Censorship of Alcoholic Beverages

Definition: Fermented and distilled liquors containing ethanol, a behavior-altering drug when consumed

Significance: Portrayals of alcohol in the media present conflicts between expression protected by the Constitution and the need to decrease the health problems associated with alcohol use

Alcohol use is a part of human culture. It provides relaxation and pleasure when consumed prudently, and even has medicinal uses. As a commodity, alcohol also provides numerous jobs, ranging from production and bottling, to promotion, transport, and sales. In essence, it composes a huge industry affecting many through the consumption of its products and the size of the workforce it employs.

Alcohol also brings costs to society. In 1980 a survey of Americans found 60 percent reporting alcohol to be one of the most harmful influences on family life. Car accidents, traffic fatalities, firearm injuries, decreased work performance, crime, violence, alcoholism, miscellaneous accidental deaths and injuries, and other mental and physical health problems all have been linked to problematic alcohol use. In 1985 in the United States alone, a conservative estimate of the public and private costs of alcohol-related problems was fourteen billion dollars.

According to a July 2015 Gallup poll, 32 percent of US respondents reported that drinking had been a cause of trouble in their family. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2014 that excessive alcohol consumption cost the United States $223.5 billion in 2006, and that about 75 percent of these costs were associated with binge drinking.

Controlling Alcohol Consumption

Given such problems, it is no surprise that controls for alcohol use have been receiving increased attention. Stricter public drunkenness laws, harsher penalties for those driving while intoxicated, and new responsible server laws are some examples of legislative actions to punish overconsumption and control drinking. Public health prevention efforts also have focused on increasing drinking ages, establishing added “sin taxes” on alcoholic beverage purchases, and creating tighter restrictions on the proximity between schools and alcohol distribution outlets. Finally, business owners have contributed to control efforts by increasing alcohol- and drug testing in the workplace.

Portrayals of Alcohol Consumption

Since the mid-1980s, there also has been a growing interest in regulating alcohol advertising and portrayals of alcohol in the media. Critics argue that such alcoholic beverage advertising targets younger individuals and thereby promotes underage drinking. Research suggesting relationships between exposure to alcohol-related advertising and later drinking in teenagers and young adults has reinforced such critiques. Knowledge about how individuals learn social behavior via observation has served to encourage consumers to exert more pressure on advertisers. Protests and boycotts by consumers against advertising using youthful performers, along with demands for the promotion of healthy role models on television and in other popular media have been common. Combined with campaigns to raise awareness about drinking problems, such as those sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving in the 1980s, it is no surprise that a 1989 Roper poll showed 56 percent of adult Americans were in favor of alcohol advertisements’ being banned. Similarly, a 1991 Roper poll showed that 33 percent of Americans thought that the alcohol industry should do more to address drunk driving. Such poll results demonstrate the public’s perception that alcohol advertising should address the risks of alcohol consumption.

Concurrent to this shift in public opinion, alcohol advertisers began a different approach to marketing. Encouragement of moderate alcohol consumption, responsible drinking, designated driver programs, and the use of responsible servers all became the topics of advertising. No formal censorship was instated; rather, the alcohol industry responded to public concerns. Some critics argued, however, that these advertisements were not enough because they did not suggest abstinence as an option and thus were still promoting drinking. The efforts of US vintners to initiate a campaign promoting their products following a 1991 broadcast on noted television news show 60 Minutes on the benefits of red wine provide one example. In this case, despite a televised report indicating that moderate alcohol use might be related to beneficial health effects, advertisement promoting the curative or therapeutic effects of alcohol were forbidden by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The vintners, some organized as a group called Wine First, as well as others, were confused by the ATF prohibition. Reports are that some felt they had been subject to censorship in that their rights to advertise were restricted. As of 1995, however, there was a lack of consensus among experts regarding the costs and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption on health. Thus, the issue of whether or not the ATF committed an act of unconstitutional censorship remained debatable, as the truth behind the advertising remains, to an extent, unknown.

Contrastingly, the Alcoholic Beverages Labeling Act passed by the US Congress in 1988 required alcohol containers to carry warning labels. Based on evidence suggesting that such labels might promote reductions in drinking and that counteradvertising might be more effective and feasible than an outright advertising ban, warning labels entered the national spotlight as a suitable intervention. The labels indicate that alcohol may cause health problems and that pregnant women and those operating machinery or driving should be aware that drinking poses special risks. The effectiveness of such labels to decrease birth defects, drunk driving, or machine-related accidents, however, has not been certified. Further, there has been controversy over whether the labels do more to protect the public or the alcohol industry. In short, the presence of a warning label effectively releases the producer from many liabilities related to the effects of the product on the consumer. Some opponents of the labels might argue that the labels have harmed industry sales, others have suggested that the labels have provided protection against lawsuits.

According to a study published in the journal Pediatrics in 2015, researchers conducting a longitudinal study in the United Kingdom found a circumstantial correlation between the amount of alcohol-related problems subjects had and the amount of drinking they had seen in films. The subjects of the study were 5,163 fifteen-year-olds from England who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, which has been tracking them since birth. Those who had watched the most minutes (64 minutes) of drinking on film were twice as likely to have alcohol related problems as those who watched the least minutes (28 minutes). The authors of the study argue that their results show that films depicting drinking should receive an R rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and a similar rating from the British Board of Film Classification. While depictions of smoking have been taken into consideration in the MPAA’s rating system since 2007, as of 2013 depictions of drinking are not considered.

Alcohol Industry Perspective

In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionally protected truthful commercial speech or advertising. Critics argue that products with harmful effects should not be given the same protection as benign or healthful products. In contrast, alcohol industry officials feel that their products should not be singled out for exclusion, as nearly any product can be used to ill effects. The alcohol industry, officials argue, has a product that is legal to sell and so they should be permitted to advertise it. In addition, some feel that an outright ban on advertising would be harmful to consumers by depriving them of important information about such products and their appropriate use.

The Need for Balance

The destructive aspects of censorship must be kept in mind. At an extreme, efforts to control the portrayal of alcohol in the media can be puritanical. In 1990, for example, two California school districts banned an edition of Little Red Riding Hood; the book had an illustration showing a bottle of red wine in Red Riding Hood’s basket. This caused the book to be deemed inappropriate for minors. It has been argued that such censorship is counterproductive: Frank and open discussion dispels the attractive aura of taboo that surrounds censored materials.

There are trade-offs between protecting the public good and the dangers of censorship. As these trade-offs come to be better understood, it is important that caution be exercised regarding censorship of alcohol in the media. Censorship against may create dangerous precedents.

Bibliography

Classification and Rating Administration (CARA). “Why: History of Ratings.” FilmRatings.com. MPAA, 1986–2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

Dorn, Nicholas, and Nigel South. Message in a Bottle: Theoretical Overview and Annotated Bibliography on the Mass Media and Alcohol. Aldershot: Gower, 1983. Print.

Hyman, Trina Schart. Little Red Riding Hood. New York: Holiday, 1983. Print.

Kaplan, Karen. “To Fight Teen Drinking, Experts Call for Stricter Movie Ratings.” Los Angeles Times. Tribune Publishing, 13 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

Kaplar, Richard T., ed. Bad Prescription for the First Amendment: FDA Censorship of Drug Advertising and Promotion. Washington, DC: Media Inst., 1993. Print.

Summers, Marcia J., et al. Our Chemical Culture. Cambridge: Schenkman, 1982. Print.

United States. Natl. Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. “Excessive Drinking Costs U.S. $233.5 Billion.” CDC.gov. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 17 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

Weil, Andrew, and Winifred Rosen. From Chocolate to Morphine. Boston: Houghton, 1993. Print.