Posted in Opinions and trends | 1 Comment »

From time to time I’m obliged to update you on the new neo-prohibitionist measures so common in these days. Often these measures are barely sensible (and sometimes beyond reason), aiming to demonize alcohol without any distinction, lumping wine, beer, spirits and alcolpops together. These relate mainly to Anglo-Saxon countries, but, as we have seen in the past, Italy is not exempt from such procedures.

The provisions devised by pundits often stems from hysterical and incompetent visions, which generate mere prohibitions in the face of the inability to carry out a proper cultural program. The distance between reality and the world imagined by these provisions is so wide that sometimes sounds ridiculous, shunning even the few interesting ideas that sometimes stand out in the general mediocrity.

How can I abstain myself from mention the latest news on this topic? As can be read on Libero, (an Italian newspaper) a law is under consideration in England (do not know if it is already effective, maybe someone can help me) that would require alcoholic beverages producers to include warning labels on the bottles on the damage associated with the consumption of alcohol. The bottles of wine, beer and spirits in general would thus be entirely comparable to packets of cigarettes, of course with the necessary differences.

The labels should indicate the limits of daily consumption for men and women, how many ounces of alcohol are contained in the bottle and the relative percentage. Also, must contain general information on problems related to alcohol. This is a measure which at first glance may seem sensible, but in practice tends to demonize any alcoholic beverage, with devastating consequences on its cultural background. Moreover, only damage linked to abuse are mentioned, but not the benefits of a conscious consumption, showing the aberration and the bias of a similar bill.

Paradoxes that become even more striking if we move to the United States, specifically in California, where the new neo-prohibitionist targets are the drinks with caffeine. As reported by Charlie Papazian, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to point at the producers of alcoholic drinks that add caffeine in their products. The target is probably the alcolpops using this ingredient as a stimulant (unfortunately in Italy there are several examples), but the measure clearly shoots into the crowd.

The FDA would require each manufacturer to provide data and evidence that the use of caffeine in their drink is safe for the health of consumers. Needless to say that such a measure would also damage those breweries that produce Coffee Porter or Coffee Stout, styles brewed everywhere.

Neo-prohibitionist battle concerns the European Union too. As reported by the web-site Beverage Daily, in fact, the EU ministers are studying a plan against the abuse of alcohol, which again is inclined to prevention rather than education. The new measures relate to higher prices for the production of alcoholic beverages and more stringent limits on the advertising of these products.

The association Brewers of Europe has thrown itself frankly against these innovations, pointing out that the planned interventions are not a response to an irresponsible consumption.

Here are the words of Rodolphe de Looz-Coswarem, secretary general of the association:

The aim should be to reduce alcohol abuse, not simply trying to reduce the consumption per head in the whole population. [...] What experience teaches us is that [...] are well-targeted local initiatives – organized in collaboration with the pub-managers – that always work.

Well, unfortunately there’s always something new about this matter. The news however is that these anti-alcohol campaigns often do not work at all, and sometimes they even lead to opposite effects. It’s the conclusion of a university study conducted in America and cited by Intravino (thanks to Walter for reporting), according to which the ad campaigns that aim to exploit the effects of guilt and shame are destined to fail.

The message in these circumstances is so strong that consumers tend to keep their distance from it, persuaded that these are extreme situations far from reality. They are convinced that the events and facts depicted happen only in exceptional cases: not only they don’t notice the problem, but they even tend to endorse their behavior. Furthermore there is always the “forbidden fruit effect”, which led us to break the rules in the face of heavily restrictive campaigns.

Despite these results, there is a good bet that shortly we will be invaded by new stunning neo-prohibitionists provisions.