Regarding Eduardo’s February 26 post about the alcohol industry [ https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/alcohol-use-disorders-91-role-alcohol-i... ], I am less concerned with the definitional issues on the WHO side than with the propaganda value of the “Responsible Drinking” concept on the industry side. Terminology at WHO and within the public health and psychiatric communities will continue to evolve to match the scientific evidence. Industry terminology is consistent with their corporate goals to generate more profit and to avoid mistakes that tarnish carefully crafted brand images. One thing the public health community could do to deal with terminology issues raised in the Forum is to co-opt the responsible drinking concept by defining it better in terms of lower risk drinking levels, explaining that risk begins with even small doses because of alcohol’s cumulative effects on many organ systems, and expand it to include responsible nondrinking. That brings me to the issue of NoLo alcohol products, which are gaining popularity in part because of the healthy lifestyle trend in a small but important part of the population in high and middle income countries. That trend was identified by the industry more than a decade ago, which led the big beer producers, as well as wine and spirits companies, to develop new product lines to prevent further erosion of their consumer base. Another part of that strategy was to use the healthy lifestyle trend to expand their product portfolio into “healthy alcohol” products and NoLo nonalcoholic drinks. The strategy had the added value of branding these products with well-known alcohol brand names to circumvent current or future marketing restrictions and to provide an opportunity to claim they are helping WHO to reduce global alcohol consumption, which is a way of using Corporate Social Responsibility as brand marketing.
We are now facing a situation where AB InBev, the world’s largest beer producer, has developed a partnership with the International Olympic Committee to allow them to promote a NoLo brand during the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is to be followed by promotions up to 2028 in subsequent Winter and Summer games of alcohol brands, one of which (Michelob Ultra) is targeted at athletes and exercise enthusiasts (see https://apnews.com/article/olympics-ioc-beer-anheuser-busch-global-spons...). This seems to contradict the IOC’s own stated policy to “not accept commercial associations with products that may conflict with or be considered inappropriate to the mission of the IOC or to the spirit of Olympism.” Because the Olympics are among the world’s largest media events, their advertising messages are likely to reach millions of children and young adults, as well as other vulnerable groups.
I would appreciate your thoughts about the potential risks (and benefits) of NoLo products in general, and of the IOC/AB InBev partnership deal in particular. Is it time for pushback from WHO and the international public health community?
Tom Babor
HIFA profile: Thomas Babor is Emeritus Professor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, United States. Professional interests: Screening, diagnosis, early intervention, and treatment evaluation, as well as alcohol and drug policy; alcohol industry as an inducer of alcohol-related problems. babor AT uchc.edu
