Alcohol guidelines knowledge
New research has been released on drinker's knowledge of the previous daily alcohol guidelines, suggesting only one in four drinkers accurately estimated them, with even fewer using guidelines to monitor their drinking.
The study explored knowledge and use of the guidelines prior to the revision to a weekly guideline of 14 units in 2016, before which a daily guideline of 2-3 units per day for women and 3-4 units per day for men (with at least two alcohol free days) had been in place since 1995.
The study found 38% of drinkers reported they knew their drinking guideline (as either a man or a woman), of whom 66% gave an accurate estimate, 20% overestimated it and 14% underestimated the daily guideline. Of those that reported knowing their respective guideline, 55% reported using it at least sometimes to keep track of their drinking, but only 21% of all drinkers identified doing so.
The findings appear broadly consistent with previous research and surveys exploring knowledge and attitudes towards the guidelines. Last year a study on the new weekly guidelines found that whilst 71% of drinkers were aware of them existing, just 8% knew what the actual recommended guideline of 14 units per week. The guidelines though have also been a regular topic of debate, particularly in the wake of the revision and the establishment of new groups such as Drinker's Voice, which states it aims to 'give the public a voice in the debate on moderate drinking', but is seemingly opposed to the guidelines and public health messages promoting them.
Labelling politics
A new alcohol labelling blog from the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group (TaRG) at University of Bristol has been launched as part of an 18-month project aiming to find out whether drinkers think that adding unit and calorie information is a good idea and would have a positive impact.
Recent additions to the blog include a post titled 'Industry approach to new alcohol guidelines' which explores issues relating to the Portman Group's decision to no longer advise its members to include the new low-risk guidelines on their products as a minimum requirement.
The blog highlights that John Timothy, CEO of the Portman Group, has suggested that the information drinkers need is already available to them, stating: “Producers are encouraged to feature proactive signposting to Drinkaware.co.uk where consumers can find a full range of health information including calories, lifestyle advice and smart apps”.
Notably the Government does not seem to agree. Last year the Department of Health (DoH) released a document outlining how it would like to see the guidelines communicated on alcohol packaging and containers and a DOH spokesman has since said:
“We have been clear to the industry that we expect the UK Chief Medical Officers’ guidance be reflected on alcohol labels, and have provided clear advice and examples of how best to display the message. They can be reflected simply by a reference to the weekly recommendation of 14 units, the no drinking in pregnancy logo and the Drinkaware logo”.
The DoH has reportedly given manufacturers until September 2019 to remove the old advice on drinking levels from their products, but the TaRG group argues that 'without legislation compelling drinks manufacturers to include the new drinking guidelines on their products, we will have no drinking guidelines on the majority of alcohol products'. This is a position that other public health groups may agree on, with reports last year from the Alcohol Health Alliance and World Health Organization (WHO) claiming that voluntary efforts are failing consumers and statutory labelling requirements should be set out.
Others may be keen to highlight the limitations of improving consumer labelling and awareness of the guidelines, particularly in terms of being unlikely to significantly impact on alcohol consumption. The TaRG blog has also reported on it's recent research on the effect of unit and calorie labelling in another blog post. Nonetheless, the rationale that drinkers have a right to readily available information regarding health risks and for the Government to provide such information seems to have public support.
Dry January pros and cons: now in podcast format
As Dry January seems to be maintaining its popularity at the very least, the key debates about the mooted benefits - or possible downsides - have inevitably been revisited. A new 'Say Why to Dry January?' podcast takes a look over the evidence with Professor Matt Field and Dr Suzi Gage. In the conversation, Matt Field agrees as a heavy drinker taking part, 'in the short term you're almost certainly seeing health benefits', citing albeit small studies indicating benefits such as to the liver. However also discussed are the limitations in the research and other valid questions about the potential public health impacts. One such question mark exists over who actually takes part, as mocked by the BBC's Mash Report. For further reports, anecdotes and comment on Dry January, see a newspaper near you or try Twitter's #dryjanuary.
Comments