To the Editor: Skov puts the case for an alcohol taxation policy in Australia.1 Few people, if any, in public health would disagree that alcohol is a serious public health issue in Australia, and few would doubt that higher prices will reduce consumption. But why tax the consumers directly? Why not tax the providers?

I propose a tax on the advertising budget of alcoholic beverage producers. Further, this tax should be weighted according to the alcoholic content of the products they sell. Yes, this would mean higher prices for drinkers, but set in this way the incentive mechanism is to get sales and consumption down, firstly by reducing advertising, and secondly by lowering the amount of alcohol in what is sold.

It has been estimated that more than a quarter of a billion dollars are spent each year on advertising alcoholic beverages in Australia.2 An average 200% tax, graded by alcoholic content of products, would mean a lot of money for the government! It might well make up for the estimated loss from the defeated “alcopops” tax of $1.6 billion over 4 years.3 Indeed, we should hope that it would not bring in half a billion dollars a year, as both advertising budgets and average alcohol content fall.

An advertising tax would almost certainly make much greater inroads into reducing alcohol consumption than would the alcopops tax. It would raise the price for consumers, but to a lesser extent for lower alcohol-content beverages. It would severely discourage advertising, especially of high alcohol-content drinks, and would encourage manufacturers to produce beverages that are lower in alcohol.

Any increase in cost to the consumer through taxation risks being regressive and might make the poor even poorer if they continue to drink, with a consequent impact on their health. This needs to be watched. But using the revenues raised to devise a targeted counselling program for those who do want to reduce their consumption (and for those who perhaps cannot do so without help) cannot be beyond the wit of Treasury and the health department.

To the Editor: I write in response to the article by Skov on alcohol taxation policy,1 and in the context of the recent defeat of the “alcopops” tax legislation, which is soon to be reintroduced to the Australian Senate.

Our democratic political system has held us in relatively good stead, with a reliable system of checks and balances. However, the rejection of the alcopops legislation arguably represents a failure of democracy and a retrograde step for public health, defeating the first Australian public health-centred alcohol tax policy. For this, Senator Fielding and the Opposition should be held accountable.

Yes, the tax is not all encompassing, and expansion to broader initiatives, as proposed by Senator Fielding, is not without merit. However, health experts supported the alcopops tax initiative as an important first step, as outlined in Skov’s evidence-based article.1 Skov highlighted the key issues, including that alcohol-related harm is at unacceptable levels, that action is overdue, and that good evidence from Australia and internationally supports taxation and pricing as being among the most effective measures to reduce alcohol consumption and harm.1,2 Overall, the positives of this initiative clearly outweigh the negatives, and defeating it was arguably naïve and ill informed.

Historically, both policy and funding are crucial to public health successes. Following awareness of the problem, change must start somewhere, before broadening over time to deliver health benefits (eg, smoking, seatbelts, speeding — all crucial and effective public health campaigns). The most important aspect of the alcopops tax initiative is likely to be that it is a start and a successful avenue to raise revenue. Extension to a full alcohol content-based tax, education, incentives and regulations will come — but much more belatedly now.

The defeat of the alcopops tax legislation has threatened this opportunity to significantly contribute to the fight against alcohol misuse. While opposition is by definition the trademark of Opposition parties, bipartisanship should prevail when community benefits are clear. Perhaps more concerning is that a single politician holding the balance of power can disregard history, expert opinion and popular support, and defeat important public health-centred legislation.

The manipulation of our political system with the rejection of the alcopops tax legislation was profoundly disappointing. This initiative should not be defeated again. Our politicians should take heed of history, evidence, expert opinion and public sentiment and vote in the nation’s interest to support the alcopops tax legislation on its return to the Senate.

To the Editor: I would like to contribute to the debate raised by Skov’s timely article1 on the recently defeated “alcopops” tax legislation — the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009.2

Senator Fielding’s requirement for a ban on alcohol industry advertising during sporting events as a condition for his support of the alcopops tax legislation is rational, visionary and affordable from the additional tax raised. Many of the high-profile individual and public health incidents related to alcohol misuse have been among athletes sponsored by the alcohol industry, and around sporting arenas. As the positive outcome of banning tobacco industry sponsorship of sporting events has demonstrated, such bans have at least as strong an impact as would the increased tax on alcopops on reducing exposure of young people to alcohol.3

It is estimated that the alcohol industry contributes up to 23% ($288 million) of the $1.25 billion in annual sports sponsorship in Australia.4 If the government had agreed to Senator Fielding’s prerequisite amendment, and had also fully taken over sports sponsorship responsibilities, it would have achieved two important public health objectives — a reduction in binge drinking and banning of sports sponsorship by the alcohol industry — and would still have had at least $100 million left to address alcohol-related issues; assuming of course that the real objective of the alcopops tax policy was to prevent alcohol-related harm among youths.

Had the government agreed to simultaneously ban alcohol industry advertising in sport and maintain the new alcopops tax structure, it would then be on a moral high ground to implement other important alcohol-related public health measures that require no more than strong political will, such as mandated warnings on alcoholic products at the point of sale. In this respect, the French National Cancer Institute’s recent report that alcohol-related colorectal, breast, oesophageal and liver cancer risks increase from one glass per day, and that the consumption of alcoholic beverages of any type is not advised for anyone,5 is instructive.