Alcohol use is linked to a range of harms that affect not only the drinker but also impact wider society. This impact is extensive and places a significant financial strain on the UK. Our recent calculations estimate that alcohol costs society in England £27.4 billion, which is equivalent to £485 per head of population. These figures cover the costs to healthcare, crime, social services, and workplace and economy costs for 2021-22. Crime accounts for the largest proportion of the costs (53%), amounting to £14.6 billion, followed by workplace and economy costs (18%, £5.1 billion), healthcare costs (18%, £4.9 billion), and social services costs (11%, £2.9 billion).
These cost calculations are based on previous methodology developed by the Cabinet Office (2003). Although updating these estimates is valuable because external costs are important when considering government intervention, the current methodology is based on a series of assumptions. For example, the costs of alcohol-related accident and emergency attendances are calculated on the assumption that 35% of attendances are attributable to alcohol. This assumption is based on a single study that investigated the perception of A&E emergency staff. Additionally, other costs are likely underestimated. For instance, premature deaths are not included in our calculations due to a lack of data available and many other societal costs and harms are not accounted for.
This imperfect calculation does not undermine the data but highlights the need for a revised methodology that includes more robust research and estimates. This is crucial because the data shows the extent of the impact of alcohol harms across the population, affecting society broadly rather than a small number of individuals.
Some within the alcohol industry have argued that the economic contribution of the alcohol industry outweighs the cost of harm, with the Portman Group stating that the figures failed to take into account the “significant direct economic contribution” of the alcohol industry. However, this argument is flawed as it fails to account for the significant harm alcohol causes to individuals and society, which cannot be justified by economic gains alone. This argument implies a disregard for the well-being and health of people negatively affected by alcohol use. In addition, estimating a full cost-benefit is unlikely to be helpful when dictating policy, unless considering a total ban: As the economist Dr Aveek Bhattacharya has written:
If we accept that alcohol is not going to be eradicated, the absolute level of costs and benefits is less important than how these change in response to different policies.
Focusing on the economic impacts of alcohol should not be done in isolation. A shift away from alcohol consumption would likely result in increases in spending on other goods and services, accompanied by a decrease in alcohol harms.
Alcohol continues to be sold in ways that seek to increase availability and, most importantly, the profitability of enormous multinationals. Alcohol has become more affordable, easier to access, and is heavily promoted. Meanwhile, alcohol harms are not felt equally in society, with alcohol-related harms disproportionately experienced by marginalized groups, exacerbating existing inequalities. Alcohol-specific deaths have been increasing in recent years and alcohol use is a leading factor in deaths and disabilities. Introducing effective policies that would reduce this rising harm would also reduce the cost of harm. It is time to prioritise the health and well-being of our communities over the profits of the alcohol industry.
Written by Kat Petrilli, Researcher, Institute Of Alcohol Studies, and Postgraduate Research Student, Addiction and Mental Health Group, University of Bath.
All IAS Blogposts are published with the permission of the author. The views expressed are solely the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute of Alcohol Studies.