1st BATCH OF FILES AVAILABLE NOW!

In a lengthy report over the weekend, the UK's Daily Mail paints the mounting pressure for more restrictive alcohol policies as "Prohibition 2.0." Tracing the roots of global groups like Movendi International and the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance (GAPA) to the temperance movement of almost two centuries ago, the Mail explains how these public health and anti-industry advocates have worked "quietly" on the project for years. That's ironic given the much-reported challenges faced by the industry lately, including declining consumption in big markets like the US, something the Mail barely mentions. At the same time, Canada-based researcher and global advocate Dr Tim Naimi took the issue of consumption declines head on, unpacking the drivers first for a small local paper and then in an edited version for Medical Xpress posted this morning. What the Mail misses, Naimi skirts: none of the recent consumption declines can be linked to the implementation of control policies advocated by the likes of Movendi, GAPA, its funders and favored researchers. Taking It Back to the Templars A GAPA meeting in Rio de Janeiro last week, backed by the sympathetic WHO, serves as the Mail's starting point. But the paper spends most of its space tracing the alleged Prohibition 2.0 to its roots in Prohibition 1.0. Longtime readers of Alcohol Issues INSIGHTS may remember that Movendi is a literal rebrand of the International Order of Good Templars (IOGT), which contributed to the push for American Prohibition since the mid-19th Century. GAPA founders have links to IOGT, too, the Mail points out. In the process, it makes the origin org appear as creepy and ideologically extreme as it can with descriptions of oath-taking ceremonies and protected ritual books, complex symbology and strict hierarchy. Snowdon Steps Up to the Mic Modern iterations look and act differently than the earlier org, the Mail explains, even if their goals are roughly similar. And though the UK-based paper may have spoken to plenty of folks for this deep-dive into anti-alcohol advocacy, its only named source is go-to anti-anti-advocate Christopher Snowdon. And his focus stretches beyond alcohol to what he deems "Nanny State" policies across a broad spectrum of categories. Though only briefly noted the paper, Snowdon most recently turned his attention to even-more-extreme policies erected against tobacco and how such high barriers have opened the space for significant black market sales. True to form, Snowdon takes down preferred policies like tax hikes and minimum unit pricing, pointing to both practical downsides and logical failures. "They dress it up as a moral argument about public health, but it's somewhat contradictory," he told the Mail about taxes. "On one hand, they say tax it so people stop drinking. On the other hand, they say tax it to raise revenue. You can do both, depending on the tax rate — but if people truly stop drinking, you don't make any money," he pointed out. Policies in Background, Funding to the Foreground; Bloomberg Under Fire? The paper spends significantly more attention on discrediting the advocates themselves than it does on the policies they support. Though it does conclude by playing out the potential impact of the WHO's global 3x35 program (aimed at hiking taxes on alcohol, tobacco and "sugary drinks"), headlining a potential 50% jump in a "Friday night bar bill." That kind of pricing hypothetical is always sure to leave a bitter taste in consumer mouths. The paper also acknowledges Snowdon's critique of Scotland's minimum unit pricing (the results of which weren't as rosy as the government contends) and reviews Ireland's delayed implementation of a mandatory cancer warning label. The last piece of the puzzle is who's paying for this advocacy, which the paper places largely at the feet of big names like Bloomberg Philanthropies and the projects it backs like the RESET Alcohol program from Vital Strategies (which INSIGHTS reported on in 2022). Note too that the Bloomberg foundation recently came under fire in Mexico, accused by that country's major daily newspaper El Universal of misusing funds to achieve its policy goals. In addition to funding an "ecosystem" of groups that complete research, disseminate it and lobby for policies connected to it, the foundation allegedly used intermediaries to get around legal limits on lobbying, the paper wrote, even describing some of the org's activity as "bribery." Dr Naimi Acknowledges Declines in Canada, US The Mail reviews recent American mishegas, too, briefly touching on the drama over the development of the latest edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. As part of that discussion, the paper points to the work of Dr Tim Naimi, long a major voice in anti-industry circles with support from orgs like Movendi, who worked on efforts to change federal drinking guidelines in Canada and the US. Separately, Naimi penned a Canada-focused review of the data to acknowledge that yes, "the decline" in alcohol consumption "appears to be real." Per capita consumption in Canada declined for a fourth year running, he noted, now off 18% since 2020/2021. Sources suggest declines in the US, as well, Naimi wrote, with "many possible contributors to consider." Spoiler alert: none of them are policy changes. That said, he does look to price first, suggesting the likely impact of inflation. Population shifts through immigration and consumption changes among younger adults are also in play. But he's skeptical about the impact of no- and low-alcohol products, cannabis and GLP-1s. Then there's Covid. Recall, public health advocates presented pandemic-era consumption spikes with particularly rash hair-on-fire rhetoric. But in a frustrating about-face, now Naimi describes it as simply "logical that consumption would decline with the waning of the pandemic." No matter the cause, Naimi assures that "reductions in consumption should translate into gains for public health." Culture Change, Rather than Policy Change Unsurprisingly, the Mail puts a little more emphasis on a "broader cultural effort to change public perception on alcohol." But it does not distinguish the above coordinated work of advocates from the influence of sober celebs and the tech bro obsession with "biohacking" and self-optimization. Though moving towards the same result, those are distinct forces that operate in different ways. The paper also speeds through a mention of Gen Z drinking habits, but without nuance (even employing a nearly decade-old, largely debunked statistic). In so doing, it conflates the top-down public health advocacy from what appears to be a far more successful grassroots effort. So again, it misses the head of the nail: cultural shifts have effectively shifted drinking behavior in the absence of any major policy changes. Cheers,

The Mail Takes On Movendi & More, Misses that Culture Achieving What Policy Seeks

Publishing Info