Background
UK drinkers regularly consume alcohol in excess of guideline limits; alcohol consumption and binge drinking are also known to have increased in recent years. One reason for this is the availability of low-cost alcoholic beverages. The introduction of a minimum price per unit of alcohol has been proposed as a means to reduce alcohol consumption in the UK. However, there is little in-depth research investigating public attitudes and beliefs regarding a minimum pricing policy. This report presents the findings of an in-depth qualitative study to investigate people’s attitudes, beliefs, and responses to the introduction of a minimum price per unit of alcohol policy and its perceived acceptability.
The Project
Twenty-eight focus groups were conducted to reflect representative views regarding the introduction of a minimum price per unit of alcohol policy. Participants were asked to give their opinions about minimum alcohol pricing, its possible outcomes, and how its introduction might be made more acceptable. The thematic content analysis of focus group transcripts revealed important insight into participants’ attitudes and beliefs with respect to a minimum price per unit of alcohol policy.
Major Finding 1
Participants were found to express largely negative views of the possible introduction of a minimum price per unit policy. Analysis indicated that participants’ objections to a minimum price had three main elements:
- participants were sceptical of minimum pricing as an effective means to reduce UK alcohol consumption;
- participants disliked the policy for a number of reasons, in particular, the policy was believed to unfairly punish those who drink in moderation or ‘sensible’ drinkers; and
- participants were concerned that a minimum price per unit might create or exacerbate other existing social problems (e.g., crime and drug abuse).
Major Finding 2.
Although they were clearly not enthusiastic about the prospect of paying higher alcohol prices, a number of participants reluctantly accepted that a minimum price per unit might be necessary to address excess alcohol consumption. Accordingly, participants who supported (or at least did not object to) the introduction of a minimum price did so for one or more of three reasons:
- the need for action to curb excessive alcohol consumption;
- the prospect of improved public health, particularly among young and underage drinkers; and
- the introduction of a minimum price was not perceived by participants to have a significant effect on their own personal drinking habits.
Major Finding 3
When asked how the introduction of a minimum price might be made more acceptable, two themes emerged from the analysis with participants making the following suggestions:
- a minimum price per unit should be introduced as part of a broader package of government policies to address excessive alcohol consumption; and
- revenue generated by higher alcohol prices should be used to fund other interventions.
In both cases, it was evident that participants were more likely to accept a minimum pricing policy if it was introduced together with other government policies participants considered most likely to reduce alcohol consumption significantly. There was also little evidence that participants’ views of the minimum price policy and its acceptability varied across gender and age groups.
Conclusions
Current findings indicate that participants were largely sceptical of the introduction of a minimum price per unit alcohol-pricing policy and expressed doubts regarding its effectiveness. Participants did, however, suggest that the policy could be made more acceptable if introduced as part of a wider strategy to curb alcohol consumption. Present findings suggest that participants’ objections to a minimum price per unit were the result of three main issues:
- a misunderstanding of the minimum price per unit policy itself;
- the failure to recognise the significance of small incremental reductions in alcohol consumption; and
- a preoccupation with the effects of a minimum price on heavy and dependent drinkers.
Policymakers looking to introduce a minimum price policy should focus on dispelling the misconceptions regarding an alcohol-pricing policy and on highlighting the key features of the policy to counter the misunderstandings expressed by participants in the present research.
Research Team
Martin S. Hagger, Adam J. Lonsdale, Rob Baggott, Gillian Penny and Matthew Bowen
“Alcohol consumption and binge drinking are also known to have increased in recent years”. I think you will find that hazardous, harmful and binge drinking have been in decline since 2002. This is true across both sexes and all age groups, but especially among 18-24 year olds (Source: ONS, Smoking and drinking among adults 2009). This is reflected in the fact that overall alcohol consumption has fallen by about 11% over that time (Source: HM Customs and Excise).
Given that the research demonstrates that most people are opposed to minimum pricing because they think: 1) it is ineffective; 2) it is unfair; and 3) it might have negative side-effects, perhaps a better conclusion for policy makers looking to introduce minimum pricing would be to instead adopt fair, effective policies that the public would support.
It would certainly appear from the Office of National Statistics data that consumption has been decreasing in recent years in the UK. Since there is a strong relationship between consumption and availability this is exactly what would be expected during a recession.
But we need to be careful in assessing the relevant data. For example, the method of measurement used by the ONS changed in 2006. This can be seen in the data showing that in 2000 29% of men consumed more than the recommended 21 units per week reducing to 23% in 2006. The figures produced using the new method were 31% in 2006. This does suggest that we have to be cautious when interpreting the downward trend.
The authors of the report note that the updated methodology suggests that the average number of units consumed may be continuing to fall from 2006 onwards but there is no statistically significant change between 2008 and 2009.
They also note that:
Again this implies that we should be guarded when interpreting these figures. However, as David Poley points out we do have other data. The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) makes annual estimates of per capita alcohol consumption using data provided by HM Revenue and Customs. These show a steady increase in consumption from 1998 to 2004, followed by a decline of about 5 per cent to 2006, and then a further decline of about 7 per cent from 2006 to 2009. So both the ONS and the BBPA show that there appears to have been a fall in consumption in recent years. One is based upon self report the other relies upon sales.
This sounds like convincing data but there must be somebody out there who has been studying trends for the last 10 years and can add to this discussion. Alcohol Research UK is keen to encourage debate based upon reasonable evidence.
Incidentally, alcohol consumption may have decreased but there is still a great deal of hazardous consumption. Hazardous consumption for men is defined as consuming more than 8 units on one occasion. ONS report that, in 2009, 24 per cent of men aged 16 to 24, 27 per cent of men aged 25 to 44 and 21 per cent of men aged 45 to 64, had drunk more than eight units on at least one day during the previous week.
Furthermore young people are drinking twice what they were in 1990 and the amount of alcohol consumed by adolescents aged 11-13 increased substantially between 1992-2006 in England, though may have reached a peak in 2007.(Smith & Foxcroft , 2009 JRF)
David Poley casts doubt upon the fairness and effectiveness of minimum unit pricing. Cheaper alcohol tends to be bought more frequently by harmful drinkers than moderate drinkers and studies show that it is also attractive to young people. So a minimum price policy targets the drinkers causing the most harm to both themselves and society whilst having little effect on the spending of adult moderate drinkers. This seems both fair and effective.