Self-regulation - for and against

One in four European men and one in ten European women consume alcohol at levels hazardous and harmful to health, said Dr Peter Anderson of Eurocare. He was speaking at a meeting of the Alcohol and Health Working Group of the European Commission called to discuss the self-regulation of alcohol promotion.

Dr Anderson added that one in four drinking occasions includes consumption of more than six units of alcohol and that five per cent of European adults are physically dependent on alcohol.

At the meeting in Luxembourg the drink industry was presented by Dr Helmut Wagner who argued the case for self-regulation. He set out six principles of self-regulation:

• Consistency: a common approach through several codes

• Independence of the system

• Impartiality of the adjudication mechanism

• Transparency of the system and decision-making process

• Visibility of and access to the system

• Results through enforcement: - Sanctions - Prevention

Dr Wagner advocated a set of European Standards to constitute a common approach to self-regulation. These would be:

• Reflected in Codes of Conduct
  TAG Common Standards for Commercial Communications

And there should be:

• EU-wide implementation - through national Advertising Standards Authorities topped up by alcohol industry-specific codes

• Regular revision of alcohol-specific and general Advertising Standards codes e.g. Portman Group Code (revised in September, 2002), Irish Industry Code (revised in April, 2002)

Dr Wagner set out the Code of Conduct: Drinks Industry Programme, 2001-2005:

• An integrated system of common standards ensuring a coherent approach specific to the drinks industry

• Awareness-raising campaigns - in all member states and accession countries - addressed to all relevant stakeholders - industry-external: enhancing understanding of the codes and procedures - industry-internal: education and training.

• Regular Code review, with stakeholder consultation.

Dr Anderson, in reply, using data collected in the World Health Organization's Global Burden of Disease study, set out the facts of the harm done by alcohol, pointing out that 9.2 per cent of all disability and premature death in Europe is due to alcohol. The figure for men is 14 per cent.

Turning to the regulation of the promotion of alcohol, Dr Anderson asked whether this promotion has consequences for public health and whether it should be regulated in the public interest or, as Dr Wagner advocated, left to industry self-regulation.

He set out the purposes of self-regulation. These were, he said, to reduce the harm done by alcohol, in particular among young people and that success should be measured by its impact on drinking and harm. "If the purpose of self-regulation is to reduce the 'misuse' of the product, and if its success is to be measured by its impact on the 'misuse' of the product, then the implication is that the promotion of alcohol does have adverse consequences for public health. Otherwise," asked Dr Anderson, "why all the emphasis on the importance of self-regulation by the alcohol industry?

"If the alcohol industry so strongly believes in the merits of self-regulation, it should agree to and provide the funds for an independent evaluation of its impact."

Dr Anderson argued that evaluators should be chosen by experts in the fields of public health and communication on the basis of their independence and scientific standing. He went on to highlight the European Union Council of Health Ministers' recommendations of 5th June, 2001, especially that which was aimed at ensuring that alcoholic beverages were not designed or promoted to appeal to children and adolescents.

The same recommendation stressed that particular attention be paid to any promotion or advertising campaign which had "implications of social, sexual or sporting success. At the same time, the Council urged "representative producer and trade organisations of alcoholic beverages to commit themselves to observe the principles [set out in the recommendations]."

The Council of Health Ministers was echoing Commissioner Byrne's comments in Stockholm in February, 2001, when he made it clear that it was now up to the self-regulatory bodies to show that their system was effective.

"So, what has been going on since June, 2001?" asked Dr Anderson. Facts speak louder than words, he suggested, and illustrated the point with examples of advertisements from before and after the year 2002 to show how effective the course of leaving regulation to the drink industry had been.

Alcopops, with their bright labelling, often allusive of cartoons, pop culture, or sex, show no change in presentation between 1995 and 2002.

Far from avoiding any implication of sexual success, advertisements are becoming more and more explicit. One of the examples used by Dr Anderson was for the Alcopop Maximum, marketed in the Netherlands in 2002. It graphically illustrates both the prurient nature of so much of this king of advertising and the tortured logic of the agents of self-regulation. As can be seen, a young woman and a young man are shown leaving a male public lavatory. His rather shifty look of satisfaction, her failure to readjust her clothing adequately, the glow of perspiration about them both all combine to suggest that they have just had sex – clearly a necessarily frenetic bout given the chosen location. The complaint against this advertisement failed on the extraordinary grounds that it was nowhere suggested that the two young people had drunk the alcoholic beverage before they had enjoyed coition.

An advertisement from before 2001 shows a young woman in red underwear bending over a young man to kiss him. The slogan appearing in the glass of claret – the promotion was for the wines of Bordeaux – says: "deep, lingering, lip-staining kisses." The complaint laid against this was simply that the linkage between wine drinking and sexual activity breached the self-regulatory Codes. The complaint was not upheld because the case made by the advertisers was accepted. They argued that the couple depicted were in an established relationship, sharing a moment of intimacy in a private setting.

With either disingenuousness or a startling innocence the advertisers explained that they had deliberately sought to avoid the impression of a once-off sexual encounter by clothing the models in underwear.

As far as implications of sporting success are concerned, two examples, both from Spain in 2002, imply this. In one, J & B whiskey is shown sponsoring the national volleyball championship whilst in the other the dangerous association is made between Beefeater gin and jet-skiing.

Examples from the Netherlands and Denmark show how the industry still uses advertisements which are attractive to adolescents and children.

Dr Anderson concluded that indeed there had been a change – if anything the situation has got worse. He argued, in the light of the evidence he had presented, that "we should not waste any more time on self-regulation" because:

• It serves the needs of the industry

• The reality is based on complaints rather than compliance

• The advertisements still go ahead anyway v There is no enforcement

• It is not independent and reflects the 'intentions' of the advertisers

• It does not reflect the needs of children and young people

Dr Anderson pointed out that there were effective alternatives to self-regulation. Most notably there was statutory regulation, as in Sweden or Poland, or the well-known Loi Evin in France. There was also the possibility of harmonising rules on television advertising of alcoholic beverages, as laid out in the EU's Television Without Frontiers directive. Perhaps, he concluded, time would be better spent on these options rather than on the ineffective road of self-regulation.