One of the biggest pressure points is, of course, the potential negative effects of alcohol on people. Historically, we have experienced everything from having alcohol banned, by governments as well as religious groups, to a laissez faire approach — neither of these extremes seems to have been very successful. However, the pressure will always be on; and the industry will be accused of irresponsibility if it does not respond in what is perceived to be a suitable manner.
In thinking about this, the comparison with motor vehicles seems inescapable. Automobiles are involved in the death and maiming of countless people every year, worldwide; and yet we continue to use millions of them, every day. This activity threatens the safety of drivers, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists, among others. However, our societal response to this situation has been to focus on the vehicles, not on the drivers. We continue to make cars safer and safer, for the driver and passenger, with seat-belts, air-bags, anti-locking brakes, and even road temperature warnings; but what have we done about the drivers?
What do we do, for example, about people falling asleep at the wheel (eye-facing cameras have been suggested)? Or, using a hand-held phone while driving? Have we ever installed alcohol meters as compulsory equipment (there is an Ignition Interlock system that requires a breathalyzer test before the car can be started)? After all, alcohol and cars are literally a deadly combination. No, we have not installed them; because this targets the people directly, as the responsible agents. This does not mean that the tech industry cannot do it, in general: Monitoring alcohol in your bloodstream via your phone will soon be a reality.
Have you ever driven on a German autobahn, in the days when there was no speed limit? For example, you are driving along at 70 mph, slowly passing a truck that is doing 60 mph. Suddenly there is a car behind you, flashing its lights frantically at you, doing twice your speed. It is approaching you like you are a brick wall that it is approaching at 70 mph! This is terrifying, take my word for it, because there is nothing you can do — you can’t accelerate out of the way, and you certainly shouldn’t put your brakes on. Have you ever seen skid marks that are half a mile long? At the end of one set that I saw, the car had clearly launched itself over the roadside barrier. People were loading the wreckage onto a flatbed truck as I passed — the car was about two feet high, having concertina-ed on impact with the ground. They would have needed a can-opener to remove the human remains. (I did wonder whether the body was still in there.)
Do we place responsibility here on the car manufacturer or on the driver? Apparently the onus is on the former, but we all know that it should be on the latter. And so it also seems to be in the alcohol industry. Alcohol itself does not kill, but you can kill yourself and others by being irresponsible with it. The parallel attitude here looks to me to be fairly obvious. This viewpoint does not, however, exempt the alcohol industry from taking action; and the pressure will always be on.
This does not mean that we should go to the other extreme, of course. I have noted before that Wine and health is never a simple topic. What is good for one part of a human body is not necessarily good for any other part (and vice versa); and, since every person is different, each of us can react differently to any given health situation, alcohol-related or not. This means that advertising incentives encourage trying to get away with almost any claim on a label. Governments have not been kind in response: Alcohol regulators rain on “good for you” labeling claims. It would be wise, I think, for the industry to shy away from too many positive statements about the benefits of alcohol, lest there be a societal back-lash. This actually applies to all foods, of course (Why you shouldn’t trust research which claims that a single foodstuff has amazing health benefits).
So, what might we conclude from this navel gazing? For both the car industry and the alcohol industry, society blames the tools not the people. However, the car manufacturers seem to get away with it in a way that the alcohol producers do not.
That is, the alcohol industry is certainly not perceived as being near the top of the pecking order, with regard to social responsibility. Perhaps we should be grateful that we are not at the bottom, with the gambling industry. While games like poker can be viewed as an exercise in understanding probabilities in a rational manner (eg. Game Theory), and thus they can form part of a valid professional activity, most participants are merely gamblers — they want the thrill, not the mathematical analysis. For alcohol, some people consume it as part of a social lifestyle, but far too many just want the alcohol itself. This is what creates the social problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment