Britain's 'top doctor' calls for total ban on alcohol advertising

Drastic action is needed to curb Britain’s binge drinking culture including higher taxes on alcohol, an end to ‘irresponsible’ cheap drink promotions in supermarkets and a complete ban on alcohol advertising, according to Professor Ian Gilmore, the new president of the Royal College of Physicians. Professor Gilmore said the ban should include alcohol sponsorship in sport. His views were immediately attacked by the alcohol industry’s Portman Group. Michael Grade,executive chairman of ITV and former head of the BBC,also launched an attack on the idea of restrictions on advertising, saying it amounted to `scapegoating’ for society’s problems. He urged broadcasters and advertisers to join together to fight off further restrictions.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, Professor Gilmore argued: “The college is giving strong support for the Government’s national alcohol strategy that came out three years ago. But I have to say that that strategy relied heavily on voluntary partnerships with the industry, with public information, [and] is clearly not working.”

In a bid to turn the tide of arising health damage, Professor Gilmore advised that “we need to look at some evidence-based polices. Not just advertising, but the major drivers of what we drink, as a nation, of price, availability and advertising.”

On advertising, Professor Gilmore said that it struck him as bizarre that a watershed of 9pm was being introduced for the advertising of unhealthy foods like crisps, but alcohol was being advertised 24 hours a day.

Also, speaking to the London Evening Standard, Professor Gilmore identified alcohol sports sponsorship as a particular problem.

An estimated £800million was spent on advertising alcohol and on sponsorship deals in 2004 and it is feared that a ban would cause major problems to the media and in sport.

Carling is a major football backer while Liverpool are sponsored by Carlsberg and Everton by Thai beer Chang.

Heineken sponsors the biggest rugby union club competition and Stella Artois sponsors the tennis championships at Queen’s Club. Professor Gilmore said he was “uncomfortable” that his nephew, aged nine, has a Liverpool shirt with Carlsberg emblazoned across it. Professor Gilmore, a consultant gastroenterologist, said: “It sends out the wrong message.” He said that Britain should follow the French example, where there is no broadcast advertising of alcohol and no alcohol sponsorship of sport. France had seen a fall in drinking levels - in contrast with Britain, where figures showed an explosion in consumption.

Professor Gilmore added: “Alcohol is pervasive, it has become impossible to have a celebration in this country without drinking. Alcohol has never been more available or cheaper.”

On alcohol taxes, Professor Gilmore said rates should be linked to alcoholic strength because drinks such as strong cider were too cheap and were being bought by children aiming to get drunk as quickly as possible.

Responding to Professor Gilmore’s comments, a spokeswoman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said: “Sponsorship by the drinks industry is worth many millions to British sport - money which, in many cases, is then used to support youth and grassroots development programmes. There are currently no plans to impose greater restrictions on alcohol sponsorship of sports events.”

For the Portman Group, David Poley, also speaking on the ‘Today’ programme, said: “It is right that irresponsible advertising should be banned, but it already is banned under the strict code of practice. If Professor Gilmore thinks there is any advertisement out there that is in breach of these laws he can complain to the ASA.”

Put to him that advertising was designed to encourage drinking, he said: “The main effect of advertising, as all studies will show, is that it generally impacts on brand preference. I don’t see there is anything wrong with advertising, provided that it complies with these rules. If we acknowledge that advertising generally is complying with these rules and yet there is still a problem with the alcoholic culture in the UK, it suggests the problem is not caused by advertising and we should start looking for other solutions.”

Education was a key component to changing the drinking culture in the UK, Mr Poley insisted.

Broadcaster Michael Grade attacked government restrictions on advertising in general. He condemned restrictions as “nonsense” and said:“We have a common cause in resisting this nanny state culture. The restrictions are not going to stop the way that people live and behave. It is a complete denial of what TV is about, which is reflecting real life. It is nonsense. Either ban the products or just let us get on with our lives.”

As reported in Marketing Week, Mr.Grade was speaking at Thinkbox Experience, a conference organised by the commercial television marketing body to show advertisers and agencies the future of television. “There is a real common cause between us on the panel and advertisers, in trying to wean Government off the idea that restrictions on advertising are the answer to all society’s problems. It is too easy, too simplistic.”

The call, which drew applause from the audience, came during one of Mr Grade’s first public speeches since joining the commercial broadcaster from the BBC at the start of this year.

It followed Ofcom’s announcement that food brands high in fat, salt and sugar would be unable to advertise on television during children’s programming or shows that were watched by a high proportion of under 16-yearolds.

Fellow Thinkbox panelist Jane Lighting, Five chief executive, added:“We have just seen kids and alcohol advertising restricted. What comes after that? We genuinely need lighter touch regulation.”