Beer Marketer's Insights
Three recent studies purport to show that raising beer taxes modestly would reduce levels of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) among young adults (specifically gonorrhea), instances of child abuse by women and violence on college campuses. But a closer look shows these studies are riddled with data and logic flaws that raise serious questions about their conclusions.
The gonorrhea study received a great deal of media coverage; it was reported by the federal government
This "somewhat counter intuitive" result will not be widely publicized by those seeking to curb campus drinking. But a recent study found that "perceived extent of alcohol promotion is negatively associated with 30-day use, indicating that the greater the perception of alcohol promotion on campus, the less drinking occurs." That
Another Pair of Pro-Beer Health Studies
Recent research adds to the evidence that beer drinking is heart-healthy. A case-control study of 932 Czech males age 25-64 found that those who averaged 12-24 beers per week had the lowest risk of heart attack, fully 2/3 lower than those who did not drink beer or drank only 1 per week or so. Even the heaviest drinkers, who averaged over 4 beers per day, had only half the risk for heart attack compared to abstainers/ lightest drinkers. Those who consumed between 1 per week and about 2 per day had 1/3 the risk of heart attack compared to abstainers/lightest drinkers. Higher frequency of beer drinking was also related to lower risks for heart attacks. Those who drank beer every day or almost every day were over 60% less likely to have a heart attack than those who never drank beer. (The benefit nearly disappeared among the small number who said they drank twice a day or more.) The risk reduction was 40% for those who drank less than once a week or several times per week. For those who drank less than once per month, the risk was actually slightly higher than for those who never drank. These results held after adjustment for age, locality, education, smoking, and history of diabetes and high cholesterol. The authors concluded that "restricting the analysis to exclusive beer drinkers eliminated potential confounding by other beverages." Since such a strong protective effect was found among this beer-drinking population, they further stated that the results "support the view that the protective effect of alcohol is due to ethanol rather than to specific substances present in different types of beverages."
While these authors concluded that the benefit was due to ethanol, another recent study found that beer may "increase the overall protective effect of moderate alcohol drinking" in a way that wine and spirits do not. Beer contains vitamin B6, which has been shown to prevent the buildup of amino acids called homocysteines, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This study of Dutch males found a 30% increase of vitamin B6 in the blood plasma when men drank beer; the B6 increase was about half as much when they drank wine or spirits. The study found reduced levels of the harmful acids in men who consumed beer; acid levels rose when men drank wine or spirits. Ref 2
Supplier Associations Reacted Differently to the NTP Report; DISCUS, Wine Institute Critical
The industry associations that represent beer, wine and spirits producers had different responses to the NTP report. Beer Institute
As expected, the US Dept of Health and Human Services recently added alcohol beverages to its list of substances "known" to cause cancer. Alcohol beverages joined tobacco, diesel exhaust and a handful of chemicals newly listed in the ninth and latest Report on Carcinogens (RoC) prepared every two years by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The report now lists 218 substances either "known" or "reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer. (The "known" group describes substances about which the weight of the research "indicates a cause and effect relationship between the exposure and human cancer.") The US listing follows 12 years after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that "alcohol beverages are carcinogenic to humans."
Interestingly, most of the media focused on the de-listing of saccharine, not on the substances added. Only USA Today gave much attention to the addition of alcohol, including it in the sub-head of its front-page story. More important, the media mostly ignored some critical explanatory language that the NTP used in a "fact sheet" that accompanied its report. "It is important to understand that the RoC identifies potential cancer hazards (their emphasis). A listing in the RoC does not by itself establish that a substance presents a cancer risk to an individual in daily life. It is also important to note that the RoC does not address or attempt to balance potential benefits of exposures to certain carcinogenic substances in special situations." NTP points out that some drugs used to treat
cancer can actually cause other forms of cancer. It states further: "People should not make decisions concerning the use of a given drug, or any other listed agent, based solely on the information contained in the RoC. Decisions of this type should be made only after consulting with a physician or other appropriate specialist about both risks and benefits."
The report points out: "Consumption of alcoholic beverages is causally related to cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx and esophagus." Research is "notable" for its "consistency," NTP continued, in "reporting the presence of moderate-to-strong associations with dose-response relationships for these four sites," which means that risk rises with consumption. But NTP did not specify either what the increased risks levels are, or what level of consumption raises risk. Nor did it point out that these are relatively rare forms of cancer. (For example, the age-adjusted oral cancer rate for white males in the US is 16 per 100,000; for prostate and lung cancer its 121 and 81 respectively.) NTP points out: "Studies indicate that the risk of cancer is most pronounced among smokers and at the highest levels of consumption." NTP director George Lucier told INSIGHTS that most of the studies which find a link between drinking and cancer indicate drinking levels of 3-6 drinks per day. In addition to the increased risk of cancers at the four sites mentioned above, NTP noted: "Evidence also supports a weaker, but possibly causal relation between alcoholic beverage consumption and increased risk of cancers of the liver and breast." The 1988 IARC report had also linked alcohol beverages with the same cancer sites, and had also included liver cancer. IARC came to no "firm conclusion" about breast cancer.
The association between drinking and cancer is "influenced by other factors,"including smoking, NTP determined, "but smoking does not explain the observed increased risk" with increased drinking. Ref 1
Research on 117,000 women age 25-42 found "neither current nor average lifetime alcohol consumption was significantly associated with breast cancer risk." Although drinking between the ages of 23 and 30 was associated with elevated risk, drinking between the ages of 15 and 22 and 31 and 40 was not. The authors wrote "there is unlikely to be a large effect of moderate alcohol consumption on breast cancer risk among young women, although a modest effect cannot be excluded. The association between alcohol consumption and breast cancer is unlikely to be substantially stronger among pre-menopausal women than among post-menopausal women.
Here's another reason the industry might need to heed Victor Schwartz
"Possibly the most significant finding is the lack of association between beer and cirrhosis mortality in this country group where beer is the beverage accounting for the largest share of total consumption." That
"When the Illinois legislature stepped from allowing a precinct’s voters to vote the precinct dry to allowing the voters to expel a particular disfavored licensee, it crossed the line that protects property holders from being deprived of their property without due process of law." That’s what US Court of Appeals Judge Posner concluded when he declared unconstitutional a state law that allowed Chicago voters to target single locations for closing. Several Chicago taverns challenged the law. The only reason that the law was passed (in 1989) was that the "legislature wanted the residents of a precinct to be able to get rid of a particular licensee of whom they disapproved," Posner pointed out. Yet to close a location residents needed only to get a petition signed by 40% of the precinct’s voters (a precinct is about 400 registered voters) to get the question on the ballot, then win a simple majority of the votes cast. (How many people in a given precinct are likely to vote on such a question?) No "cause" need be given for the vote and "the record is silent" in the case that was before the court "on why these particular taverns incurred the voters’ wrath; neither the petitioners nor the voters are required to give reasons."
This law violated the due process rights of the targeted tavern owners, Posner ruled further, since it "contains no safeguards against error." An "influential resident¼ who was angry about being refused service because he was inebriated" could target a bar, Posner speculated. Another possibility: a licensee could be the "victim of a campaign of disinformation by a competing tavern." Because of the "myriad" possibilities of abuse, the court "should be concerned that an electoral free-for-all might result in serious errors that a due process hearing would avert," the judge wrote. The City of Chicago had argued that when the state of Illinois adopted this law under the 21st Amendment, it considered a liquor license a privilege, not a property right, which could be revoked without due process. Posner disagreed and ruled that once the license is granted, due process can’t be denied. Interestingly, the same court has ruled that there is no violation of due process if the citizens vote an entire precinct dry.
While the Illinois law that allowed citizens to target a single location is unique, an attorney who represented one of the taverns who challenged the statute, Michael Moses, told INSIGHTS that the decision has broader implications. "In this day and age it is easy to attack purveyors of alcohol beverages under the guise of ‘community interest.’ The question is: Who is going to determine what is best for the community?" Posner’s decision, in Moses’ view, indicates that questions of when and where alcohol beverages can be sold should be decided in "fair and impartial forums," not simply at the "whim and caprice" of a handful of voters. Moses added that while the alcohol beverage industry is often "very concerned about relationships between wholesalers and suppliers, there’s not enough focus on the customer base and these types of local restrictions, which are often passed under the guise of protecting the public or promoting temperance."
Schwartz criticized recent troubling developments in "regulation through litigation" in a recent presentation to the control state officials, in an article written for the National Legal Center for the Public Interest and in a discussion with INSIGHTS. These developments, which have led to huge awards against the tobacco industry and at least one gun maker agreeing to a settlement in the face of lawsuits, may threaten the alcohol beverage industry down the road. Future legal attacks may focus, Schwartz suggests, on "innocent victims" of alcohol-related incidents. Indeed, one "distinguished professor of law" has argued that cases brought against alcohol beverage suppliers to recoup medical costs associated with such incidents "might be stronger than those brought by states on behalf of injured smokers if the shift were to innocent victims who were hit by drunk drivers." That's because attorneys "would avoid the problem of the
Alcohol Beverage Industry Must Maintain Positive Public Image to Avoid Lawsuits, Tort Expert Advises
Although the alcohol beverage industry is clearly a potential target for the same massive liability lawsuits brought against the tobacco and gun industries, it is not likely to be "next," according to tort expert Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform Association. Alcohol will not be next, he believes, primarily because the industry remains "too popular." The "campaigns of vilification" so successfully waged against tobacco and guns have not (yet) focused on brewers, vintners or distillers. "It