Friday, 9 October 2015

Lame reasons to ban stuff

A couple of case studies of desperate self-justification by trigger happy prohibitionists grabbed my attention this week.

First there was this from (you guessed it) Australia...

Alert and ready for action: why it’s time to ban energy drinks for under-18s

Energy drinks are highly sweetened, caffeinated beverages that are packaged in brightly coloured, slimline containers. They’re sold virtually everywhere.

Here we go again with the 'glitzy packaging' guff. And note the implication that their popularity is the result of widespread availability rather than vice versa.

Energy drinks may pose serious harm for people aged 18 years or younger. Research with young adults indicates the stimulant effects can cause headaches, sleeping difficulties and heart palpitations. These side-effects are generally attributed to the primary ingredient, caffeine.

Do any of these things really count as 'serious harm'? I think not. But even if you think these are significant enough problems to justify government action, it is clearly caffeine that is the issue, not a single product category that happens to contain caffeine.

The effects of energy drinks typically mimic those reported in cases of caffeine intoxication, such as anxiety, agitation, insomnia, heart palpitations. The cardiovascular effects of caffeine, such as higher blood pressure, may be contributing to increased disease.

'May be'. These are weasel words. Evidence or shut up.

Young people have a lower caffeine tolerance and are therefore more vulnerable to the negative effects of caffeine.

OK, so you want to ban kids from buying caffeinated products then, right? Starting with the most popular caffeinated product in the world, coffee?

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code specifies that energy drinks may contain a maximum of 80 milligrams of caffeine per standard 250 millilitre energy drink. This is equivalent to the amount of caffeine in a cup of instant coffee (77.5mg/250ml).

Wow, a whole cup of coffee, imagine that! And that's the maximum permitted in an energy drink, though not the maximum permitted in a cup of coffee. So we're banning coffee, right?

Standards for the package labelling mean manufacturers must provide a maximum recommended daily intake, and warn against consumption by pregnant women, those who are sensitive to caffeine and children.

Nothing more should be required in a free society.

In practice, labelling is typically of poor visibility (located near nutrition information in indistinct text colour and size), with no specific age limit for children.

If that is so, campaign for these technical issues to be resolved. Don't campaign for a ban.

Research suggests energy drink users often exceed recommended maximum daily intakes.

So what? It's only a recommendation. What has been the result of this? Are bodies piling up in the streets? Are hospitals filled with teenage heart attack victims?

There is a lack of evidence showing energy drinks are safe. 

That's not how it works, sunshine. They've been on the market for more than twenty years. If there was evidence that they were dangerous, it would have surfaced by now. You're the plonkers demanding a ban. You provide the evidence.

So as a precautionary measure, governments should ban their sale to anyone under the age of 18 years.

Ha! No dice. The precautionary principle is what prohibitionists resort to when they have no evidence so it's no surprise to see it invoked by these cockwombles. However, it's a bit late for precautionary measures. These drinks have been consumed for long enough for any deleterious effects to make themselves known. Moreover, coffee - which contains as much, if not more, caffeine per drink - has been consumed for centuries without any real problem. In Britain, for example, coffee has been wildly popular since the 17th century so you're about 400 years too late for the precautionary approach. The data are in. You've lost.

Such a ban could be lifted if, down the track, the evidence shows they are indeed safe.

Like that would ever happen.

As with many products that are commercially available and can adversely affect health, the industry associated is extremely powerful. It has sophisticated marketing techniques to groom children and ten-year strategies to engage and coerce governments. Their sole motive is profit.

Yawn. The clichés are coming thick and fast in this article. I don't know how these people don't bore themselves. The article is published at The Conversation, however - a state-funded propaganda site where words like 'profit', 'industry' and 'sophisticated marketing' are dog whistles (not to mention the absurd and offensive use of the term 'groom children').

Speaking of children - and when do prohibitionists do anything else? - I saw this in the Guardian on Wednesday...

Payday loan commercials could face curbs on TV advertising after the body responsible for setting the UK advertising rules announced a public consultation on the issue.

The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (Bcap) - the code-setting body for all TV and radio advertising, has launched a consultation assess whether campaigns by payday loan companies such as Wonga should be given “scheduling restrictions” barring them from airing in shows when large numbers of children are watching.

Wh..wh..what? Since when did children take out payday loans?

Bcap has launched the consultation after receiving submissions from campaigning groups including the Children’s Society.

Yet another state-funded charity lobbying the government (the Children's Society gets £14,000,0000 from the taxpayer). What's rattled their cage?

“We are pleased that regulators appear to be listening to the many parents who share our concerns about the damaging impact of adverts for high-interest loans on their children,” said Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children’s Society. 

 And what the hell is this 'damaging impact'?

“Commercials with singing satsumas, Christmas presents and catchy jingles make borrowing money seem easy and fun to children, which increases the pressure on parents to take out high-interest loans."

In what universe has this ever happened? The only thing more pathetic than parents demanding that the government protects them from their own children is a sock puppet charity doing it for them. 'Pester power' is the single lamest justification for advertising bans anyone could ever make. It's feeble when talking about breakfast cereals and football shirts, but payday loans? Are you kidding me?

But wait, the Children's Society have a kicker to go with this non-argument...

"Children should learn about borrowing and debt from their school and family, not from irresponsible payday loan advertising.”

The key word here is 'irresponsible' because it tells us what's really going on in the minds of the Children's Society. Like many a left-wing puritan, they don't like Wonga and they don't like payday loans. This has got nothing to do with children or education. It's about limiting adults' exposure to services which these people think are immoral.

However, campaigners look set to face an uphill battle to get any TV ad ban introduced on advertisers in the sector, officially known as high-cost short-term credit ads, with Bcap stating that evidence-gathering to date has not convinced it.

Good. Thank God there are still a few regulators holding out against the hysterics of the twenty-first century.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Tax-sponging temperance quacks

The Global Alcohol Policy Alliance's temperance conference is underway in Edinburgh at the moment. Sessions include:

'Building Support for Protecting Children’s Right to Grow Up Free from Alcohol Marketing' (there is no such 'right')

'Alcohol Marketing: The Need for Radical Action' (with the certifiable Gerard Hastings)

'Public Health vs Big Alcohol in the World Cup of Alcohol Marketing' (ooh, "Big Alcohol")

'Building Effective Advocacy For Effective Policy' (ie. lobbying)

'From Evidence To Action - Using Harm To Others Evidence To Build Support For Whole Population Approaches To Reducing Alcohol Harm' (ie. lobbying, propaganda and dogma)

'Alcohol Sports Sponsorship: Is It Time To Cut The Tie?' (the speaker is from the UK Temperance Alliance so the answer will be yes).

This is a tiny selection of the vast number of presentations and panel discussions that are being held at the conference this week. As with tobacco control conferences circa 1983 (when the anti-smoking movement became explicitly neo-prohibitionist) the main themes are advertising, price and advocacy (ie. lobbying).

You only need to look at the list of speakers to see that there will be no meaningful debate. Aside from the aforementioned Gerard Hastings - who has declared 'war' on alcohol - there is Eric Carlin, various members of the Institute of Alcohol Studies (AKA UK Temperance Alliance), Robin Room, Jim McCambridge and various state-funded temperance nags like Colin Shevills from the still not yet de-funded Balance North East.

The opening addresses were given by Derek Rutherford and Nicola Sturgeon. This tells you everything you need to know about the unholy alliance between gospel temperance and the Scottish state. I have written about Rutherford's extraordinary network of booze-hating organisations before. Most, if not all, are taxpayer-funded and this week's conference is taxpayer-funded via the Scottish government, the NHS and the WHO.

I can't think of anything worse than spending three days rubbing shoulders with these lemon-sucking cranks, but since it is a publicly funded conference any member of the public should be entitled to attend.

Not so, however. Mark Baird is a taxpayer, he is Scottish and he works for the alcohol company Diageo. He is, therefore, quite obviously a stakeholder in a taxpayer-funded event about 'global alcohol policy' and yet when he registered to attend, he received the following reply (which I reproduce with his permission)...

Dear Mark Baird,

Global Alcohol Policy Conference (GAPC) 7th – 9th October 2015, EICC

Thank you for registering for the GAPC conference, however, on reviewing your registration we note that you work in/are affiliated to the alcohol industry.

Unfortunately, as stated in the conference terms and conditions members of the alcohol industry are not permitted to attend this event since The Global Alcohol Policy Alliance is a network of non-governmental organisations and people working in public health agencies who share information on alcohol issues and advocate evidence-based alcohol policies, “free from commercial interests.” 

A full copy of these conditions can be found on the GAPC website:
If you have already paid for your booking a refund will be arranged and sent to you in due course.

We hope you will understand our position on this but should you have any questions please do not hesitate to get in touch at

Kind regards

The GAPC Conference Team

Kind regards, my eye. Whatever happened to 'nothing about us without us'? It's bad enough that we are forced to pay for a Methodist teetotaller to hold a three-day crusade against the demon drink without them doing it in secret. If these people thought that their agenda was defensible, they would have industry spokespeople on the stage debating them, not banned from attending.

What a shameful, paranoid, tax-sponging, parasitic bunch of charlatans the 'public health' racketeers are.


I've seen the BBC's typically fawning account of this pretend public health conference.

'Political courage' on drink pricing policy praised

The Scottish government has been praised for its "political courage" in attempting to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol.

It came from the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance (GAPA) which aims to counter the health problems created by alcohol consumption.

The Beeb doesn't bother to ask what the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance is. Perhaps 'Taxpayer pays for international temperance shindig' wouldn't sound as good.

Derek Rutherford, who chairs GAPA, said holding its annual conference in Scotland would acknowledge the work being done there to reduce the harm caused by alcohol.

Nor does the Beeb ask who Derek Rutherford is, or why the taxpayer has to fork out for a teetotal Methodist to promote his agenda.
Dr Mac Armstrong, chair of Alcohol Focus Scotland (AFS), the national charity working to reduce alcohol harm, said: "The Scottish government's plans to introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol will increase the price of the cheapest, strongest drinks.

Alcohol Focus Scotland gets hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Scottish government every year, but this doesn't warrant a mention.

I think I'm going to be sick
The SNP have naturally press released the praise they've received from their clients.

Sunday, 4 October 2015

The useful and the true

Propaganda requires inconvenient truths to be replaced by useful lies. For the purposes of public relations, a bald assertion made often enough is as good as a fact. For the issues covered in this blog, I've characterised this as 'we're public health, we say what we want'. So long as people believe it, that's all that matters.

There was a small example of this on the BBC website yesterday when it was reported that 'Surrey County Council has been accused of hypocrisy after running stop smoking campaigns while investing in tobacco companies.'

Although it was on the front page of the Beeb's news site, this wasn't much of a story. All that had happened was a Green party councillor had complained about the local council investing in tobacco stock, presumably for its pensions.

Mr Essex said it was hypocritical for the council to invest in the tobacco industry.

He called for it to "show some leadership and take our money out of an industry that does so much harm and costs the NHS so much".

This fellow clearly has a moral objection to certain industries and doesn't want the council associated with them. This kind of virtue signalling is central to the divestment crusade.

Fair enough, he has his view, but moral ickiness is not enough to persuade people to sacrifice money for self-righteousness (which is the trade-off required by divestment). His moral indignation is the true motivation, but it is not sufficiently useful to win the argument.

Since people invest in shares to make a profit, it would be more useful if it could be shown that tobacco stock was not very profitable. To that end, the BBC (or the press release it was working from) quoted somebody from the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association. I've never heard of her or her organisation but this is what she said...

"Over the long term, tobacco companies do not provide significantly higher returns than other companies."

This is the very opposite of the truth, as any serious investor will tell you. This graph from Credit Suisse shows how wrong she is...

As Credit Suisse say, every decade since the 1960s (when the health effects of smoking became well known) has seen 'tobacco companies outperforming comparable firms by over +3 percent per year.'

This - obviously - is the reason councils, universities and pension funds invest in tobacco. They pay good dividends and the share price outperforms that of nearly every other industry. Between 2000 and 2012, for example, British American Tobacco yielded a return of +669%, making it the fifth most profitable FTSE 100 company. BAT, like Imperial and the other big tobacco firms, produce 'above-average yields, and good records and prospects of dividend growth.' They have been 'some of the most reliable income generators for many years'. They are 'cash machines'.

If the BBC had approached almost any other financial analyst, this is what they would have said. It is, after all, a simple, verifiable fact that tobacco shares have been amongst the best in the world over virtually any time frame you choose to look at it. Instead, they managed to find somebody to say something that was useful but totally untrue.

Job done.

Saturday, 3 October 2015

My Manchester schedule

If you're going to the Conservative party conference and will be in the secure zone, you can come and see me speaking at the following debates:

Monday 8 am: What works in reducing obesity? Next steps in public health with Maggie Throup MP (Health Select Committee), Chris Askew (Diabetes UK), Sarah Kershaw (2020 Health). Exchange 8.

Monday 3.45 pm: E-cigarettes: setting the regulatory bar - how high is too high? with Clive Bates (Counterfactual), Christian May (City AM), David Morris MP. Techcentral.

Tuesday 11.15 am: Sock puppets: Should the state be funding pressure groups? with Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes), Sir Stuart Etherington (NCVO), Daniel Hannan (MEP). Think Tent.

Tuesday 5.45 pm: Can wellbeing usurp economic indications of success? with Dame Jil Matheson (ex-ONS), Juliet Michaelson (New Economics Foundation), Nigel Keohane (Social Market Foundation). Exchange 4-5.

Thursday, 1 October 2015

Smoking, cars and quack science

Anti-smoking fanatics are celebrating today because it's now a crime to smoke around people under the age of 18 in cars. The issue of secondhand smoke in vehicles is utterly trivial and the immense effort that has gone into this political campaign only makes sense when you understand that it is about setting a precedent for banning smoking in private, domestic environments.

Obviously, the 'public health' charlatans don't care about children any more than they care about bar-workers. All they care about is using state force to stop people smoking. Equally obviously, it won't end here.

It's worth remembering that this is Labour legislation and Labour's shadow health secretary is quite rightly taking the credit for it. Ten years after they last won an election, the Labour party is still passing legislation through the unelected House of Lords. They did exactly the same thing with plain packaging. A tax on plastic bags in coming into effect next week. Labour, Tory, it makes no difference. Nanny always wins.

From the outset, the campaign to ban smoking in cars has required Lysenko science. At one point it got so bad that even the British Meddling Association had to retract a sciency claim. And the junk keeps on coming. Take this factoid from the useful idiots at the BBC, for example...

Smoke can stay in the air for up to two and a half hours even with a window open

You have to wonder what the BBC defines as "smoke" and whether they've ever been in a moving vehicle. Or a stationary vehicle, for that matter.

It seems that people will believe in anything when it comes to secondhand smoke. Newcastle University put out a press release today which contains this gem...

“People think that by opening the window they are clearing the air, but what actually happens is the air is sucked in from outside and pushes the smoke backwards, straight towards the passengers in the back seat."

Don't you love the way cars defy the laws of physics by sucking air in without blowing air out? What are they, black holes?

The manner in which academics are prepared to degrade themselves in the pursuit of money and ideology is pathetic, but expect more of the same in the future. Who knows what new magical properties secondhand smoke will be found to have. Perhaps they'll even try to revive the 'thirdhand smoke' scam? As the political objectives become more and more draconian, there are always new depths to plunge.

Saturday, 26 September 2015

The stupidest thing I've read all week...

Possibly all year, in fact. From the Independent...

Efforts to discredit claims that Alzheimer's is infectious is similar to how the mad cow disease scandal was handled

The suggestion that Alzheimer’s may be a transmissible disease, and the reluctance of government science advisers to countenance the idea, has parallels with what happened over “mad cow” disease in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

At the time, science advisers to the government took the cautious approach that there was “no evidence” mad cow disease was a threat to human health, although they privately admitted that did not mean there was “no risk”.

The “no evidence” line is similar to that adopted by the Department of Health in relation to the possible transmission of Alzheimer’s disease.

Ooh, uncanny! What a spooky coincidence. Makes you think, huh?

The whole article is here, but its entire 'argument' is presented above. There really is nothing more to it than claming that if there is no evidence for something, there are "parallels" with the mad cow disease situation twenty years ago.

There are also parallels with millions of instances when there was no evidence because there was no relationship, but that doesn't seem to have occurred to the author.

Words almost fail me. I've seen comments on the David Icke forum that have more intellectual weight than this.


Tuesday, 22 September 2015

The Institute of Alcohol Studies' response to Alcohol and the Public Purse

The UK Temperance Alliance, which these days prefers to be known as the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS), has responded to my IEA report about the cost of alcohol to the English taxpayer. In the report I showed that the financial, out-of-pocket costs to the government of alcohol-related crime, ill health and worklessness were unlikely to be higher than £3.9 billion a year, which is about a third of what drinkers pay in alcohol duty.

The IAS reply seems to have been written in reasonably good faith so I'll try to be equally constructive in my reply. They begin...

The most important point about the IEA paper is that it deliberately addresses only a very limited question – what the impact of alcohol is on the government’s fiscal balance. By design, it does not look at broader social or economic costs.

That's right. It looks at the cost to the government and therefore the taxpayer. Why? There are two reasons. Firstly, because I think that is what people are most interested in. Secondly, because the wider societal cost of £21 billion that includes intangible costs (such as emotional distress) and private costs (such as lost productivity) is routinely portrayed as being a direct cost to the taxpayer. For example, this is how the figure is typically presented in the media...

The government is seeking to reduce irresponsible drinking that costs the taxpayer 21 billion pounds a year in police and medical bills

Here is Theresa May on a government website:

'Alcohol-fuelled harm costs taxpayers £21 billion a year.'

Here is the Alcohol Health Alliance explicitly comparing a figure dominated by private and emotional costs with financial tax revenues:

And here is Katherine Brown, director of the IAS, describing the £21 billion as a cost to the economy while at the same time saying that it is a direct cost to the taxpayer.

“This government’s failure to keep its promise to come down hard on cheap alcohol has let everybody down except the drinks industry. It’s let the NHS down, the police down, but most of all it lets every taxpayer down. We are all footing the £21 billion bill of alcohol harm to our economy each year.”

Back to the IAS response...

This restriction inevitably limits the force of the IEA’s argument. Most people who are concerned about the level of alcohol harm in the UK are not primarily motivated by a desire to balance the government’s budget. Rather, they are concerned by the damage to public health, crime, social disorder and wider economic costs caused by excessive drinking.

I'm not sure that is true, otherwise temperance groups wouldn't go to such lengths to make the public think that wider societal costs are costs to the taxpayer. At the very least, people are more interested in the financial costs to the state in the context of discussions around alcohol taxes which are supposed to compensate for those costs.

The fact remains that somebody needs to pay these costs – whether it’s protecting themselves against crime, replacing goods that are stolen or vandalised, or functioning less productively at work. The IEA argue that it is misleading to balance these costs against revenue from taxation. But in that case, we need to acknowledge that there is no compensatory mechanism for the billions of pounds of harm suffered by private individuals and businesses.

But there is no compensatory mechanism and the IAS is not suggesting one. To be clear, putting more tax on alcohol will not compensate employers for hungover workers, nor will it pay to have someone's garden fence repaired. Tax goes to government. If alcohol duty is about compensation, it should therefore only meet the costs incurred by government.

(This is separate from the argument about Pigouvian taxation which the Alcohol Health Alliance is vaguely alluding to in the tweet above. The temperance lobby seems to think that alcohol duty should be equal to the gross negative externalities associated with alcohol. This, however, is a misunderstanding of what a Pigouvian tax is. Pigou's aim was not to raise an amount of tax equal to the gross externalities but to use tax to increase the private cost of a product to meet the net externalities. The private cost includes the price of the product before tax. People in Britain spend more than £30 billion on alcohol. That is the private cost, not just the £12 billion or so they spend on alcohol duty.)

The report has performed a valuable service in bringing to light the limitations of previous data/analysis and the confusion they have caused

Hear, hear!

The IEA is also correct in identifying the dangers of conflating social costs, economic costs and fiscal costs. ‘Alcohol and the Public Purse’ should encourage all sides of the debate to be more careful in the language they use. It is vitally important to be clear about the difference between different types of costs, and just as important to clarify who bears these costs – the government, the drinker, other people or businesses.

If it achieves that, I will be very happy (and surprised).

Much of the coverage and interpretation of the IEA’s findings has been misleading

While the IEA’s report criticises public health campaigners for confusing costs to the economy with costs to the Treasury, it is disappointing to see newspaper reports of the paper making the very same error:

“Boozers are subsidising teetotallers as research shows how much they pour into the economy”10 (The Mirror)

“Britain’s drinkers are helping to boost the economy by £6.5 billion a year”11 (The Express)

As discussed above, the IEA’s report says nothing about the cost to the economy, but only refers to the cost to the government.

Yes, it's very frustrating, but we can't control the headlines and nothing in the IEA's press release encouraged this sort of misreporting. The newspapers have been reporting broader economic costs as costs to the taxpayer for years (without being chastised by the IAS) so it is perhaps no surprise that they made a similar mistake this time. I commented on this at the time, both on Twitter and on this blog, saying...

Quite a few of the headlines failed to distinguish between the economy and the treasury - to be clear, taxing people does not 'boost the economy' - but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Back to the IAS...

While these headlines are ultimately the responsibility of the newspapers that publish them, it is notable that the IEA’s official twitter account made the same mistake, tweeting: “Britain's drinkers are helping to boost the economy by £6.5 billion a year”.

Ah, come on, they were tweeting coverage of the report all day and that was the headline in the Daily Express. They read the Express story, pressed the little Twitter button and that's what came out. People do this all the time. It doesn't mean they endorse every word of the article.

The idea of a ‘subsidy’ from drinkers to non-drinkers, which was central to both the IEA’s press release and many of the press reports, is misleading in a more subtle way. This implies that non-drinkers are better off for the fact that other people drink, because this (according to the IEA) reduces their tax burden. But if we are comparing the balance of costs and benefits between drinkers and non-drinkers, it is no longer appropriate to ignore private costs. Therefore, it does not follow that drinkers subsidise non-drinkers, unless the IEA can show that the tax ‘subsidy’ (if it exists) is greater than the private costs to non-drinkers.

The point is that non-drinkers are able to pay less tax as a result of other people drinking. I take the point that there may be other private costs (and, indeed, benefits) from other people drinking that are not reflected in the tax system, but - as mentioned above - they would not be compensated by taxation paid to government anyway.

Moreover, even in narrow fiscal terms, this ‘subsidy’ will be significantly smaller than the widely claimed £6.5bn. The IEA does not account for the fact that drinkers also use public services that are not directly related to their drinking – they still send their children to state schools, they are still treated for non-alcohol related ailments on the NHS, they still have their rubbish bins collected. If we accept the IEA’s numbers, alcohol raises £6.5bn for the Treasury, which is presumably spent on public services. But 79% of this £6.5bn will be spent on drinkers, since drinkers comprise 79% of the population (assuming that drinkers and non-drinkers are equally likely to use public services not related to drinking). This would imply that the subsidy is in fact closer to £1.4bn (21% of £6.5bn).

I applaud the creativity of this argument. It raises an interesting question. Let's say you had a tax on women that brought in £10 billion. Would you say that women are subsidising men to the tune of £10 billion or would you say that the subsidy is only £5 billion because women use half of the public services paid for by the tax? It seems to me that the former would be the normal way of describing it whereas the latter has the whiff of sophistry, but I take the point.

However, if you want to chop off 79 per cent of the benefit (the 'subsidy') because the money will ultimately be spent on drinkers then you must equally chop off 79 per cent of the cost (eg. spending on alcohol-related harm) because it would be paid by drinkers in the absence of a specific duty. By this logic, 79 per cent of the 'cost of alcohol' is not an externality at all because it is paid by people who drink.

If the costs of alcohol to public services came out of general taxation, drinkers would pay 79 per cent of them. So, by the IAS's logic, the cost to the taxpayer is not £3.9 billion but just £819 million. You can't have it both ways.

In ‘Alcohol and the Public Purse’, there are a number of costs that are omitted from the IEA’s analysis. Most significantly, the IEA do not attribute any social care costs to alcohol, despite the evidence that alcohol is often related to child neglect and mistreatment. This has been estimated to cost the government between £1bn- £2.5bn, so on its own could add 50% the IEA’s estimate of alcohol costs.

My report was explicitly modelled on the Cabinet Office report and the subsequent (thinner) documents that were the source of the £21 billion figure. None of them mentioned social care and I have not heard them criticised for ignoring it.

Whilst there may be costs to be found in social care, it is hardly surprising that it has been ignored to date. The data are practically non-existent. The reference given by the IAS is a report about the economic and social costs of alcohol in Leeds. It includes a page and a half about social care with some back-of-an-envelope estimates about the costs associated with alcohol. The estimates are not based on evidence from Leeds. Instead, they are based on a survey which found that parental alcohol misuse was a factor in 14 per cent of child care cases in four London boroughs. The authors assume causation and attribute 14 per cent of total child care social work spending in Leeds to 'alcohol-related expenditure'. It then adds in an estimate for adult social work, but because 'it is not clear what proportion of this expenditure was spent in relation to alcohol misuse' they just assume 25-50 per cent.

Presumably, IAS have extrapolated this guesstimate from Leeds across the whole country to reach their estimate of £1-2.5 billion. It is exactly the kind of guesswork that IAS said I 'performed a valuable service in bringing to light' and is nowhere near robust enough for an IEA report. 

Additionally, despite the IEA’s claim that they “err towards generosity rather than conservatism when compiling the estimates”, there are a few assumptions that appear to understate the cost of alcohol. First, the IEA ignore hospital admissions where alcohol is a secondary diagnosis (except where these are classified as an ‘external cause’).

This was explained at length in the report. It is ridiculous to assume that a secondary diagnosis was the primary cause for a hospital visit. Public Health England and the Department of Health both now agree that only primary diagnoses should be counted.

Second, the IEA assume that 14% of A&E visits are attributable to alcohol. While they acknowledge that there is significant uncertainty around this figure, it is worth noting that this is towards the lower end of the 2-40% range that is sometimes cited.

This was also dealt with in depth in the report. It should be obvious that if one estimate says that 2 per cent of A & E admissions are alcohol-related and another says 40 per cent then one of them is totally wrong. IAS are implying that you should split the difference and assume the real figure is at the midpoint between the two but that means using a figure that you know is totally wrong to come up with an average.

A better approach is to look at the estimates and see which one looks totally wrong. As I explain in the report, figures of 30-40 per cent are simply not credible whereas there are quite a few studies - that's studies, not surveys - of A & E admissions which arrive at single figure estimates. I went with 14 per cent because it was at the high end of the credible range. I strongly suspect that the real figure is quite a bit lower than this.

The IAS has promised to publish some of its own research on A & E admissions soon and I believe that government is working on a new economic assessment on the total cost of alcohol. Hopefully the government will at least bear in mind the point on which the IAS and myself are agreed - that the differences between difference types of cost should be made clear.