Comments on: In defence of alcopops

By: Keith Bedford

Keith Bedford — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I agree with Geof Munro the tax on alcopops a good first step. The Howard Government approved them and that was wrong. The adding of alcohol to soft drinks is a first step to producing alcoholics. As has been said the juveile palate does not like hard liquor because it is an acqired taste later in life. The alcopops industry is simply another one that considers it is OK to make a profit even though it corrupts society. The industry has been conducting a similar campaign thriough the media as has the Carbon industry on carbon production, neither has the well being of the community in mind only their own profits

By: John Roberts

John Roberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Dear Doug McKay,

You would happen to have, perchance, a vested interest here……. would you?

By: Stephen Riden, of the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia

Stephen Riden, of the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Geoff contradicts himself within one paragraph. First he says that Doug McKay thinks there is no problem to be solved, then he quotes McKay as saying that binge drinking is a “scourge of society”. The first part is a blatant verballing of McKay.

Geoff should also be wary of pointing out the faults in other people’s testimony. He told the Senate committee on 12 June that ambulance officers in Bendigo were treating 12 year olds for acute intoxication. Unfortunately for him, he was contradicted the next day in the Bendigo Advertiser.

“RAV Loddon District group manager Michele Murdoch yesterday said regardless of those comments, the occurrence of children as young as 12 requiring ambulance assistance was “very rare”.

“With 16-year-olds, we would probably pick up maybe one of those a week, but as far as the 12 and 13-year-olds, certainly not,” Ms Murdoch said.

“We can’t remember the last time we picked up somebody of that age.”

Many health activists have problems with the AIHW submission because it contradicts their argument. It is not cryptic at all, in fact it is perfectly clear and I recommend people read it.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

While bagging the IDA over this is obviously pretty good sport, I agree with the suggestion that alcohol tax should be volumetric. This would eliminate the discrepancies which exist with cheap goon, and more importantly promote the consumption of low-alcohol RTDs. Teeny boppers off to parties with their 4-packs of rainbow-coloured bevvies would be more inclined to pick up the cheap ones, which might be 3% alcohol, than the pricey 6%ers. They would still get drunk (because, lets face it, preventing teenagers getting drunk is never going to happen) but they’d get less drunk, and more slowly too, which would harm their bodies less and reduce the risk of passing out (which is when the REAL harm happens at teen parties).

By: Geoff Munro

Geoff Munro — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Doug McKay of Independent Distillers Australia is too clever by half: as I pointed out, his submission to the Senate Inquiry into RTDs accurately quoted part of the findings of the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS). But he left out the supplementary bit that stated underage binge drinkers prefer RTDs over every other alcoholic drink. That is a fact. Very unfortunate from Mr McKay’s view, of course, but he did not challenge it.

Instead he tried to confuse the reader, again. He quoted two points from the bald, rather cryptic summary of the 2007 NDSHS survey submitted to the Senate Inquiry by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, to the effect that (i) there has been virtually no increase in risky drinking in Australia since 2001 and (ii) [therefore] RTDs do not appear to have contributed to an increase in risky consumption [since 2001].

But there is no necessary conflict between these findings. Risky drinking may be stable, the use of RTDs may be stable, but that is consistent with RTDs massively contributing to risky drinking by underage people (and having done so before and since 2001).

In company with other representatives of the alcohol industry, Mr McKay appears to think that if things aren’t getting worse there is nothing to be bothered about, and nothing needs doing. He confuses “trends” with “prevalence.” Risky drinking is a huge problem and the fall-out costs Australia $15 billion per year. The 2007 survey may indicate prevalence is stable, and it may mean things are not getting worse, but, to use his term, binge drinking remains a “scourge of society.”

I also note that Mr McKay made no attempt to defend the Mickey Mouse survey he quoted which claimed that RTDs are not consumed by anyone under 18. Apparently, while he thinks he might get that one past the Senate, he won’t try it on Crikey readers.

Geoff Munro, Australian Drug Foundation

By: Simon Chapman

Simon Chapman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Having raised three teenagers (now in their mid 20s), hosted their parties and picked them up from dozens of others, my observations of alcopops are pretty straightfoward. Immature palates don’t much like straight spirits. I thought Scotch tasted frankly medicinal until I was about 30, myself. So disguising spirits in industrial strength sugar drinks makes them taste good to 12 and 13 year olds. The pretty colours are nice too. As Mary Poppins knew, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. As many have observed often, disguising the bitter taste allows young drinkers to throw them back one after the other without blanching and get cactus in breakneck speed. All far less hassle and far cooler than having to stuff around cutting a 750ml bottle with Coke or OJ.
I’ve spent 30 years hearing the tobacco industry deny that it salivates over the under-age market, and then was able to read all the previously internal company memos released through court action that showed just how important the tobacco industry knew the teen market was.
So come on Doug McKay, how about releasing all the data you have about how much of your benign products are consumed by under-age drinkers, and what it’s worth to you. The tobacco industry always denied it had such information. I’m guessing that you’ll probably say the same thing?