Aussie Winemakers Dispute Data Behind Minimum Alcohol Pricing

“There is no clear consensus in the relevant research that a minimum price would reduce harm” from alcohol abuse, according to The Winemakers’ Federation of Australia’s (WFA) lengthy formal comment on that country’s heated discussions on the topic.

The WFA’s  seven-page comment comes as a submission on the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA) Issues Paper Exploring the Public Interest Case for a Minimum (Floor) Price for Alcohol.

The paper contains data and information likely to be valuable in countering alcohol tax arguments and pricing issues in the United States and elsewhere.

In a cover letter, Paul Evans, WFA Chief Executive said:

“The Issues Paper has referenced and discussed research which suggests a direct link between the price of alcohol and rates of misuse and has proposed that a minimum price may therefore be an appropriate policy mechanism to achieve lowers rate of consumption and harm.

“However, WFA notes that there is also a body of research that concludes “at risk” drinkers are not price sensitive and that there are more effective policy options for governments to consider to reduce misuse. This research is referenced in this submission for further consideration. We also note findings from the most recent National Drug Strategy Household Survey that challenge the perception of an increasing alcohol problem in Australia. The figures quoted in the Issues Paper on the total cost of alcohol misuse to the Australian community have also been contested by peer review.

“On balance, WFA argues that there is no clear consensus in the relevant research that a minimum price would reduce harm. More analysis is required on this key issue before the proposal can be considered further and progressed.
The Issues Paper acknowledges the potential for a minimum price to cause market distortions, but does not provide detail or a clear definition on what these might be. It also references the uncertainty over how increased margins would be distributed between retailers and producers. There may be a number of other unintended consequences caused by the introduction of a minimum price.

“Again, WFA argues that more work is required. A robust consideration of the public interest test demands that the full economic and industry impact of the proposal be taken into account. Until these dimensions of the proposal are explored and known, it should not be progressed.”

FULL PAPER AVAILABLE

The full WFA position paper — including documentation and data — may be accessed here by premium subscribers of Wine Executive News.

Wine Executive News Subscription information here.