Beer Marketer's Insights
The evidence that moderate drinking is heart healthy grows increasingly unassailable, as two widely noted studies published recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) indicate. One found that among a group of people who had heart attacks, those who drank moderately in the year prior to the attack were significantly more likely to survive the following year than abstainers. The second found that older adults who consumed over one drink per day were half as likely to suffer heart failure compared to abstainers.
In a study of 1,913 adults hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), those who consumed at least 7 drinks per week in the year before the heart attack were 62% less likely to die in the year following the heart attack. After the results were adjusted for age, sex and other heart disease risks, moderate drinkers were 32% less likely to die in the year following the heart attack compared to abstainers. Lighter drinkers had a 21% lower risk of dying compared to abstainers. This reduced risk, the authors noted, "extended to both men and women, and was similar for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality." The authors also looked at beverage preferences and found "no substantial difference in survival among patients who reported predominant consumption of wine, beer or liquor."
Going beyond the specific findings, the authors suggested "two somewhat different implications for clinical practice." First, "adults who abstained from alcohol prior to AMI appeared to be at particularly high risk" of dying sooner than those who drank; "specialized strategies for secondary prevention may be appropriate for these individuals." The second implication: "our results are consistent with the hypothesis that light or moderate alcohol use following AMI is safe," although more confirmation is needed. Both of these implications come very close to a suggestion that some patients might be well advised to have an occasional drink, but the authors did not go that far. They wrote: "Individuals should continue to consult their physicians regarding the advisability" of drinking since there are "risks and benefits."
The second study, of 2235 adults with an average age of 74, found that those who consumed 21-70 oz of absolute alcohol (approximately 14 to 47 drinks) per month were 47% less likely to suffer heart failure than abstainers. That was after adjustment for age, sex, race, education, smoking and other heart disease risks. Lighter drinkers reduced their risk by 21% compared to abstainers. (Heavy drinkers were excluded from the study.) "Our research also showed," one of the authors told the press, "different types of alcoholic beverages were associated with similar reductions in heart failure risk, suggesting that it is pure alcohol, and not the type of beverage, that is associated with lower heart failure risk." Once again, the authors pointed out, patients need to seek individualized advice, given the risks of excessive drinking.
In an editorial in the same issue of JAMA, veteran researcher Dr. Arthur Klatsky wrote that "all considered, it appears that moderate drinkers fare better than abstainers for myocardial infarction" and that "moderate drinking appears safe or beneficial for older individuals and probably not harmful in patients with heart failure." These studies, he concluded, "should be helpful to clinicians in making individualized, judicious recommendations about alcohol drinking for patients with heart disease." Ref 1
As Bill to Fund Alcohol Education Ad Campaign Introduced in Senate, MADD Steps Up Rhetoric
In conjunction with MADD, Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and John Warner of Virginia introduced a bill to develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent underage drinking, including a "national advertising campaign." The bill is similar to the House measure sponsored by Rep Roybal-Allard and Rep Wolf (see last issue). The advertising campaign is to be conducted by the US Department of Health and Human Services. "Give Moms A Lifesaving Gift on Mother
They
Perhaps it was only a matter of time before long-time industry critics mounted an offensive against so-called "alcopops." They had made surprisingly little noise in 2000. But that
Speaking at Coors
Will the US Supreme Court finally resolve what free speech protections apply to advertising? Many industry attorneys and executives will take close note of the arguments this week as the US Supreme Court reviews restrictions on tobacco advertising adopted by Massachusetts and challenged by the big tobacco companies. These regulations bar virtually all outdoor advertising of tobacco products, inside signs that can be seen from outside retail establishments and certain in-store displays. This is not a tobacco-only issue. Los Angeles has adopted very similar restrictions of alcohol beverage ads. A suit challenging those restrictions is pending in federal court; the Supreme Court's decision will likely affect the LA case. Key issues that the Supreme Court may resolve or at least address include: should advertising be treated to the same protections as "core" political speech, or with the lesser protections afforded commercial speech; if ads are purely commercial speech, to what extent do local and state governments have to show that any given restriction must "materially advance" the government
"The reality for the [alcohol beverage] industry is that it is unlikely the next battle will be about .05 BAC. The next battle will not be over the
Will the federal government fund a national anti-underage drinking media campaign patterned on its anti-drug efforts? That sensitive topic arose again recently as Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard and Rep. Frank Wolf (who led Congressional efforts to pass the .08 mandate) re-introduced a bill that would establish such a campaign. Specifically, the bill calls for a $1-million study by the Secretary of HHS to develop and send Congress a "comprehensive strategy that identifies the nature and extent of the problem of underage drinking, the scientific basis for the strategy, including a review of the existing scientific research, target audiences, goals and objectives of the campaign, message points that will be effective in changing attitudes and behavior, a campaign outline," plans for implementation/evaluation and estimated costs. Recall that Rep. Roybal-Allard and Rep. John Mica had introduced the same bill in the House late last session. They had picked up 43 co-sponsors in the House. As INSIGHTS went to press, the current version has 7 co-sponsors in the House, no companion bill in the Senate. Center for Science in the Public Interest recently sent out an "alert" to drum up support for the bill. The bill got front-page coverage in the Boston Globe, which played up resistance to the bill from the "beer lobby." The Globe quoted Rep. Roybal-Allard, citing the industry
MADD May Be Applauding Distillers, But It
MADD
Not long after the Beer Institute and AB announced they
Alcohol policy issues, like all others, make for strange bedfellows, several recent developments show. In recent months, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), perhaps the most powerful advocacy group in the field of alcohol issues: 1) partnered with the distiller-backed Century Council to support .08 BAC laws; 2) sent letters to members of the American Beverage Institute (ABI) asking them to leave the organization; and 3) called upon MADD members to advocate against attempts to roll back excise taxes, while continuing to publicly criticize the beer industry