Alcohol price rise plan - see what beer, cider, wine and vodka could cost
Experts are demanding the Government increases the price of cheap supermarket booze to help curb dangerous drinking.
Academics, medics and charities from around the country have penned an open letter to Health Secretary Wes Streeting calling for minimum unit pricing (MUP) in England. It comes after Office for National Statistics data found 10,473 deaths occurred 'as a direct consequence of alcohol misuse' last year. This was up 38% on before the Covid-19 pandemic.
The letter has been signed by 34 health leaders from leading health organisations including the Alcohol Health Alliance, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine.
Minimum unit pricing is already in place in Scotland and Wales and sets a minimum price for alcohol based on the amount of pure alcohol in a drink, rather than the volume or type of drink. It aims to reduce alcohol-related harm by making cheaper, stronger drinks more expensive.
The letter states: "As experts from across alcohol policy, health and treatment, we urge you to revisit the current approach to tackling alcohol harm and commit to an ambitious, evidence-based strategy that reflects the scale of the current crisis.'
Deaths directly attributed to alcohol occur when conditions such as alcohol poisoning or liver disease occur. Last year's Darzi report into the NHS in England highlighted how alcohol is "becoming more affordable over time, and deaths are rising at an alarming rate". Post-pandemic increases in drinking to excess at home are thought to be in part to blame.
How it could affect prices
Minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in Scotland and Wales is set at 50p and primarily affects alcohol sold in supermarkets and off licences like strong cider.
This is the minimum price per unit of alcohol so for example a pint of beer containing 2.5 units cannot be sold for less than £1.25, and a bottle of wine of 9 units cannot be cheaper than £4.50. A 70cl bottle of 40% ABV vodka contains 28 units so cannot be sold for less than £14.
Cheap, strong ciders would likely see the biggest price increases as they tend to be sold at very low prices per unit.
A three litre bottle of cider at 7.5% ABV would contain 22.5 units of alcohol so could not be sold for less than £11.25 under a 50p MUP policy.
The 10 Year Health Plan for England, which was published last month, sets out plans to tackle harmful drinking through alcohol labelling, which will include health warning messages. The document also sets out proposed changes to no and low (NoLo) alcohol products and pledged support for community-led schemes to reduce alcohol harm.
Before the 10 Year Plan was released there was speculation over whether the plan would include a ban on alcohol advertising and minimum unit pricing.
The letter says Government plans to tackle problem drinking "are not sufficient to address the scale and complexity of harm".
Other measures called for in the letter were:
Giving local authorities the power to regulate hours of sale and online deliveries of alcohol
For advertising regulations for alcohol to be "aligned" with those for foods high in fat, salt and sugar
A change to alcohol tax, linking duties to inflation and ending "cider exceptionalism"
More funding and support for local alcohol care teams
The group stresses that "alcohol is not just the problem of a few". It points out that every year alcohol contributes to more than a million hospital admissions. And the experts said that across the UK, 30% of the adult population engage in "risky drinking", and almost one in 25 of all new cancers are estimated to be linked to alcohol.
The 10 Year Plan states: "While many people enjoy a drink in moderation, 4% of people drink as much as 30% of alcohol consumed each year."
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care said: "As we shift from sickness to prevention through our 10-Year Health Plan, we will make it mandatory for alcoholic drinks to display health warnings and nutritional information.
"To improve drug and alcohol treatment services and recovery support in England, the Government has also provided an additional £310 million in 2025/26, on top of the public health grant."
Other signatories on the letter include representatives from: the Institute of Alcohol Studies; Alcohol Change UK; the Royal College of Surgeons of England; the Royal Society for Public Health; the British Society of Gastroenterology; World Cancer Research Fund; the Association of Anaesthetists; the Association of Directors of Public Health; the British Association for the Study of the Liver; the Medical Council on Alcohol and the British Medical Association.
A spokesperson for the Portman Group, which represents the alcohol industry, said: "We share concerns around rising deaths and those who continue to drink to harmful levels. We support further targeted and tailored measures aimed at this group to manage the complex, often interrelated issues underlying harmful consumption and back calls for the further rollout of alcohol care teams."
A nationwide network of local Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups are available to support people worried about their drinking.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Dangerous hidden side effect of Covid infection revealed by new study
Covid may prematurely age blood vessels by around five years, according to a new study, increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. Research published in the European Heart Journal revealed that a Covid infection could accelerate the ageing of blood vessels, particularly in women. Vaccinated individuals show less stiffening in their arteries and stabilised symptoms over time in comparison to those who had not been protected against Covid. Lead researcher Professor Rosa Maria Bruno, from Université Paris Cité, said: "We know that Covid can directly affect blood vessels. We believe that this may result in what we call early vascular ageing, meaning that your blood vessels are older than your chronological age and you are more susceptible to heart disease. 'If that is happening, we need to identify who is at risk at an early stage to prevent heart attacks and strokes." The new study tested nearly 2,500 people from across the world, categorising them based on whether they had Covid and whether they had been hospitalised for it, both in a general ward and in an intensive care unit. Tests were taken six months after an infection and again after 12 months. It measured each person's vascular age with a device that examines how quickly a wave of blood pressure travels between the artery in the neck and the legs. The higher the measurement meant the stiffer the blood vessels, indicating a higher vascular age. It found that all three groups of patients who had a Covid infection had stiffer arteries compared to those who hadn't been affected. The average increase in women was 0.55 meters per second for those who had mild Covid, 0.60 for those who had been hospitalised, and 1.09 for those in intensive care. According to researchers, an increase of around 0.5 meters per second is "clinically relevant" and equivalent to ageing around five years. It also increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, like heart attack, stroke or sudden cardiac arrest, in 60-year-old women by 3 per cent. The difference between men and women could come down to immune systems, Prof Bruno added. She said: 'Women mount a more rapid and robust immune response, which can protect them from infection. However, this same response can also increase damage to blood vessels after the initial infection.' She said the virus acts on specific receptors in the body that are in the lining of the blood vessels. The virus will use these receptors to enter and infect cells. Last month, it was reported that a new strain of Covid had spread across the UK, accounting for the highest proportion of cases - around 30 per cent. Experts warned the Stratus strain was resisting immunity and had a unique symptom of giving people a hoarse voice.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Kill the single state pension age
When William Beveridge designed the welfare state in the 1940s, the state pension age was 65 for men and 60 for women. Life expectancy for a man was around 66, and around 71 for a woman. The pension was not designed to fund decades of leisure: it was a modest provision for the last couple of years of life, one that not everyone would receive. Today, life expectancy for a man aged 66 (the current state pension age) is around 85, and a woman aged 66 can expect to live until she is 88. The average person now spends close to a fifth of their life in retirement. What was once a short post-script has become a major chapter – and an increasingly expensive one. This is the backdrop for the latest statutory review of the state pension age (SPA), led this year by Dr Suzy Morrissey. Her terms of reference are technical: consider sustainability, intergenerational fairness, life expectancy, international practice. Behind the dry language sits a political question no one rushes to answer: when should people stop working, and who pays for the years they do not? You know the script here. Britain is ageing. The ratio of workers to pensioners is shrinking. Every review concludes that the SPA must rise. Every opposition grumbles about the cruelty of doing so. Every government, when in office, quietly nudges the age upwards. Nothing fundamental changes. What almost never gets challenged is the model itself: a single age at which everyone, regardless of class, health or occupation, is deemed equally ready for retirement. This is tidy for Whitehall. It is also daft. The Office for National Statistics reports that male life expectancy for a retirement age man in Surrey is 86 years; in Blackpool, it is 81. Healthy life expectancy – the years lived without major illness – shows still sharper divides. Yet we persist in pretending that the 66-year-old accountant in Guildford and the 66-year-old ex-dockworker in Hull should both cross the same finish line. That is unjust, and unsustainable. It loads the cost of longer-lived, healthier retirees onto taxpayers who may not live long enough to see much retirement at all. Here I can almost hear some readers reaching for outrage about contributions. Shouldn't a person's pension entitlement reflect their national insurance contributions? So a Surrey stockbroker who pays more NI than a Sunderland scaffolder has earned the right to draw the state pension for longer? This takes me to the biggest and most persistent misunderstanding in British politics: the state pension isn't really a pension. It's a benefit. And it's funded not from some pot of money patiently built up from each recipient's contributions, but from the taxes of today's workers. National Insurance is just a tax, and one that long ago lost any hypothecated link to the pension system. That means pension policy cannot be treated as a personal contract between citizen and state. It is a collective transfer between generations. Pretending otherwise, with talk of 'I've paid in, I deserve it back', hides the real choices – about fairness between regions, between classes, and between young and old. Other countries are at least edging away from the one-size-fits-all fiction. Denmark and the Netherlands now link their pension ages directly to life expectancy. Countries including Norway and Portugal offer some scope to offer earlier pensions to those who have done physically demanding work. None has yet built a fully 'variable' pension age, but the recognition is spreading: a uniform pension age does not match demographic reality. Britain should be bolder. One approach is to tie entitlement not to age but to years of contributions, recognising that someone who started work at 18 has done their share by 65, while the graduate entering at 25 has not. Another is to give more flexibility to those in arduous jobs: that Sunderland scaffolder is likely to be physically knackered in a way that his stockbroking compatriot is not. More radical still is to abandon the cliff-edge retirement model altogether. Instead of full-time one day and nothing the next, policy should support tapering – part-time, flexible work in the sixties and seventies, subsidised and encouraged so people can scale down, not drop out. This would help individuals, who gain income and purpose. It helps employers, who retain skills and experience. It helps the state, which saves on pensions and collects more tax. Above all, it acknowledges reality: ageing is a spectrum, not a binary switch from 'young' to 'old'. This is politically difficult, to put it mildly. I am recommending electoral hemlock, because it entails higher pension ages for some (who will be angry) and different treatment for some (ditto). No sane politician attempts major change to the state pension. The fury of the Waspi women still haunts ministers. Even tinkering with winter fuel allowances causes uproar. You'd be mad to do it, minister. But it must still be done. The fiscal maths is brutal. By 2075, pensioners will make up more than a quarter of the adult population. The cost of the state pension is projected to rise from around 5 per cent of GDP today to nearly 8 per cent. Absent reform, the money has to come from somewhere: higher taxes on a shrinking workforce, or cuts to other services. Intergenerational politics are already sour. Younger voters see themselves funding entitlements for older cohorts who enjoyed cheaper houses and more generous occupational pensions. A rigid single SPA deepens that resentment. That is the real political danger: not the fury of today's pensioners, but the alienation of tomorrow's workers who simply refuse to pay for the pensions of others. Dr Morrissey's review is framed as technical, but it is inescapably political. She has licence to say what ministers will not: that one pension age for all is outdated, unfair and unaffordable. A braver politics would seize that truth, and act on it. None of this is easy. None of it is popular. But it is necessary. The single state pension age should end.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Experts discover Covid triggers condition linked to dementia - and one group is most at risk
A new study has revealed that even mild Covid can age your blood vessels by up to five years, increasing your long-term risk of heart disease, strokes and dementia. Known medically as vascular aging, it sees the blood vessels which carry vital oxygen to organs in the body stiffen, and is normal as we get older. But according to the new study, which included 2,390 people from 16 different countries, it is accelerated by the virus. It was particularly acute in women, wrote the French researchers in the findings, published in the European Heart Journal. Previous studies have shown vascular aging to be linked to an increased risk of developing the memory-robbing illness dementia. The latest study also found people who had been vaccinated against Covid generally had arteries that were less stiff than those who were unvaccinated. And for these people, over the long term, the vascular aging seemed to stabilise or improve slightly. On their findings, lead author, Professor Rosa Maria Bruno from Université Paris Cité, said: 'We know that Covid can directly affect blood vessels. 'We believe that this may be a result of vascular aging, meaning your blood vessels are older than your chronological age and you are more susceptible to heart disease. 'If that is happening, we need to identify who is at risk at an early stage to prevent heart attacks and strokes.' They assed vascular age with a device that measures the speed at which a wave of blood pressure travels called a carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV). This is how fast the blood is able to flow from the neck to the legs, and the higher the measurement, the stiffer the blood vessels and higher the vascular age. The researchers took measurements six months after a Covid infection and again after 12 months. They found the average increase in PWV in women with it mildly was 0.55 meters per second, 0.60 in women hospitalized, and 1.09 for women treated in intensive care. In a 60-year-old woman, an increase in 0.5 meters per second was considered 'clinically relevant' as it is equal to five years of aging, and raises risk of heart disease. Professor Bruno said there are 'several possible explanations' for why the virus accelerates this vascular aging. But she added, it is likely due to the way in which the virus is able to infect cells due to something called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors. The virus's interaction with these receptors in the lining of blood vessels, she said 'may result in vascular dysfunction and accelerated vascular aging'. However, it may also be a result of 'our body's inflammation and immune responses, which defend against infections', she added On the increased aging in women, she said: 'One of the main differences between women and men could be differences in the function of the immune system. 'Women mount a more rapid and robust immune response, which can protect them from an infection.' Fortunately, she added, vascular aging can be addressed with lifestyle changes, as well as drugs to lower blood pressure and cholesterol. The team will continue to follow the participants over the following years to determine if accelerated vascular aging leads to increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. In a recent editorial on the findings, Dr Behnood Bikdeli from Harvard Medical School said: 'Although the acute threat of the Covid-19 pandemic has waned, a new challenge emerged in its aftermath.' This is, he explained, post-acute Covid-19 syndrome—defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as symptoms that last at least two months post-infection. He continued: 'The question is whether we can find modifiable targets to prevent this in future surges of infection.' He also added that the findings could pave the way for finding ways to help people with symptoms of Covid-induced vascular aging.
