Completely agree but have a different response. I recently did a review of our esteem temperance scholars (Stockwell, Naimi, et al) and have come to believe you beat them at their own game. In most if their research they outline how moderate consumption is equal to or less harmful than abstaining. They just don't talk about it in interviews. I say we flood the zone with thier own research, pointing out how the pay to write researchers very own data shows that the temperance movement is lying to everyone. Further, show the acadamies data sets the stage that Gen Zs will understand the betrayal of the Temperence movement who don't really care about their health they just care about them drinking. Check my substack for more details if you care to read the data.
It’s interesting to me that they’re going after “Big Alcohol.” What does that mean for “little alcohol”—craft brewers or distillers and all sorts of wineries?
Many of our drinking customs may have their origin as a way to detect converts to Islam in the Middle Ages. To this day many people of many cultures don’t trust those who won’t drink with them.
Who funds these anti alcohol campaigners? The activists themselves are merely switching to a new mission now that the campaign against tobacco has been largely won.
I'm not in their age group, but have a lot of social contacts with 20-30 year olds who already believe this. I don't understand why, but they think cannabis is healthier than alcohol. I've given up trying to explain statistics to them.
This article confused me (drinker, currently on Dry January, intending to drink again), probably because I read the (sub) title as “hear more about the Elvis of Alcohol”. I had to know who that was. Still want to know
I want to weigh in from the middle of the road position. I think the public health lobby as you term them are right on just a few other things that need to go away. Drinking games. Beer pong supplies sold in every convenience store. Binge drinking. And doing shots past one or two.
The part of drinking culture that needs to be preserved is not the peer pressure that forces a young person to drink an entire picture of beer because they somehow bounced a quarter into it.
Take these things off the table and I will defend to the death people's right to tailgate at sporting events and hang out in pubs. You can pry my cocktail for my cold dead hand.
I think what's at stake here is a balance between a long life and a life well lived. The cancer risk of alcohol is real. But living a life where you don't allow yourself joy because everything joyful kills you isn't much of a life at all.
What is so sad, is that this is all manipulation. There are elements of truth and elements of falsehood here. We need to look with cautious inquiry at how what we ingest is produced. I'm very concerned about the volume of roundup/glyphosate and other chemicals used in harvesting produce that goes into our food supply. But everything in moderation. There is profit to be found in turning consumers away from what they're spending on toward something "new" that the lobby is highlighting - non-alcoholic drinks, cannabis products, etc. It's right to be highly suspicious of big capitalism, because over and over it has been proven to be duping us to maximize profit, but look at the naysayers with suspicious inquiry also.
What is the financial benefit of getting people to stop drinking? Asked another way, who would fund the campaigns against alcohol, and benefit the most? Religious groups, health and wellness mafias, Wegovy?
There are long established anti alcohol groups and I am curious what drives them. By successfully getting someone to drink less they are also getting access to that person’s pocket book….
I was recently asked this as well. My answer is based in comments from Movendi and it's members. It's not driven by monetary gains but more of a religious calling. There words are "a calling to a way of life for all to see." Further, " In an ideal world we serve no purpose." Sounds like a religious view to me.
Well, from a business point of view, the less people that drink alcohol the more space there is in the market for non-alcoholic beverages. There's a huge boom of 'functional' and NA CPG beverages now.
And from a moral point of view alcohol is an addictive poison and many people have lost loved ones, physically and emotionally, to it.
The risk of premature death from bowel cancer for non drinking women is 9.2 deaths per 100,000 or 0.92%.For those who have two alcoholic drinks a day the risk is 11 deaths or 1.1%.So the relative risk has gone up 20% but the actual individual risk is still very low.
The anti alcohol lobby and the BBC etc always use the alarming relative risk headline and not the actual risk.
I might be reaching here, but hear me out. There was a kind of social experiment done with public messaging and the Israel-Palestine conflict. I'll share this blurb from this article about it (https://www.citizenshandbook.org/reduce-social-anger.html). I would read the entire article, but I think this is the main takeaway:
"The campaign worked, the social scientists believe, because instead of telling people they were wrong, the ads agreed with them—to embarrassing, offensive extremes. "No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank," one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. "No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe." Sometimes, however, we don't realize we've become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious."
So I have an idea inspired by this experiment. Put up some billboards with statements like, "Moderate drinking is excessive drinking." "That wedding drink might just kill you." "Your pint of beer at the game only makes everyone else miserable." Instead of going, "Nuh-uh, alcohol in low doses isn't so bad," as the public expects industry people to respond with, play this sentiment to absurd extremes. Given the stats on smoking and cancer and other diseases, tobacco couldn't use this strategy, but alcohol might given the health evidence or lack thereof.
Wow wow wow... what's amazing about this is seeing how close to the talking points recent articles by serious news sources have hewed. It reminds me of the scene in Broadcast News, where the anchor is being fed content from the producer in the booth who is on the phone with a reporter at home in his living room. "I say it here; it comes out there," he says, both awed and disgusted. I'm feeling that right about now.
Felicity, thanks very much for bringing this to light ... it is vital information to understand the communication strategies that will be unleashed against moderate consumption in the weeks and months ahead ... your hard work on this issue is appreciated.
Completely agree but have a different response. I recently did a review of our esteem temperance scholars (Stockwell, Naimi, et al) and have come to believe you beat them at their own game. In most if their research they outline how moderate consumption is equal to or less harmful than abstaining. They just don't talk about it in interviews. I say we flood the zone with thier own research, pointing out how the pay to write researchers very own data shows that the temperance movement is lying to everyone. Further, show the acadamies data sets the stage that Gen Zs will understand the betrayal of the Temperence movement who don't really care about their health they just care about them drinking. Check my substack for more details if you care to read the data.
Great article. I was not aware of the background to this campaign.
So basically, depending on the message, the public thinks they’re being lied to by either the government or big alcohol.
The Brits are trending from merely being scolds to becoming what Orwell predicted: a totalitarian state.
It’s interesting to me that they’re going after “Big Alcohol.” What does that mean for “little alcohol”—craft brewers or distillers and all sorts of wineries?
Many of our drinking customs may have their origin as a way to detect converts to Islam in the Middle Ages. To this day many people of many cultures don’t trust those who won’t drink with them.
Who funds these anti alcohol campaigners? The activists themselves are merely switching to a new mission now that the campaign against tobacco has been largely won.
The Quataris probably. They're funding US universities. Conversion to Islam by stealth.
I'm not in their age group, but have a lot of social contacts with 20-30 year olds who already believe this. I don't understand why, but they think cannabis is healthier than alcohol. I've given up trying to explain statistics to them.
This article confused me (drinker, currently on Dry January, intending to drink again), probably because I read the (sub) title as “hear more about the Elvis of Alcohol”. I had to know who that was. Still want to know
I want to weigh in from the middle of the road position. I think the public health lobby as you term them are right on just a few other things that need to go away. Drinking games. Beer pong supplies sold in every convenience store. Binge drinking. And doing shots past one or two.
The part of drinking culture that needs to be preserved is not the peer pressure that forces a young person to drink an entire picture of beer because they somehow bounced a quarter into it.
Take these things off the table and I will defend to the death people's right to tailgate at sporting events and hang out in pubs. You can pry my cocktail for my cold dead hand.
I think what's at stake here is a balance between a long life and a life well lived. The cancer risk of alcohol is real. But living a life where you don't allow yourself joy because everything joyful kills you isn't much of a life at all.
What is so sad, is that this is all manipulation. There are elements of truth and elements of falsehood here. We need to look with cautious inquiry at how what we ingest is produced. I'm very concerned about the volume of roundup/glyphosate and other chemicals used in harvesting produce that goes into our food supply. But everything in moderation. There is profit to be found in turning consumers away from what they're spending on toward something "new" that the lobby is highlighting - non-alcoholic drinks, cannabis products, etc. It's right to be highly suspicious of big capitalism, because over and over it has been proven to be duping us to maximize profit, but look at the naysayers with suspicious inquiry also.
What is the financial benefit of getting people to stop drinking? Asked another way, who would fund the campaigns against alcohol, and benefit the most? Religious groups, health and wellness mafias, Wegovy?
There are long established anti alcohol groups and I am curious what drives them. By successfully getting someone to drink less they are also getting access to that person’s pocket book….
I was recently asked this as well. My answer is based in comments from Movendi and it's members. It's not driven by monetary gains but more of a religious calling. There words are "a calling to a way of life for all to see." Further, " In an ideal world we serve no purpose." Sounds like a religious view to me.
Well, from a business point of view, the less people that drink alcohol the more space there is in the market for non-alcoholic beverages. There's a huge boom of 'functional' and NA CPG beverages now.
And from a moral point of view alcohol is an addictive poison and many people have lost loved ones, physically and emotionally, to it.
Ever hear the phrase, "If it saves one life, it's worth it"? These are people who REALLY BELIEVE it, at least when it comes to alcohol.
Relative risk is not the same as absolute risk.
The risk of premature death from bowel cancer for non drinking women is 9.2 deaths per 100,000 or 0.92%.For those who have two alcoholic drinks a day the risk is 11 deaths or 1.1%.So the relative risk has gone up 20% but the actual individual risk is still very low.
The anti alcohol lobby and the BBC etc always use the alarming relative risk headline and not the actual risk.
I think 9.2 deaths per 100k is actually 0.0092%
Thanks.You are correct the relative risk is 0.0092% and the absolute risk is 0.011%.The conclusion still stands.
Exactly.
I might be reaching here, but hear me out. There was a kind of social experiment done with public messaging and the Israel-Palestine conflict. I'll share this blurb from this article about it (https://www.citizenshandbook.org/reduce-social-anger.html). I would read the entire article, but I think this is the main takeaway:
"The campaign worked, the social scientists believe, because instead of telling people they were wrong, the ads agreed with them—to embarrassing, offensive extremes. "No one wants to think of themselves as some angry crank," one of the researchers, Eran Halperin, told me. "No one wants to be lumped in with extremists or the angriest fringe." Sometimes, however, we don't realize we've become extremists until someone makes it painfully obvious."
So I have an idea inspired by this experiment. Put up some billboards with statements like, "Moderate drinking is excessive drinking." "That wedding drink might just kill you." "Your pint of beer at the game only makes everyone else miserable." Instead of going, "Nuh-uh, alcohol in low doses isn't so bad," as the public expects industry people to respond with, play this sentiment to absurd extremes. Given the stats on smoking and cancer and other diseases, tobacco couldn't use this strategy, but alcohol might given the health evidence or lack thereof.
That's a very cool idea. I envisage advertisements with the Grim Reaper serving behind a bar, his scythe propped up behind him.
Wow wow wow... what's amazing about this is seeing how close to the talking points recent articles by serious news sources have hewed. It reminds me of the scene in Broadcast News, where the anchor is being fed content from the producer in the booth who is on the phone with a reporter at home in his living room. "I say it here; it comes out there," he says, both awed and disgusted. I'm feeling that right about now.
Thanks for your detailed research Felicity - let’s not lose a 6000 year old cultural tradition over the marketing of a group of fanatics.
Felicity, thanks very much for bringing this to light ... it is vital information to understand the communication strategies that will be unleashed against moderate consumption in the weeks and months ahead ... your hard work on this issue is appreciated.