Minimum unit pricing and taxing all alcohol by strength are the best approaches for targeting a reduction in health inequalities of alcohol consumption, according to a comparative analysis of alcohol pricing strategies published in PLOS Medicine.

Using their well-known Alcohol Policy Model, the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group were able to estimate the impact of four different economic policies on alcohol consumption and health. Their findings showed that a minimum unit price of 50p was estimated to reduce consumption among low income heavy drinkers by 7.6% and low income moderate drinkers by 2.9%. Replacing current excise duties with a flat rate of £0.22 per unit of strength for all beverage types (volumetric taxation) was the next most effective policy, estimated to reduce consumption among low income heavy drinkers by 5.8% and low income moderate drinkers by 3.1%.

These results were in contrast to simply increasing current alcohol taxes to the equivalent level (13.4% increase), which was estimated to reduce consumption among both low income heavy drinkers and moderate drinkers by 2.2%. The least effective method was to introduce a 4% ad valorem tax to alcohol prices (specific sales tax on product value after duty at the time of purchase), which was estimated to lower consumption among both sets of drinkers by 2.1%.

In terms of reducing mortality among the heaviest drinkers and reducing alcohol-related health inequalities, the research team found that minimum unit pricing had the greatest impact on consumption among heavy drinkers on low incomes who are at greatest risk of harm from their alcohol use.

Among heavy drinkers in the lowest socioeconomic group, the estimated effects on mortality rates were −3.2% for the current tax increase (it reduced alcohol-related deaths by 3.2%), −2.9% for value-based taxation, −6.1% for strength-based taxation, and −7.8% for minimum unit pricing.

As a result of these targeted effects, these policies were also the most effective in reducing the gap in alcohol-related deaths rates between the lowest and highest socioeconomic groups, the authors of the study wrote.

“The alcohol-related mortality rate was 108% higher in lower socioeconomic groups before introducing any policy but this gap was estimated to reduce to 79% higher under a 50p minimum unit price and 83% higher when taxing all alcohol by strength,” they said.

The study contributes to an area of alcohol policy where evidence is needed for comparing the health impacts of different taxation and pricing strategies, including taxation by price, by beverage volume, or by alcohol content, and across population groups.

Commenting on the implications of their findings for the long-running minimum unit pricing court battle between the Scottish Government and a consortium of industry players led by the Scotch Whisky Association, the authors wrote:

“Our comparison of minimum pricing to tax policy options is fundamental [to the legal case], as it shows that whilst with substantial duty increases, the same overall reductions in deaths and hospital admissions could be achieved, these would not target heavy drinkers as effectively, lead to greater consumer spending increases and be less effective at reducing health inequalities.”

Alcohol sponsorship of sport is associated with risky drinking among school children and adult athletes, according to a report.

The Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS) said its review of seven studies, published in the journal Alcohol and Alcoholism, found that each one indicated that exposure to alcohol sports sponsorship was associated with increased levels of alcohol consumption and risky drinking.

The seven studies included findings from 12,760 people in high-income countries including the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

Studies conducted in the UK found that among Welsh schoolchildren in Year 10, or aged 14 to 15, awareness of alcohol sports sponsorship was linked to a 17% higher chance of boys and 13% higher chance of girls getting drunk at the weekend.

The figures increased to 26% for boys getting drunk and 27% for girls when the same schoolchildren had both positive attitudes towards alcohol and awareness of alcohol sports sponsorship.

And among UK university sportspeople, those receiving alcohol industry sponsorship were four times more likely to report hazardous drinking than non-sponsored sportspeople.

The report also included a study of schoolchildren aged 13 to 14 from four EU countries which found exposure to alcohol sports sponsorship when viewing a major football tournament was linked to a 70% increased chance of underage drinking.

Katherine Brown, the director of the IAS and the report’s author, said: “It is of great concern to see that sport, which should be viewed as a healthy, family friendly activity, is potentially putting our children and athletes at risk due to sponsorship deals with alcohol companies.

“There is strong evidence that exposure to alcohol marketing leads young people to drink at an earlier age and to drink more if they already do so.

“This is why the OECD and World Health Organisation have called on governments to investigate the introduction of alcohol advertising bans.

“Major alcohol brands are prominent in almost every high profile sporting event today, exposing millions of children to advertising and building positive associations that could be damaging in the long-term.”

Tom Smith, head of policy at the charity Alcohol Concern, said: “Alcohol sports sponsorship creates a positive association between drinking and sports that cannot be unlearned.

“Millions of children in the UK consume these positive drinking messages whilst innocently following their favourite teams and tournaments.

“It’s great to see the Scottish women’s football team have recently made a stand against alcohol advertising to ensure young girls aren’t exposed to, or endorsing alcohol brands via their kit.

“Sport should be an opportunity to motivate healthy positive behaviours amongst younger generations, not more drinking.”

Henry Ashworth, chief executive of the Portman Group, which represents the alcohol industry, said: “As the UK’s leading temperance campaigners, it is unsurprising that the IAS consistently ignore the official statistics which show significant and sustained declines in under-age drinking during the last decade.

“The IAS also fails to mention the real-world evidence that shows an alcohol sponsorship ban in France has had no effect on reducing under-age drinking.

“Alcohol sponsorship is strictly controlled in the UK to ensure children are protected and we have made good progress in tackling under-age drinking through education, enforcing strict ID schemes and by providing alternative activities for young people.

“This is about teaching responsible behaviour and supporting our young people as they progress to adulthood, not banning everything in sight.”