Tax on a bottle of wine

[Leo]

Also, alcohol consumption is on a downward trajectory here, imo it doesn't need an interventionist measure like MUP which impacts huge numbers of moderate drinkers and is anti-competitive.

I'm still undecided as to whether I think MUP is a good idea or not, but I wonder how you are defining huge numbers. What kind of numbers were buying sub €7.40 bottles of 'wine' or equivalent cheapest offerings in beers and spirits? The supermarket and off-license shelves were always dominated by more expensive offerings. Even when I was in college and putting the food budget towards booze, I still wasn't choosing gut rot

MUP hasn't had any impact on a lot of middle class problem drinkers, but are they the ones presenting in A&E or responsible for the burden on health services? I'd be interested in what you think might be more impactful in addressing that cohort, what have other countries done to address the cost of alcohol issues to wider society?

 

[Purple]

MUP hasn't had any impact on a lot of middle class problem drinkers, but are they the ones presenting in A&E or responsible for the burden on health services? I'd be interested in what you think might be more impactful in addressing that cohort, what have other countries done to address the cost of alcohol issues to wider society?

The counter argument to MUP's from aa health service and societal impact perspective is that fat people place aa much bigger burden (yes, I did initially type heavier) on the health service and we're not taxing junk foods like chicken nuggets, frozen pizza, ready meals, crisps and sweets, and all the other rubbish that lazy parents feed to their kids.

 

[odyssey06]

I'm still undecided as to whether I think MUP is a good idea or not, but I wonder how you are defining huge numbers. What kind of numbers were buying sub €7.40 bottles of 'wine' or equivalent cheapest offerings in beers and spirits? The supermarket and off-license shelves were always dominated by more expensive offerings. Even when I was in college and putting the food budget towards booze, I still wasn't choosing gut rot

MUP hasn't had any impact on a lot of middle class problem drinkers, but are they the ones presenting in A&E or responsible for the burden on health services? I'd be interested in what you think might be more impactful in addressing that cohort, what have other countries done to address the cost of alcohol issues to wider society?

Large numbers were buying the 'slabs' of beers when they would be on offer sub €30 for 24 x 500 ml cans and putting them in sheds etc. They probably didn't buy beers outside those offers. The financial impact has probably been largest on them. I don't drink that much beer at home so doesn't affect me, but from social media they seem to be the ones most hit.

In terms of wines and spirits: If you were shopping in LIDL and ALDI, buying their €6 wines, maybe €13 bottle of spirits, then over the course of the year that's a few extra hundreds on the shopping bill. The sales of sub €7.40 wines in those shops would I think be high - and it is more than just sub €7.40 if you look at 14% bottles the MUP on them is higher and with global warming alcohol levels are increasing.

In Dunnes, Tesco, Supervalu the year prior to MUP alcohol was excluded from the spend and save vouchers - so those shoppers at any price level of alcohol had already effectively had a price increase just the year before. That affected me more than MUP. Post MUP supermarkets have discounted some mid-top range wine and spirit offerings which they would not typically have done and I have gotten some of them so for me it probably balances out. I think that and MUP is overkill. Excluding it from spend and save was more defensible and had less impact on supermarket competition.

Pub organisations were calling for MUP. Think about that. It is one of the reasons it got political support to get over the line. No one who is genuinely concerned about alcohol in Ireland could think a measure welcomed by publicans would do anything about it. It is a money grabbing exercise.

I think the situation is cultural and hard for liberal, democratic governments to shift by direct action, and perhaps nor should they. There's no magic bullets, more treatment and try to nudge our drinking culture into a more moderate one by not making it 'illicit'. It should be more available, not less. Putting alcohol behind barriers in supermarkets and stigmatizing it is a retrograde step imo. I think the neo-prohobitionist route favoured by the likes of Alcohol Ireland is more likely to cause alcohol specific problems, especially of the sort that manifest in Saturday night binges from nights on the town.
In terms of 'middle class' problem drinkers, I think if looked at closely with a lot of them the keyword is problem not drinkers. There is a problem that pushes them towards drink (or it may be other escape outlets that turn into addictions).
And then in terms of what might be termed biological alcoholics, the frequent description given by them is that it just takes one drink. I don't know what a government can do to prevent that - treatment or complete prohibition which is just as likely to backfire with its own problems as it did in US.

 

[odyssey06]

The counter argument to MUP's from aa health service and societal impact perspective is that fat people place aa much bigger burden (yes, I did initially type heavier) on the health service and we're not taxing junk foods like chicken nuggets, frozen pizza, ready meals, crisps and sweets, and all the other rubbish that lazy parents feed to their kids.

And the counter argument, if we are just bean counting in a callous way, is that these are also (sadly) going to be reflected in lower life expectancy, so less things for the state to foot the bill on when it comes to pensions etc. I've seen lots of figures about how much smoking 'cost' the health service, but they seemed to assume that these individuals wouldn't cost the state a single cent if they didn't smoke, would never turn up to hospital again.

There was never a consideration as to what the cost would be to health services and government budgets if, instead of dying at 60 or 70 from smoking, people would be living until 90 and in those later years needing pensions, medical cards, and health service support for the ailments that manifest in those years.

That is not to say we shouldn't have discouraged smoking but I am not at all convinced it will 'save' the health service any money in the long run - the contrary in fact seems to be proving to be the case.

 

[Purple]

And the counter argument, if we are just bean counting in a callous way, is that these are also (sadly) going to be reflected in lower life expectancy, so less things for the state to foot the bill on when it comes to pensions etc. I've seen lots of figures about how much smoking 'cost' the health service, but they seemed to assume that these individuals wouldn't cost the state a single cent if they didn't smoke, would never turn up to hospital again.

There was never a consideration as to what the cost would be to health services and government budgets if, instead of dying at 60 or 70 from smoking, people would be living until 90 and in those later years needing pensions, medical cards, and health service support for the ailments that manifest in those years.

That is not to say we shouldn't have discouraged smoking but I am not at all convinced it will 'save' the health service any money in the long run - the contrary in fact seems to be proving to be the case.

Smoking is a great way to die from a State finances perspective. The smoker pays very high taxes to feed their habit and then dies relatively quickly if they get sick. Obesity is very expensive as that tax gain isn't there, the fat person gets medical conditions younger and lives longer. It's a financial disaster for the State. As I've said before, we should encourage fat people to smoke.

 

[odyssey06]

Smoking is a great way to die from a State finances perspective. The smoker pays very high taxes to feed their habit and then dies relatively quickly if they get sick. Obesity is very expensive as that tax gain isn't there, the fat person gets medical conditions younger and lives longer. It's a financial disaster for the State. As I've said before, we should encourage fat people to smoke.

Still viewing things through the cold prism of the States finances perspective, isn't smoking (nicotine) an appetite suppressant \ distraction from eating? Along with the other changes in society, the drop in smoking may be another factor leading to more obesity.

And wrt to alcohol, is the impact more like smokers or more like obesity, and the question may need to be asked separately for heavy v moderate drinkers. Heavy drinkers seem to fall more into smoker pattern.
I've seen lengthy studies showing moderate drinkers having lower all cause mortality than non drinkers or rare drinkers and heavy drinkers too. This may be distorted by people with health conditions being more likely to be abstemious. But it does suggest the impact of moderate drinking is not on a scale that should be a significant public health concern.
It may reduce the risk of heart complaints. Moderate consumption increases risks of certain cancers, but the lifetime risk of these cancers is so low its impact on public health is negligible. It may be a concern if you have other history that predisposes you to those cancers. But this is something imo that should be tackled educationally not on a society wide level.

 

[Purple]

Still viewing things through the cold prism of the States finances perspective, isn't smoking (nicotine) an appetite suppressant \ distraction from eating? Along with the other changes in society, the drop in smoking may be another factor leading to more obesity.

And wrt to alcohol, is the impact more like smokers or more like obesity, and the question may need to be asked separately for heavy v moderate drinkers. Heavy drinkers seem to fall more into smoker pattern.
I've seen lengthy studies showing moderate drinkers having lower all cause mortality than non drinkers or rare drinkers and heavy drinkers too. This may be distorted by people with health conditions being more likely to be abstemious. But it does suggest the impact of moderate drinking is not on a scale that should be a significant public health concern.
It may reduce the risk of heart complaints. Moderate consumption increases risks of certain cancers, but the lifetime risk of these cancers is so low its impact on public health is negligible. It may be a concern if you have other history that predisposes you to those cancers. But this is something imo that should be tackled educationally not on a society wide level.

I no longer smoke. My partner and kids were not pleased with the idea of me dying any sooner than would otherwise be the case.
I enjoy wine but I really only drink to quiet the screaming voices in my head...

 

[Leo]

Large numbers were buying the 'slabs' of beers when they would be on offer sub €30 for 24 x 500 ml cans and putting them in sheds etc. T

But what were those large numbers? Are those people still buying in the same volumes? I know a few times when I bought on such offers in advance of party season, I often ended up throwing some away months later. If such large numbers were buying the lowest cost options, how did the premium brands survive, and why hasn't their sales figures rocketed with the low cost competition eliminated?

I've seen lengthy studies showing moderate drinkers having lower all cause mortality than non drinkers or rare drinkers and heavy drinkers too. This may be distorted by people with health conditions being more likely to be abstemious. But it does suggest the impact of moderate drinking is not on a scale that should be a significant public health concern.

Don't confuse causation with correlation. More recent studies are questioning earlier conclusions, part of the issue being a failure to adjust for socio-economic background.

 

[odyssey06]

But what were those large numbers? Are those people still buying in the same volumes? I know a few times when I bought on such offers in advance of party season, I often ended up throwing some away months later. If such large numbers were buying the lowest cost options, how did the premium brands survive, and why hasn't their sales figures rocketed with the low cost competition eliminated?


Don't confuse causation with correlation. More recent studies are questioning earlier conclusions, part of the issue being a failure to adjust for socio-economic background.

They were prominently featured in supermarket advertising when the offers were running. It is not some niche offering.
It was the premium brands who were doing the discounting, that is how much they could afford to discount them - I'm talking Heineken, Guinness/Diageo brands here of beer in 500ml cans. People who drank such brands stocked up on them, and the offers ran predictably at public and seasonal holidays or sporting events.
MUP has eliminated the low cost own brand offerings, and removed the competition between Diageo and Heineken for these offerings.
The big losers will be 'hidden' companies who were providing the own brand bottlings.
And the consumer.

Very difficult to establish causation, and almost all such studies are correlation based. Correlation is not causation - but we don't even have correlation here between moderate drinking and health risks.

Is the difference shown in these all cause mortality studies on a scale that policy interventions like MUP are warranted?
This is from the page you linked:
While some studies have found improved health outcomes among moderate drinkers, it’s impossible to conclude whether these improved outcomes are due to moderate alcohol consumption or other differences in behaviors or genetics between people who drink moderately and people who don’t.

These were studies tracking thousands of people over years and years. They did not show anything of concern wrt moderate consumption.

And as noted above, if you look at the increased risk for cancer and translate it into mortality risk, it is not something that should be a concern wrt public health spending or legislation.

 

[Leo]

They were prominently featured in supermarket advertising when the offers were running. It is not some niche offering.

Prominent yeah, but no numbers...

The big losers will be 'hidden' companies who were providing the own brand bottlings.

What companies are these?

Is the difference shown in these all cause mortality studies on a scale that policy interventions like MUP are warranted?

I made no such claim, I was mearly pointing out that the old assumptions that moderate drinking held some health benefits are being widely https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/03/31/moderate-drinking-alcohol-wine-risks/ (debunked) by more comprehensive studies that account for factors such as wealth, quality of diet, etc.

These were studies tracking thousands of people over years and years. They did not show anything of concern wrt moderate consumption.

Yes, but deeper analysis has shown most of those to be biased, flawed, or both.

 

[odyssey06]

Prominent yeah, but no numbers...


What companies are these?



I made no such claim, I was mearly pointing out that the old assumptions that moderate drinking held some health benefits are being widely https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/03/31/moderate-drinking-alcohol-wine-risks/ (debunked) by more comprehensive studies that account for factors such as wealth, quality of diet, etc.

Yes, but deeper analysis has shown most of those to be biased, flawed, or both.

The major supermarkets would not have been wasting expensive advertising space if they weren't getting numbers in buying the stuff.
They have the numbers and yet every holiday weekend, major sporting events... they were running the ads and the offers, very prominently.

The companies that supply own brand offerings, some here such as Great Northern Distillery and Brewery. Many would have been abroad.
In supermarkets such as Tesco, LIDL, ALDI which were the ones selling most products under MUP, there are now more branded alcohol products featured.
Some product lines disappeared entirely from supermarkets with MUP.

This is from the Washington Post article which supposedly debunks the studies...
light-to-moderate drinkers are generally healthier than those who do not drink on a range of health indicators.

So one could almost say that light to moderate drinking was associated with a healthy lifestyle!

I'll put it another way, I haven't seen any study showing moderate alcohol consumption associated with health risks such that would warrant special attention from public health legislation or budgets. And the reverse may well be true, that alcohol reduces all cause mortality risk. Or the situation could be balanced, that it increases some risks and reduces some risks and that information would be beneficial to people predisposed already to such risks.
And the onus is on those who make the claim that moderate drinking is risky to justify their claim when they use it to push public health measures.

 

[Leo]

The major supermarkets would not have been wasting expensive advertising space if they weren't getting numbers in buying the stuff.

The goal of that advertising wasn't to promote loss-leaders, it was to get people in buying other high-margin stuff.

The companies that supply own brand offerings, some here such as Great Northern Distillery and Brewery.

Well good news there because their business is booming, in the year after MUP was introduced they experienced a 50% increase in profits. That's not losing in my book.

This is from the Washington Post article which supposedly debunks the studies...
light-to-moderate drinkers are generally healthier than those who do not drink on a range of health indicators.

So one could almost say that light to moderate drinking was associated with a healthy lifestyle!

Again, don't confuse causation with correlation. Light to moderate drinking is being associated with a healthy lifestyle is not at all suggesting that moderate drinking is contributing towards better health. It's just people who look after themselves and have a healthy lifestyle are less likely to drink heavily.

If you read further, those findings do not support that moderate drinking is beneficial as they failed to normalise the test subjects! What most of the past studies have failed to account for is that light to moderate drinkers are generally wealthier, have better healthcare, better diets, and take more exercise.

In essence what they were doing is comparing two people, a moderate drinker who eats well with lots of fresh fruit and veg, who sleeps well, gets plenty of exercise and a heavy drinker eating nothing but processed junk and getting zero exercise. Then they only looked at alcohol consumption and found the moderate drinker had lower all-cause risk. Hey, that must mean alcohol is good for you, right???

If you study the data from the tests and isolate those factors as in the meta-study I linked, it shows that even moderate drinking increases the risk of all-cause mortality, particularly in female drinkers where moderate drinkers were shown to have significantly increased risk when compared to lifetime non-drinkers.

 

[odyssey06]

The goal of that advertising wasn't to promote loss-leaders, it was to get people in buying other high-margin stuff.



Well good news there because their business is booming, in the year after MUP was introduced they experienced a 50% increase in profits. That's not losing in my book.


Again, don't confuse causation with correlation. Light to moderate drinking is being associated with a healthy lifestyle is not at all suggesting that moderate drinking is contributing towards better health. It's just people who look after themselves and have a healthy lifestyle are less likely to drink heavily.

If you read further, those findings do not support that moderate drinking is beneficial as they failed to normalise the test subjects! What most of the past studies have failed to account for is that light to moderate drinkers are generally wealthier, have better healthcare, better diets, and take more exercise.

In essence what they were doing is comparing two people, a moderate drinker who eats well with lots of fresh fruit and veg, who sleeps well, gets plenty of exercise and a heavy drinker eating nothing but processed junk and getting zero exercise. Then they only looked at alcohol consumption and found the moderate drinker had lower all-cause risk. Hey, that must mean alcohol is good for you, right???

If you study the data from the tests and isolate those factors as in the meta-study I linked, it shows that even moderate drinking increases the risk of all-cause mortality, particularly in female drinkers where moderate drinkers were shown to have significantly increased risk when compared to lifetime non-drinkers.

Why were they advertising something no one was interested in if it wasn't going to get them in the door? Because they knew people would go out of their way for that loss leader and then in the store buy the other products. The goal of the advertising was to advertise the loss leader to the consumer. They weren't advertising the high margin stuff that wasn't on offer, were they?
So you've just proven my point for me.

I have seen studies which tracked people working in the same occupations such as civil servants and nurses.
So people enough of same income bracket and healthy enough to have held down similar jobs.
So that isn't what was done in all the studies.
The meta data analysis is dodgy itself, by lumping together poor quality studies with studies that did control for some factors.

It is inaccurate to say that:

In essence what they were doing is comparing two people, a moderate drinker who eats well with lots of fresh fruit and veg, who sleeps well, gets plenty of exercise and a heavy drinker eating nothing but processed junk and getting zero exercise

They weren't comparing two people. They were comparing all the moderate drinkers against all the heavy drinkers. There are moderate drinkers who eat processed food and get zero exercise also and sleep badly. And vice versa. They may not evenly distributed across the groups but that means alcohol was less of a factor than the others.

They looked at moderate consumption and found that it was not significant enough to affect the outcomes, or less significant than the other factors described such as diet, habits, exercise etc. There is nothing here of significance enough to warrant public health interventions such as MUP.

 

[Leo]

Why were they advertising something no one was interested in if it wasn't going to get them in the door? Because they knew people would go out of their way for that loss leader and then in the store buy the other products. The goal of the advertising was to advertise the loss leader to the consumer. They weren't advertising the high margin stuff that wasn't on offer, were they?
So you've just proven my point for me.

Perhaps, but then my interpretation of loads might be vastly different to yours.

The meta data analysis is dodgy itself, by lumping together poor quality studies with studies that did control for some factors.

Seriously? Have a read up on the methodology and how they used the underlying data. The problem with the studies you're preferring is in the interpretation, not so much the data. That is the purpose of meta-analysis.

They weren't comparing two people. They were comparing all the moderate drinkers against all the heavy drinkers.

I thought you would understand that was an example. I'll try it another way...

People who choose to drink moderately are more likely to be more affluent and have much healthier lifestyles than those who drink heavily. Taking that to mean moderate alcohol consumption is somehow beneficial to health is completely false.

They looked at moderate consumption and found that it was not significant enough to affect the outcomes,

Again, you need to read the reports in more detail, it really couldn;t be much clearer:

In the fully adjusted model, there was a nonsignificantly increased risk of all-cause mortality among drinkers who drank 25 to 44 g per day (RR, 1.05; P = .28) and significantly increased risk for drinkers who drank 45 to 64 and 65 or more grams per day (RR, 1.19 and 1.35; P < .001). There were significantly larger risks of mortality among female drinkers compared with female lifetime nondrinkers (RR, 1.22; P = .03).