FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2783182637> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2783182637 endingPage "204" @default.
• W2783182637 startingPage "203" @default.
• W2783182637 abstract "The UK Supreme Court has ruled that minimum unit pricing for alcohol is legal under European law and can be introduced in Scotland. The Scottish Government may wish to examine whether the proposed MUP level is still fit for purpose and monitor its impact on dependent drinkers, who are potentially at risk of adverse consequences. On 12 June 2012, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to introduce minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol. This triggered a 5-year legal battle involving the Scottish Outer Court of Session (2012–13), appeals to the Scottish Inner Court of Session (2013–16), an advisory judgement from the European Court of Justice (ECJ, 2014–15) and a final appeal to the UK Supreme Court (2016–17). This battle has now ended after the Supreme Court upheld previous rulings that, while MUP restricts the free movement of goods within the European Union, it is a proportionate response to the public health problem presented by alcohol in Scotland. The Scottish Government now aims to introduce MUP by 1 May 2018, making Scotland the test-site for a policy which has become central to public health advocacy on alcohol in many high-income countries. MUP sets a floor price below which a unit of alcohol (1 UK unit = 8 g or 10 ml ethanol) cannot be sold to consumers. The policy rationale is to prevent alcohol being sold so cheaply as to encourage or facilitate harmful consumption levels. An MUP of £0.50 would substantially increase the price of some of Scotland's lowest cost products, including white ciders, multi-packs of beer and some spirits which are currently available for as little as £0.16, £0.32 and £0.38 per unit, respectively 1-3. MUP thus ensures that the new floor price is directly proportional to the alcohol content of products. Its potential effectiveness has been evidenced particularly by policy modelling in the United Kingdom and evaluation research on similar floor pricing policies for alcohol in Canada 4-8. The legal challenge to MUP was led by industry trade organizations; namely, the Scotch Whisky Association supported at some points by Spirits Europe and the Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins. Their main argument was that MUP contravened European Union (EU) rules on the free movement of goods, which the ECJ had previously ruled prohibited setting a minimum price for tobacco 9. However, in December 2015, the ECJ clarified that MUP could be legal under provisions allowing for ‘proportionate’ free trade restrictions in the interest of protecting public health 10. The proportionality test specified that MUP should either achieve greater benefits for public health or impose fewer restrictions on the free movement of goods than other existing policy options (generally interpreted as alcohol taxation). After considering that introducing a minimum price targets alcohol disproportionately consumed by heavier drinkers, the EU directives which may hinder taxation of alcoholic drinks in proportion to their strength (Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC) and the specific problem posed by cheap alcohol in Scotland, the Scottish Outer Court of Session ruled in October 2016 that MUP was a proportionate measure, as targeting cheap alcohol could achieve benefits that taxation policies do not. The industry groups appealed to the UK Supreme Court, but that appeal was rejected on 15 November 2017. The Supreme Court noted additionally that comparing benefits of public health with restrictions on free trade is conceptually and analytically challenging as well as being primarily a task for governments, not courts. With no higher court of appeal available, the current legal process is over. As Scotland moves towards implementing MUP, consideration of the wider implications of the ruling is important. Six years post-implementation, the Scottish Parliament will consider the results of a programme of evaluation overseen by NHS Health Scotland, alongside other evidence, designed to examine policy effects on alcohol consumption, alcohol-related harm and market responses. The Parliament must then vote to continue the policy, otherwise the enabling legislation will expire automatically and the policy will end under a so-called ‘sunset clause’. Although the policy modelling and Canadian evaluations provide grounds for optimism regarding MUP's effectiveness, there are reasons for caution, and we highlight two key considerations. First, the Scottish Government will most probably implement MUP at £0.50, the same level that it proposed in 2012. Modelled estimates suggest the probable effectiveness of MUP at this level has declined markedly over time, because price inflation and market changes have reduced the proportion of off-trade (i.e. shop-bought) alcohol sold below £0.50 per unit from 72% in 2010 to 51% in 2016 11, 12. The 2010 figure is significant, as this was used in the modelling on which the Scottish Government's decision to focus on £0.50 was based. The Scottish Government may need to increase the MUP level early in the 6-year evaluation period to ensure that it achieves the effect that was envisaged originally. Second, careful monitoring of the impact of MUP on drinkers who are dependent on alcohol will be needed. Many of these people consume large quantities of cheap alcohol 13, and they are under-represented in the national consumption and purchasing survey data sets used to model the policy's potential effects 14. There are risks of adverse consequences related to this group, such as the possible growth of an illicit market for alcohol, acquisitive crime to obtain alcohol or fund purchases, redirection of household spending from essentials to alcohol and acute withdrawal problems. These possibilities sit alongside potential positive outcomes such as increased treatment-seeking, reduced consumption levels, reduced harm to drinkers and those around them and a long-term decline in the incidence of dependence. Policy stakeholders should actively monitor both positive and negative outcomes carefully and respond as they arise to mitigate or prevent problems and ensure that the full potential of MUP is realized. The imminent implementation of MUP also has international implications. Governments across Europe have followed the Scottish case closely, and the experience of smoke-free policies suggests that successful public health interventions can spread rapidly. In particular, the Welsh Assembly and the Republic of Ireland's parliament are poised to vote on their own MUP legislation. Although further court battles are likely because the ECJ's judgement makes clear that MUP can be legal in one EU state and illegal in another, depending on the domestic court's weighting of the proportionality arguments, these battles are likely to be shorter now that the ECJ has clarified the law. In this context, to both support policymaking and inform future legal cases, the opportunity to conduct high-quality evaluations in Scotland and other implementing jurisdictions must not be lost. Much of the groundwork to design and commission high-quality evaluation studies has already been conducted in Scotland 15, and this should be replicated in other jurisdictions wherever implementation seems likely. The authors have received funding from the Scottish Government and other public bodies for multiple projects to estimate the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimum unit pricing. The authors have also been commissioned by NHS Health Scotland to evaluate the effects of minimum unit pricing on harmful drinkers." @default.
• W2783182637 created "2018-01-26" @default.
• W2783182637 creator A5038809065 @default.
• W2783182637 creator A5060250427 @default.
• W2783182637 creator A5061670912 @default.
• W2783182637 creator A5081055916 @default.
• W2783182637 date "2018-01-09" @default.
• W2783182637 modified "2023-09-22" @default.
• W2783182637 title "Scotland's policy on minimum unit pricing for alcohol: the legal barriers are gone, so what are the implications for implementation and evaluation?" @default.
• W2783182637 cites W1537177379 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2047880173 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2114257560 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2131351155 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2133122445 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2140558375 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2158620560 @default.
• W2783182637 cites W2276691775 @default.
• W2783182637 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14125" @default.
• W2783182637 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29314407" @default.
• W2783182637 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2783182637 type Work @default.
• W2783182637 sameAs 2783182637 @default.
• W2783182637 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2783182637 countsByYear W27831826372018 @default.
• W2783182637 countsByYear W27831826372019 @default.
• W2783182637 countsByYear W27831826372020 @default.
• W2783182637 countsByYear W27831826372021 @default.
• W2783182637 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2783182637 hasAuthorship W2783182637A5038809065 @default.
• W2783182637 hasAuthorship W2783182637A5060250427 @default.
• W2783182637 hasAuthorship W2783182637A5061670912 @default.
• W2783182637 hasAuthorship W2783182637A5081055916 @default.
• W2783182637 hasBestOaLocation W27831826371 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C100001284 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C122637931 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C2781066024 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C8326231 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C100001284 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C122637931 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C144133560 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C145420912 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C15744967 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C162324750 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C175444787 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C185592680 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C2781066024 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C55493867 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C71924100 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C8326231 @default.
• W2783182637 hasConceptScore W2783182637C99454951 @default.
• W2783182637 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2783182637 hasLocation W27831826371 @default.
• W2783182637 hasLocation W27831826372 @default.
• W2783182637 hasOpenAccess W2783182637 @default.
• W2783182637 hasPrimaryLocation W27831826371 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2057289354 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2358799491 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2361952850 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2382323919 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2383042768 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2384008259 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2959927060 @default.
• W2783182637 hasRelatedWork W2181521317 @default.
• W2783182637 hasVolume "113" @default.
• W2783182637 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2783182637 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2783182637 magId "2783182637" @default.
• W2783182637 workType "article" @default.