NATIONAL
LIQUOR NEWS – October 2005
‘Binge
Drinking’ Amongst Young People by Gordon Broderick
Barely a week goes by without a headline or study being released
on ‘binge drinking’ amongst young people. In previous columns
DSICA has highlighted that a number of key government studies have
actually shown that underage drinking has remained stable over the
past few years, and in some areas harmful drinking by young people
appears to have declined.
Nevertheless, there are certain patterns of drinking - colloquially
known as ‘binge drinking’ - that remain a concern. In order
to reduce harmful patterns of alcohol consumption it is important
to know their causes.
Firstly, the term ‘binge drinking’ is not a clinical or
agreed upon term. There is considerable disagreement among researchers
and policy makers as to what constitutes ‘binge drinking’.
In academic literature the term is usually defined as five or more
standard drinks consumed in one sitting. Others define ‘binge
drinking’ as an extended period of time (usually two or more
days) during which a person repeatedly administers alcohol to the
point of intoxication, and that that person gives up their usual activities
and obligations in order to use alcohol.
Thus using the former definition, many moderate middle-aged professionals
at a dinner party (extending over a five hour period) and who consume
one drink per hour may be surprised to learn that they are engaging
in a ‘binge drinking’ session.
Given the nebulous definition of ‘binge drinking’, DSICA
prefers to avoid the term altogether.
DSICA considers that a far better and scientific benchmark is contained
in the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian
Alcohol Guidelines, which describes three levels of risk associated
with drinking: low risk, risky and high risk levels. The Guidelines
also explain the nature of short-term and long-term risks to a person’s
health from drinking alcohol at risky or high risk levels (see:
http://www.alcoholguidelines.gov.au/index.htm
for details).
Definitional issues aside, there is clearly a problem amongst some
in the community, particularly amongst younger people, concerning
the patterns of their alcohol consumption. Decades of research are
yet to point to a simple answer to the causes of harmful drinking
episodes, but such behaviour is clearly complex and ‘multi-determined’.
One academic (Baer 2002) highlights four factors commonly associated
with younger persons’ risky drinking. These are ‘family
history and parents’ behaviour’; personality type of the
individual; drinking motives (ie, drinking for emotional escape and
relief); and ‘social affiliation’. Baer also found that
factors such as alcohol advertising and levels of taxation, while
having some influence, were not among the predominant causes of risky
or high risk underage drinking.
Other researchers have identified issues/factors as diverse as ‘adolescent
brain chemistry’, educational attainment, employment status of
parents/consumers, and socio-economic status as influencing risky
underage drinking.
Overlaying these ‘individual factors’ are broader cultural
issues such as the history of alcohol use in a society, economic and
religious factors.
Given that the causes of risky drinking patterns amongst the young
are clearly complex, simplistic solutions or knee policy reactions
are unlikely to have any real impact on addressing the fundamental
issues. For example, recently there have been calls to limit the shelf-space
of RTDs in bottle shops, to restrict their advertising and to impose
a ‘sugar excise’ on sweet alcohol beverages. Such selective,
one-dimensional policies simply do not work.
Countries which previously imposed restrictive legislation are now
turning to much more liberal policies to encourage healthy drinking.
For example, the UK has recently liberalised hotel trading hours.
Many of us can remember the effect that 6 o’clock closing had
on ‘binge drinking’ in Australia.
Calls by some to reduce, regulate and control alcohol often ignores
the complexities of the issue and simple-minded attempts at increased
taxation, limiting licensing or banning advertising can have unanticipated
and even paradoxical effects actually doing the opposite of the intended.
Risky and high risk drinking is caused by a multitude of different
factors (personal, social, cultural and economic) that interact to
produce individual and national drinking habits. Measures to reduce
risky and high risk underage drinking will not succeed unless they
tackle the fundamental causes and factors of such drinking.
