European trade body criticizes Thailand's proposed alcohol health warning proposals

[Chris Lawrence]

What on earth has Thailands alcohol health warnings got to do with the EU?

The labels will have to be added to the bottles during bottling which is a massive pain in the backside because the volumes of spirits sold to Thailand other than whiskies is relatively small.

This is just blatent protectionism on the part of Thailand. They don't give a damn about anyone's health when it comes too booze, but they do want to keep foreign spirits out of Thailand. As if putting those stupid excise stamps isn't enough hassle, now the label itslef is going to have to be printed and fixed specifically for Thailand in the bottling line. A real pain.

You clearly don't know how much social misery alcohol creates!!

The only worry of this "trade-body" is, they are going to make a euro-cent less profit on each bottle by being forced to put on the warninglabel!!

Nice to see, that Thailand for once is leading the way!!

I know extremely well personally about the misery of alcohol.

Any proven reduction of consumption due to warnings? None. All this does is keep foreign spirits out of the country and allow unfair advantage to domestic alcohol.

No change in consumption will be seen.

In Oz, this happened with tobacco. Warnings printed then displayed and now they are sold behind a screen. They are not advertised or displayed in public with no branding on them.

The alcohol and tobacco lobbies are very powerful, would not hesitate to take court action if a country interfered with their money making process.

It’s a start of a process than in time can expand.

I spent 20 years working in Drug and Alcohol. Each approach of a new idea or a rehashed old new idea needs to be tried. Sometimes it is the person who catapults the idea of change, that wasn't in the previous plan.

I know it won't hurt, and gets the idea in people’s faces every time alcohol is sold. This may be a precursor to change.

[kuiburi]

yes, how dare any country try to issue warnings about these products to save peoples lives when the manufacturers can make huge profits from peoples misery , companies will do what ever they can if they think they will lose money, they dont give a sh*t about the people as long as the profits keep rollng in.

Agree that they make shit loads of money , I not agree that everybody that enjoys alcohol is in misery ,

Probably most of us enjoys alcohol without being in " misery " or make a problem to anybody , .

I am a drinking man and it relaxes me , same goes for me mates ..

[kuiburi]

Just heavily tax the alcohol content of beverages. Nothing more; nothing less. Obvious! Easy?

Ok , so u are saying that creating a black market with products that have no controll of quality would be good ?

[MJP]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

Rule 7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[dru2]

European trade body .... Don't they mean FARANG trade body?

No, because that would include North America, Australasia, Chile, Argentina and so on.

[BestBitterPhuket]

Reduce the tax on beer and increase the tax of spirits by 200%. That will cause a shift, from the very dangerous to the less so.

[Baerboxer]

Another misleading headline by an uneducated reporter.

From reading this article there is ONE company called "Spirits Europe" complaining. One company does NOT an entire EU make. As a matter of fact, the article goes on to say Britain and Australia have recently debated placing warnings on alcohol bottles. Can't these reporters ever create accurate headlines.

Secondly, if, as they say, "health warnings on alcohol bottles fail to induce behavioral change in drinking patterns" well then what is their problem. They should have nothing to worry about. By complaining about it, they have advertised to everyone with half a brain that they really are afraid it will cause their sales to drop and that's all this is about...money.

Read the article again slowly. It says "Spirits Europe" is a trade body. That will be an organization set up, financed and controlled by the producers of the products. The trade bodies job is to represent the trade and more importantly lobby on its behalf.

Nothing to do with the EU, European parliament, British government or any NGO set up to promote the dangers of alcohol. Quite the reverse - set up to promote the industry and their products and ultimately increase sales and therefore consumption.

[Halion]

Perhaps the Immigration department should put graphic warnings at airports warning foreigners of the dangers on walking on the beach

[Ulic]

"Spirits Europe" what a bunch of buffoons. P.F.O.

[Bluespunk]

European trade body .... Don't they mean FARANG trade body?

No.

[Pundi6446]

Of course there is always AA for those who don't head the warnings

Edited October 22, 2014 by Pundi6446

[Wat dee]

Thailand likely has the highest rate of alcoholism in the world. And guess where the alcoholics come from ? I am not talking about the Thais. A very small percentage compared to the lovely Euros.

Nah that would be Luxembourg... Thailand isn't even in the top 30

I bet there is lot more moonshiners in Thailand.

[Lannig]

Oh yeah, look how effective the scary pictures on cigarette packs are. Have you seen a single smoker here paying any kind of attention to them except for joking about them? Scaring people about their future in 20-30 years might work in western countries (stress on "might") but it's sooooooo unfit to the Thai culture... not forgetting that they're so fond of gorish pictures that these really have little shocking effect.

I mean, I have a medical background so I've tried describing precisely what is on these pictures to some teen and young adult smokers around me, trying to explain what the people on the pictures have been going through. It's a total waste of time.

By the way, they've made these pictures larger recently haven't they?

Edited October 23, 2014 by Lannig

[StefanBBK]

They are all hypocrites. How about other unhealthy items that cause lots of harm. To name a few: soda pop's, candy, fatty meat, msg etc.

Moderate alcohol consumtion has less ill affect than excessive fast food eating.

[mike324]

What on earth has Thailands alcohol health warnings got to do with the EU?

The labels will have to be added to the bottles during bottling which is a massive pain in the backside because the volumes of spirits sold to Thailand other than whiskies is relatively small.

This is just blatent protectionism on the part of Thailand. They don't give a damn about anyone's health when it comes too booze, but they do want to keep foreign spirits out of Thailand. As if putting those stupid excise stamps isn't enough hassle, now the label itslef is going to have to be printed and fixed specifically for Thailand in the bottling line. A real pain.

Don't agree with you on the second part, its not about protectionism, They are requiring it for local producers as well. Its just an ineffective campaign. They gain more by collecting tax on alcohol than keeping it out. Yes its a pain, the government would do more good with better law enforcement and harsher fines.

[namdocmai]

Yes Hoegaarden whitebeer is getting very popular in BKK. Why? Because it tastes much better then Thai beer and doesn't give a free headache.

Edited October 23, 2014 by namdocmai

[billd766]

Another misleading headline by an uneducated reporter.

From reading this article there is ONE company called "Spirits Europe" complaining. One company does NOT an entire EU make. As a matter of fact, the article goes on to say Britain and Australia have recently debated placing warnings on alcohol bottles. Can't these reporters ever create accurate headlines.

Secondly, if, as they say, "health warnings on alcohol bottles fail to induce behavioral change in drinking patterns" well then what is their problem. They should have nothing to worry about. By complaining about it, they have advertised to everyone with half a brain that they really are afraid it will cause their sales to drop and that's all this is about...money.

Read the article again slowly. It says "Spirits Europe" is a trade body. That will be an organization set up, financed and controlled by the producers of the products. The trade bodies job is to represent the trade and more importantly lobby on its behalf.

Nothing to do with the EU, European parliament, British government or any NGO set up to promote the dangers of alcohol. Quite the reverse - set up to promote the industry and their products and ultimately increase sales and therefore consumption.

To go back to my post #2 it seems that "Spirits Europe" is nothing to do with ANY government in or out of the EU. It is a lobby group concerned with making money though it is probably political too though certainly not an elected governmental body or group.

Therefore what the hell has the EU got to do with this?

[natway09]

Chicken G, you are exactly right.

If the Thai Government cared at all about the welfare of its people the Lao Khao problem would have been addressed.

Not only the obvious low tax, but also being available just about anywhere, anytime.

The stuff is just Liver Cirrhosis waiting to happen.

They must make a fortune out of import taxes for imported liquor which for the most part is drunk responsibly (or nearly)

Can't say the same for the Lao Khao, they drink it until they drop, wake up, drink again

[nisakiman]

According to Danish research, all these nannying lifestyle interventions (by people who think they know better than us how we should live our lives) has absolutely NO impact on health. This article has its main focus on the impact of smoking bans, but also includes alcohol consumption. The links are mostly to Danish sites, but Google translate does a reasonable job.

...........................................................................................................................

Public health failure: Lifestyle improvements do not lead to less disease and death

Translated from Danish article by Klaus K, 180grader.dk:

Sundhedspolitisk fiasko: Livsstilsforbedringer udskyder ikke sygdom og død

“Lifestyle disease”: – Politicians’ eagerness to push the Danes to improve their lifestyles is beginning to look like a gigantic health policy failure. It is now clear that the political focus on the prevention of “lifestyle diseases” will not lead to less disease and death.

Despite the many expert claims that smoking cessation, exercise, and other lifestyle improvements will prevent illness and death, there is actually no proof that this will happen. Even if you could make all Danes stop smoking, it is unlikely to reduce cancer, according to high quality studies.

Experts talk nonsense about smoking again

This is shown by solid evidence from 40 years of costly human trials – the so-called random controlled intervention trials – where health researchers have succeeded in having thousands of healthy subjects switch to healthier lifestyles – including smoking cessation – without any effect on the participants’ disease and death rate over time (1 – 2).

The negative results were recently confirmed by a large Danish random trial, the Inter99 study, which examined the effect of medical checkups and “intensive lifestyle advice.” Despite the fact that many of the participants improved their lifestyle, the study ended after 10 years with no effect on morbidity and mortality (3), just like the other studies.

Health checks of the population is money down the drain

And there is reason to pay attention to the results of the random trials. For unlike the comparative statistics of lifestyle and diseases, which is routinely mentioned in the media, random trials can actually tell us something about causes. They are simply of a higher quality than the normal statistical studies, and therefore often called the “gold standard” in statistical studies of diseases (4).

The methodology of these random trials is that the subjects are divided into two groups at random, one group is helped to a “healthy” lifestyle – including smoking cessation – while the other group continues its “unhealthy” lifestyles. Researchers then compare diseases in the two groups over time – for example after 5, 10 or 15 years.

The results have been a big disappointment to the health sector – but they have been clear-cut: Switching to a healthy lifestyle, including smoking cessation, led neither to the reduction of disease nor increased lifespan in healthy subjects. The results of all the trials has been a big round zero.

Result after 10 years of lifestyle improvements in huge Danish study: No effect

At the start of the Inter99-study a team of Danish doctors and health professionals gave intensive assistance to 6,091 locals to get them to improve their lifestyle – with great success: Participants in the “healthy” group stopped or reduced smoking on a large scale (5), they ate more healthily (6) they drank less alcohol (7), and the men did more exercise (8), while the control group continued its “unhealthy” lifestyles.

But alas – after 10 years of lifestyle change, there was no difference between the two groups in any of the measured diseases, neither in heart disease, stroke or in total mortality.

Results: Although significant changes in lifestyle were described among participants after five years, we found no effect on development of ischaemic heart disease, stroke, combined events, or death in the entire study population over a 10 year period.

6.091 people in the intervention group participated at baseline. No significant difference was seen between the intervention and control groups in the primary end point, ischaemic heart disease HR: 1.03, CI 95%: (0.94 – 1.13) or in the secondary endpoints, stroke HR: 0.98, CI: (0.87 – 1.11); combined endpoint HR: 1.01, CI: (0.93 – 1.09); total mortality HR: 1.00, CI: (0.91 – 1.09).

And as the authors note in the article, no one has ever succeeded in reducing cancer in similar trials.

Stop health paternalism – it does not work …!

There is, in other words, still no evidence that it will lead to less cancer and heart disease or fewer deaths if you get people who otherwise are healthy to stop smoking and start living “healthily”. Indeed, there is strong evidence to the contrary: that it will have zero effect.

This evidence is a blow to supporters of the ruling public health paternalism and to successive governments’ health policies focusing on prevention of so-called “lifestyle diseases”.

It has already been shown very clearly that health paternalism does not work: Diseases and hospital admissions in Denmark have skyrocketed since politicians began to interfere in people’s lifestyle – with the smoking law in 2007 as the most significant intervention, and with the other health paternalism that has followed: (The link is to a chart)

https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/alle_indl_graf560c.jpg

Significantly more disease in Denmark after smoking legislation and health paternalism

According to some doctors the disease increases may be due to the so-called nocebo effect: When politicians and the media start talking a lot about health and disease, people tend to speculate more about health and disease too, and thus the fear of getting sick increases. This anxiety itself may be causative.

Health Politicians have naively thought that they could be seen as “good” by making the Danes “healthy”. Instead of respecting people’s chosen lifestyles, they have spent billions of tax dollars on an at best completely useless and at worst harmful crusade upon peoples private lives.

This crusade has been organized with advice of pharmaceutical lobbyists who orbit the politicians at Christiansborg on a daily basis. The situation is starting to look like a public health disaster – and pharmaceutical lobbyists have reason to be satisfied. After all, disease is what they feed on.

................................................................................................

So it would seem that the main reason for all the money spent trying to stop us from doing what we enjoy is:

1.) To increase the profits of the pharmaceutical companies

2.) To keep all the parasites in 'Public Health' in nice cushy taxpayer-funded jobs.