KEY POINTS:
It is not difficult to see why Kevin Rudd's Government is alarmed about young Australians' abuse of alcohol. A report published this month in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health found that the number of women aged 18 to 24 who had to go to
hospital after binge drinking had more than doubled in less than a decade. About half were diagnosed with acute intoxication.
Such statistics persuaded Mr Rudd to embark on a national strategy which, among other things, included a 70 per cent rise in the tax on alcopops. Now, far less persuasively, there is a proposed new set of guidelines on what constitutes binge drinking. So severe are these that not only are they likely to be disregarded, but they also risk devaluing the whole strategy.
Under these guidelines, drawn up by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council, it appears that anything more than two standard drinks - either two pints of beer or three glasses of wine drunk by either a man or a woman - will constitute a binge session. That compares with the present graduated Australian guideline that says men can safely consume four standard drinks and women two, and a New Zealand standard of four drinks for men and three for women.
Suddenly, people who thought they were drinking at safe levels are considered at risk, or even binge drinkers. It is a leap that will strain the belief of moderate drinkers.
No cogent explanation has been given for the change. This, however, is part of a trend that has become disturbingly common in matters of health. In the area of obesity, for example, the qualifying bar has been progressively lowered so that those who a few years ago would have considered themselves moderately overweight are now characterised as obese. The zealots who orchestrate such dramatic guideline changes doubtless believe they will galvanise people. The newly obese will go on diets and start running marathons, and the binge drinkers will stop consuming liquor. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that such standards will simply be ignored.
In terms of those who drink sensibly, that may not matter too much. Their consumption of alcohol is not extremely dangerous to their long-term health. But that is not the case with young men and women who drink excessively and, in particular, consume large amounts of spirits. They increase the prospects of liver and brain damage and susceptibility to certain types of cancer. The chance of the new guidelines causing them to drink more responsibly dwindle if those standards are regarded as unrealistic throughout society. As Australian alcohol educator Paul Dillon suggested, "guidelines need to be workable and they need to be accepted by the community".
One saving grace for the Rudd Government is that other aspects of its binge-drinking strategy are more firmly grounded. In particular, the raising of the tax on alcopops is likely to be effective. Charging more for an item is a blunt instrument but, with the likes of cigarettes, it has proved to be the most effective way of curbing use.
Another success has been the introduction of a 2am lockout on licensed premises in Melbourne. Effectively, this reduces the opportunities for easy access to liquor.
Inevitably, there have been calls for New Zealand to follow Australia's lead and introduce official guidelines. Alcohol Healthwatch director Rebecca Williams is leading the charge. "I take my hat off to the Australians," she said. "They've put their head above the ramparts and got a bit of a hammering for it, but I hope they can actually stay there."
On reflection, she might consider why that hammering has occurred. It is because the Australian guidelines are considered risible. As such, they will achieve nothing.
