In response to the article on this website suggesting that a recent European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on minimum unit pricing (MUP) was a turning point in the fight against alcohol related harm, we also hope that the judgement is a turning point, especially if it means that we can all finally turn away from sterile arguments about an unproven proposal based on a single computer model, which is clearly in breach of existing EU law.
It is now time to return to discussing and developing practical and legal initiatives that have real impact on alcohol related harm.
The ‘solid evidence’ which the authors refer to does not exist. Primarily they are talking about the results of a computer model based in Sheffield University, the results of which have changed several times over the past eight years, as the academics involved have adapted and amended their assumptions and opinions.
RELATED CONTENT
But that is no great surprise - whoever inputs the data and calculations to any model has absolute control over the results that that model then spews out.
The often cited research in Canada has also been heavily criticised for its misleading interpretation of data. That study argued that a one per cent increase in price delivers a three per cent decrease in wholly attributable deaths from alcohol.
However, the authors then simply multiplied everything by 10 to suggest a 10 per cent increase in price results in an over 30 per cent decrease in mortality rates. No such linear relationship exists; otherwise a 33 per cent price increase would result in the prevention of all deaths linked to alcohol. Such simplistic research should not be relied upon.
So, yes, the Scotch Whisky Association, spiritsEUROPE and the Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins contest the hypothetical computer model that forms the basis for MUP, and we also contested the legality of the proposal made by the Scottish government, believing it to be in breach of the rules adopted and accepted by all EU countries.
Several EU member states made the same argument before the Court. We believe the ECJ judgment essentially confirmed case law for over thirty years.
The Court was clear - MUP is contrary to EU law if less restrictive measures are available, which the Court suggests to be the case.
The judges agreed that MUP significantly restricts the market, impacting trade and competition. It is likely now to be difficult for the Scottish government to prove in the Scottish courts that MUP will achieve its aims.
The statistics and research show that the most hazardous and harmful drinkers are in the upper income groups and are unaffected by MUP.
Even if the Scottish government could prove this, MUP is still illegal when there are alternative, less restrictive measures available. If such an assessment was made by the Scottish government, it has never been made public or argued in court.
In one sense, we can agree with the authors of the article: if policymaking was guided by good evidence, then we would all be in a better place.
But we hope policymakers insist on real evidence, based on facts, not hyperbole. We invite NGOs and policymakers to study what has happened in Scotland - without MUP - that has driven a 30 per cent decrease of alcohol-related deaths over the last decade.
Measures such as targeted interventions towards those with alcohol disorders, widespread campaigns to educate against the dangers of drinking when pregnant or when driving already exist.
Likewise ensuring the strict enforcement of rules preventing minors from purchasing alcohol, greater education towards parents to help them understand the dangers of allowing their children to drink and promoting the concept of moderate consumption. All these measures are in place but could be improved and enlarged.
Let the ECJ decision be a turning point indeed - towards these proven measures.