No justification for draconian ban on alcohol advertising

Published on Friday, 01 March 2013 12:59
Posted by Vicki Mitchem

The Institute of Economic Affairs responds to suggestion that the UK bans all alcohol advertising


An editorial published in the British Medical Journal today (1 March 2013) calls for "a complete ban on alcohol advertising and sponsorship". The authors claim that a recent RAND report "confirms that such a step is long overdue", but RAND has made no such recommendation and its report was mainly focused on teenage exposure to online advertising. There is no justification for more draconian action. Britain is already one of the world's most restricted marketplaces for alcohol advertising and regular alcohol consumption by 11 to 15 year olds has fallen by two-thirds in the last decade despite so-called "pocket money prices."

Commenting on the editorial, Christopher Snowdon, Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

"The vast majority of British adults are drinkers and they have a right to know what is available. Advertising helps consumers make informed and efficient choices while protecting them from being ripped off. Without advertising there can be no true competition, and without competition, the marketplace becomes a cosy cartel.

"An advertising ban would discourage new players from entering the market and would stifle innovation. A ban on sponsorship would have a disastrous effect on the economy, from broadcasting companies to the local pub football team. These sort of unintended consequences are not discussed in the British Medical Journal editorial. The authors seem intent on applying the anti-smoking blueprint to alcohol on the pretext of reducing underage consumption of alcohol, which has been falling for many years in any case. The rhetoric of protecting kids can be used to justify almost any nanny-state regulation, but it will ultimately lead to everybody being treated like children."

Source: iea

The views expressed in the contents below are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of GovToday.

Add comment