Economic Affairs, a free market think tank, said the findings would be the “final nail in the coffin of minimum unit pricing”.
Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the organisation, said: “The Scottish Government will try to put a brave face on it, but there is now little doubt that minimum pricing has been a failed experiment that has cost Scottish consumers £270 million.”
People with alcohol dependency responded differently
Prof John Holmes from the University of Sheffield, who led the overall study, said that although MUP was effective in reducing overall sales, those with alcohol dependence responded “in very different ways”.
He said: “Some reduced their spending on other things but others switched to lower strength drinks or simply bought less alcohol.
“It is important that alcohol treatment services and other organisations find ways to support those who do have financial problems, particularly as inflation rises.”
Helen Chung Patterson, public health intelligence adviser at Public Health Scotland, said the research “further develops our understanding of and insights into this important population and how they have responded” to minimum unit pricing (MUP).
“People who drink at harmful levels, and particularly those with alcohol dependence, are a diverse group with complex needs who often experience multiple interacting health and social problems,” she said.
A Scottish Government spokesman said they would “carefully consider the findings”.
They said in the 12 months following the introduction of MUP there was a two per cent decrease in off-trade alcohol sales and a 10 per cent decrease in alcohol specific deaths in 2019.
Latest statistics for 2020 showed alcohol specific deaths had increased by 17 per cent in Scotland, they added.
Ah yes, but the govt are quids in.
There are many studies that show it has had a fairly significant impact on overall consumption. Yearly deaths from alcohol is a poor measure as these deaths are indicative of health problems built up over many years, before minimum pricing was introduced. I’m not a fan of the policy myself tbh (v. Nanny state), but not surprisingly for the Telegraph, this article highlights an important point (lack of support for chronic alcoholics), but is completely unbalanced
Anyone who ever worked on an off licence knew this wasn’t going to change behaviours in alcoholics.
You don’t need studies to know that someone addicted to alcohol will go without food and other amenities if it means they can still get alcohol.
The Scottish and Welsh governments should be ashamed of themselves for introducing these policies.
I mean they *are* addicted so maybe raising the price just meant they spent more money.
I remember in my first job, I had a colleague who had a major drink problem and poor control of his finances. So much so, his father took control of his finances and rationed him to £50 a week spending money.
All it did was lead my colleague to get creative and devise a system to feed himself during the day with the minimum of money, leaving himself £45 for weekend boozing.
He boiled down his nutritional intake to the key things he needed to stay alive, and consequently ate hula hoops in gravy for lunch everyday.
Said this at the time – far more evidence for a lack of price elasticity of demand than for it, particularly among poorer households who will be affected most.
It’s the opposite of evidence based policy, just punitive intervention based on what middle class wankers ‘reckon’ would be good for the working classes.
It seems to have worked well for cigarettes, so what’s the difference?
Eating is cheating.
No, it hasn’t ‘just’ done that.
It has resulted in an 8% reduction in alcohol consumption nationwide, and according to Alcohol Focus Scotland it has prevented a significant amout of people from falling into alcoholism. Alcohol related deaths were on the decline before lockdown. Groups such as AFS support minimum pricing
It was never intended to fix alcoholism as a policy. It was designed to begin to reduce problem drinking generally. It has achieved this.
AFS have highlighted that MUP alone, while welcome, is only part of a broader strategy to address a historic issue. The Scottish Government also acknowledge this.
Media outlets have almost universally adopted highly misleading headlines on this issue, including the above, BBC and Guardian. All this does is cast doubt on a policy that is considered to have been positive and successful by Alcohol harm reduction charities.
Who on earth could have foreseen this. It’s not like we tried this with gin in the 1600s to exactly the same result but hey, you go girl.
this just sounds like a tory rag lie.
Ignore it, it’s the Telegraph.
And punishes those who just want a nice drink after working their arses off for a pittance.
So, if you’re poor fuck you nanny state but if you’re loaded you’re allowed to have all the drink you want? Taking branding, point of sale and advertisements away from the alcohol industry would be far more effective as it has been with cigarettes wouldn’t it? It also would help everyone regardless of their financial situation equally.
Alcoholic here – I’ll go without food, mostly as I forget, and anything else before I stop drinking. That’s because I’m an an addict. I’ve been yellow and in hospital on drips attached to my foot, residential rehab and detoxes, but still left and carried on drinking. Watched my friends die, from liver failure, carried on drinking. It is madness.
Price rises everywhere have added stress. And I’ll choose that bottle of vodka over a packet of fruit or something good for myself. Food prices are the issue first. The stress too. I’ve been to rehab twice but there’s more like me who will cost thousands in treatment. I’m better for the country dead. But it’s a concern, I know there’s hundreds for me, who will cost more to treat. It’s a snake eating it’s tail. Raising prices of alcohol just means we won’t eat.
People with an addiction will prioritise feeding that addiction above other things.
Alcohol, gambling, tobacco, drugs etc.
If a person has reduced financial circumstances and something must be cut to make ends meet, then it’s the “other things” that get cut in favour of feeding the addiction.
Have you ever heard people say “smoking keeps you slim”? That’s because when a person only has enough money/time for either cigarettes or food, they’ll choose cigarettes.
And it’s the same with people have have alcohol dependency issues.
“SNP’s alcohol unit price policy ‘just drove drinkers to spend less on food’”
Just the article headline tells you what it is, another SNP hit piece with little to none objective content.
The Telegraph has become extra large toilet paper.
Does this mean the cost of living crisis may well drive drinkers to spend less on alcohol?
19 comments
Author: Max Stephens
A flagship SNP health policy failed to curb problem drinking but forced alcoholics to go without food, a major study has found.
Scotland became the first country in the world to introduce minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in May 2018, currently fixed at 50p per unit.
But in a landmark report on the effectiveness of the policy, researchers from Sheffield and Newcastle universities found “no clear evidence” it dissuaded alcoholics from drinking.
In some cases, heavy drinkers spent up to 29 per cent less on food, utility bills and other items, according to data collected from 100,000 participants.
The average total spending on alcohol among this group increased by nearly 30 per cent, rising from £83 to £107 per week.
Findings from 170 interviews revealed the policy drove alcoholics to borrow money from family and friends, pawn their possessions, run down their savings, and forced them to rely on food banks or other forms of charity.
Nicola Sturgeon had lauded the policy in 2016 as “a vital public health measure with strong support from those who work in the frontline of alcohol misuse”.
“It will save lives,” she wrote on Twitter the day after the Scottish courts agreed to back the controversial policy following four years of legal challenges from the Scotch Whisky Association.
‘Increased financial strain’
The report, published by Public Health Scotland, revealed those with alcohol dependence “received little support or information before the policy was rolled out”.
In the report’s conclusions it says: “There is no clear evidence that this (MUP) led to reduced alcohol consumption or changes in the severity of alcohol dependence among people drinking at harmful levels.
“There is some evidence it increased financial strain among some economically vulnerable groups.”
The report adds there was no “clear evidence” the policy led to an increase in criminality and drug use.
The Institute of Economic Affairs, a free market think tank, said the findings would be the “final nail in the coffin of minimum unit pricing”.
Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the organisation, said: “The Scottish Government will try to put a brave face on it, but there is now little doubt that minimum pricing has been a failed experiment that has cost Scottish consumers £270 million.”
People with alcohol dependency responded differently
Prof John Holmes from the University of Sheffield, who led the overall study, said that although MUP was effective in reducing overall sales, those with alcohol dependence responded “in very different ways”.
He said: “Some reduced their spending on other things but others switched to lower strength drinks or simply bought less alcohol.
“It is important that alcohol treatment services and other organisations find ways to support those who do have financial problems, particularly as inflation rises.”
Helen Chung Patterson, public health intelligence adviser at Public Health Scotland, said the research “further develops our understanding of and insights into this important population and how they have responded” to minimum unit pricing (MUP).
“People who drink at harmful levels, and particularly those with alcohol dependence, are a diverse group with complex needs who often experience multiple interacting health and social problems,” she said.
A Scottish Government spokesman said they would “carefully consider the findings”.
They said in the 12 months following the introduction of MUP there was a two per cent decrease in off-trade alcohol sales and a 10 per cent decrease in alcohol specific deaths in 2019.
Latest statistics for 2020 showed alcohol specific deaths had increased by 17 per cent in Scotland, they added.
Ah yes, but the govt are quids in.
There are many studies that show it has had a fairly significant impact on overall consumption. Yearly deaths from alcohol is a poor measure as these deaths are indicative of health problems built up over many years, before minimum pricing was introduced. I’m not a fan of the policy myself tbh (v. Nanny state), but not surprisingly for the Telegraph, this article highlights an important point (lack of support for chronic alcoholics), but is completely unbalanced
Anyone who ever worked on an off licence knew this wasn’t going to change behaviours in alcoholics.
You don’t need studies to know that someone addicted to alcohol will go without food and other amenities if it means they can still get alcohol.
The Scottish and Welsh governments should be ashamed of themselves for introducing these policies.
I mean they *are* addicted so maybe raising the price just meant they spent more money.
I remember in my first job, I had a colleague who had a major drink problem and poor control of his finances. So much so, his father took control of his finances and rationed him to £50 a week spending money.
All it did was lead my colleague to get creative and devise a system to feed himself during the day with the minimum of money, leaving himself £45 for weekend boozing.
He boiled down his nutritional intake to the key things he needed to stay alive, and consequently ate hula hoops in gravy for lunch everyday.
Said this at the time – far more evidence for a lack of price elasticity of demand than for it, particularly among poorer households who will be affected most.
It’s the opposite of evidence based policy, just punitive intervention based on what middle class wankers ‘reckon’ would be good for the working classes.
It seems to have worked well for cigarettes, so what’s the difference?
Eating is cheating.
No, it hasn’t ‘just’ done that.
It has resulted in an 8% reduction in alcohol consumption nationwide, and according to Alcohol Focus Scotland it has prevented a significant amout of people from falling into alcoholism. Alcohol related deaths were on the decline before lockdown. Groups such as AFS support minimum pricing
It was never intended to fix alcoholism as a policy. It was designed to begin to reduce problem drinking generally. It has achieved this.
AFS have highlighted that MUP alone, while welcome, is only part of a broader strategy to address a historic issue. The Scottish Government also acknowledge this.
Media outlets have almost universally adopted highly misleading headlines on this issue, including the above, BBC and Guardian. All this does is cast doubt on a policy that is considered to have been positive and successful by Alcohol harm reduction charities.
Who on earth could have foreseen this. It’s not like we tried this with gin in the 1600s to exactly the same result but hey, you go girl.
this just sounds like a tory rag lie.
Ignore it, it’s the Telegraph.
And punishes those who just want a nice drink after working their arses off for a pittance.
So, if you’re poor fuck you nanny state but if you’re loaded you’re allowed to have all the drink you want? Taking branding, point of sale and advertisements away from the alcohol industry would be far more effective as it has been with cigarettes wouldn’t it? It also would help everyone regardless of their financial situation equally.
Alcoholic here – I’ll go without food, mostly as I forget, and anything else before I stop drinking. That’s because I’m an an addict. I’ve been yellow and in hospital on drips attached to my foot, residential rehab and detoxes, but still left and carried on drinking. Watched my friends die, from liver failure, carried on drinking. It is madness.
Price rises everywhere have added stress. And I’ll choose that bottle of vodka over a packet of fruit or something good for myself. Food prices are the issue first. The stress too. I’ve been to rehab twice but there’s more like me who will cost thousands in treatment. I’m better for the country dead. But it’s a concern, I know there’s hundreds for me, who will cost more to treat. It’s a snake eating it’s tail. Raising prices of alcohol just means we won’t eat.
People with an addiction will prioritise feeding that addiction above other things.
Alcohol, gambling, tobacco, drugs etc.
If a person has reduced financial circumstances and something must be cut to make ends meet, then it’s the “other things” that get cut in favour of feeding the addiction.
Have you ever heard people say “smoking keeps you slim”? That’s because when a person only has enough money/time for either cigarettes or food, they’ll choose cigarettes.
And it’s the same with people have have alcohol dependency issues.
“SNP’s alcohol unit price policy ‘just drove drinkers to spend less on food’”
Just the article headline tells you what it is, another SNP hit piece with little to none objective content.
The Telegraph has become extra large toilet paper.
Does this mean the cost of living crisis may well drive drinkers to spend less on alcohol?