Probably the worst ban in the world?

Raymond Snoddy wonders if a stiff drink is the best response to the British Medical Association’s call for a total ban on alcohol advertising.

Newspaper columnist Keith Waterhouse died a week or so too soon. Once asked how long the train journey was from London to Bath he replied: “about a bottle and a half of Chardonnay.”

Waterhouse would have had a few pithy remarks to make about the British Medical Association’s call for a total ban on the advertising of alcohol that stops just short of preventing the promotion of Holy Communion.

The words “nanny” and “state” would surely have been included, together with some well-aimed expletives.

In his regrettable absence – please note at the age of 80 after a lifetime of very considerable alcohol abuse – we must all do our little bit in his memory to prevent the apparently inexorable march of the health fascists.

The BMA may have only been teasing – putting forward an extreme position to get a debate going – but there is danger here. A high strength argument is served up and the zealots get habituated and want more.

We also have to beware of political appeasement in the run up to elections. Just say “oh all right then” and the righteous move on to the next target.

With smoking and the advertising of smoking the case was unambiguous. There was a strong social, medical and moral case that you should not be advertising a product with few – if any – benefits and a very heavy down side. The threat of passive smoking also underlined the wisdom of banning smoking in public places.

Maybe some extra restrictions on the advertising of “junk” food on children’s television were justified, despite problems of definition and the difficulty of proving any possible cause and effect. We will see eventually whether these recent tortuous restrictions will have any noticeable effect at all on the weight and health of children.

Typically the BMA took an extremist view on junk food and even expressed disappointment three years ago that Ofcom had not had the “courage” to ban all junk food advertising before the 9pm watershed.

Now alcohol is in the firing line and the arguments grow that little bit more complex. There is, ahem, solid medical evidence that small quantities of alcohol are actually beneficial and clearly millions of people enjoy alcohol without harm being caused. Then there are the 40,000 alcohol-related deaths in the UK each year, binge drinking in the young and related anti-social behaviour.

The real question is the extent to which advertising and marketing is responsible for the ills of alcohol abuse. It has been around since at least the bronze age and drunkenness in Victorian times was almost certainly much worse than anything we see now.

Yet Gerard Hastings, professor of social marketing – isn’t all marketing social? – at Stirling University and the principal author of the BMA report, uses pejorative and extreme language to make his case.

Teenagers are “victims” of the advertising industry and are being “thoroughly groomed” in a behaviour that is extremely damaging to their health. Yet they get ASBOs when they drink to excess. The ASBOs should be slapped on “the irresponsible marketeers,” says Prof Hastings.

Perhaps, but if you are looking for imaginative targets to slap ASBOs on, how about Tony Blair or former Culture secretary Tessa Jowell, who pushed ahead enthusiastically with 24-hour licensing despite a lot of advice to the contrary. The hope for the creation of a Continental-style café society was always going to be pie in the sky.

A few facts in this debate might help – such as figures showing that alcohol consumption has been going down in the UK since 2004 and research shows that advertising is more about brand loyalty than stimulating overall demand.

There is also the small matter that the UK already has some of the strictest rules on the advertising of alcohol anywhere.

You can’t really expect the BMA to care too much about the effect of their suggestions on the hard-pressed media industry but, for the record, the loss could be around £180 million a year. It’s not their business.

However, maybe it’s worth reminding the BMA, in the interests of greater humility, of what happened when doctors went on strike in Israel. The death rate plummeted.

There is a genuine concern about alcohol abuse, particularly among the young. Established sub-cultures are notoriously difficult to change but education and advertising would surely seem the best way forward – if the marketing industry isn’t too hog-tied by ASBOs – rather than crude bans.

If the zealots win on alcohol advertising where will they go next – sausages, chocolate or even fast cars? After all cars pollute the atmosphere, pump out CO2 and quite often kill people. Why should companies be able to advertise such harmful products?

But really there is only one response to the BMA call for a total advertising ban – as both Keith Waterhouse and very many doctors would agree – it’s time to head off to the pub for a nice glass of Chardonnay.

Do you agree with Raymond? Send us your opinion – [email protected]