TY - JOUR
T1 - Health, alcohol and EU law
T2 - Understanding the impact of European single market law on alcohol policies
AU - Baumberg, Ben
AU - Anderson, Peter
N1 - Funding Information:
This article presents a more detailed perspective on research more simply summarised in Chapter 8 of the report Alcohol in Europe: a Public Health Perspective,25 which was commissioned by the European Commission to summarise the evidence base on alcohol in Europe for the alcohol strategy of 2006. Many thanks also to the Institute of Alcohol Studies for allowing B.B. the time to develop and update the ideas in this article, and particularly to Phil McComish for some valuable comments. The preliminary work for this study was funded by the European Commission, who gave a grant for the commissioned report above. Funding to B.B. for further analysis, updating and re-was provided by the Institute of Alcohol Studies.
Funding Information:
Conflicts of interest: Ben Baumberg was paid during this project by the Institute of Alcohol Studies, who are primarily funded by the Alliance House Foundation (formerly the UK Temperance Alliance). Full details of the Institute’s operation and funding are available from www.ias.org.uk/aboutus/who_ we_are.html. Peter Anderson is a consultant paid by a number of governmental organisations and European Commission co-financed projects. Until 2006, he was a policy advisor to Eurocare (the European Alcohol Policy Alliance), an NGO which included amongst its members some country based organisations with a temperance background. Both authors are writing in a personal capacity, and the views expressed in this article should not be interpreted as the official position of either the Institute of Alcohol Studies or Eurocare.
PY - 2008/8
Y1 - 2008/8
N2 - Background: many professionals in the alcohol field see the role of the the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as negative for health. This review examines ECJ and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) case law in the context of two broader debates: firstly the extension of European Union (EU) law into alcohol policy (the 'juridification' of alcohol policy), and secondly the extent to which alcohol policy is an example of the dominance of 'negative integration' (the removal of trade-distorting policy) over 'positive integration' (the creation of European alcohol policies). Methods: a comprehensive review of all ECJ/EFTA Court cases on alcohol, with interpretation aided by a secondary review on alcohol and EU law and the broader health and trade field. Results: from looking at taxation, minimum pricing, advertising and monopoly policies, the extension of the scope of the these courts over alcohol policy is unquestionable. However, the ECJ and EFTA Court have been prepared to prioritise health over trade concerns when considering alcohol policies, providing certain conditions have been met. Conclusion: while a partial juridification of alcohol policy has led to the negative integration of alcohol policies, this effect is not as strong as sometimes thought; EU law is more health friendly than it is perceived to be, and its impact on levels of alcohol-related harm appears low. Nevertheless, lessons emerge for policymakers concerned about the legality of alcohol policies under EU law. More generally, those concerned with alcohol and health should pay close attention to developments in EU law given their importance for public health policy on alcohol.
AB - Background: many professionals in the alcohol field see the role of the the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as negative for health. This review examines ECJ and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) case law in the context of two broader debates: firstly the extension of European Union (EU) law into alcohol policy (the 'juridification' of alcohol policy), and secondly the extent to which alcohol policy is an example of the dominance of 'negative integration' (the removal of trade-distorting policy) over 'positive integration' (the creation of European alcohol policies). Methods: a comprehensive review of all ECJ/EFTA Court cases on alcohol, with interpretation aided by a secondary review on alcohol and EU law and the broader health and trade field. Results: from looking at taxation, minimum pricing, advertising and monopoly policies, the extension of the scope of the these courts over alcohol policy is unquestionable. However, the ECJ and EFTA Court have been prepared to prioritise health over trade concerns when considering alcohol policies, providing certain conditions have been met. Conclusion: while a partial juridification of alcohol policy has led to the negative integration of alcohol policies, this effect is not as strong as sometimes thought; EU law is more health friendly than it is perceived to be, and its impact on levels of alcohol-related harm appears low. Nevertheless, lessons emerge for policymakers concerned about the legality of alcohol policies under EU law. More generally, those concerned with alcohol and health should pay close attention to developments in EU law given their importance for public health policy on alcohol.
KW - Alcohol policy
KW - EU law
KW - Juridification
KW - Negative integration
KW - Trade agreements
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=48149109460&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/eurpub/ckn026
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckn026
M3 - Article
C2 - 18467360
AN - SCOPUS:48149109460
SN - 1101-1262
VL - 18
SP - 392
EP - 398
JO - European journal of public health
JF - European journal of public health
IS - 4
ER -
