Selling Alcohol in Grocery Stores: Hidden Risks and Alternative Options

This post originally appeared on the CAMH blog. While this blog is from Ontario, many of the points are relevant here in BC, now that alcohol sales will soon be permitted in select grocery stores.

In the last few days we have heard about plans to permit the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores in Ontario. For the most part, media reports have made no reference to potential health and safety risks associated with the proposed changes. You would have thought that the reporters were talking about changing the distribution of milk or orange juice in Ontario. What about the possible increase in alcohol-related incidents or negative impact on vulnerable populations — is that not relevant to the discussion?

Alcohol is a drug with a long list of well demonstrated harms associated with its use. How it is sold, marketed and priced impacts the rate of alcohol-related problems. International research over many decades has shown repeatedly that if more alcohol is sold and appropriate checks are not in place, then more harm can be expected. These harms include a range of health and social problems impacting not only the drinker, but others in society. They contribute to the already high costs of alcohol-related hospital care (chronic and emergency), criminal justice responses, and productivity losses.

Currently in Ontario there are about 1,800 places where alcohol can be purchased to be consumed elsewhere, so-called ‘off premise’ outlets. This includes LCBO regular stores, LCBO Agency Stores, Ontario Winery, Beer Stores and a few others. According to media reports, the contemplated changes would add about 400 new outlets – 100 new Agency stores and 300 large grocery stores that would sell beer and wine. This is a 22% increase in outlet density.

Canadian and international research has indicated that an increase in alcohol outlet density is associated with a wide range of acute and chronic problems. While there are many international examples to support this conclusion, a recent one from British Columbia is timely: researchers found that after an increase in private liquor stores (higher density) there was an increase in liver cirrhosis cases.

Once 300 grocery stores have a green light, will not the thousand or so others also lobby for the same access? What about convenience stores? We know from the examples of Alberta and BC that privatization of alcohol sales can result in more relaxed enforcement of laws pertaining to underage purchases – as well as higher mortality rates from suicide and other alcohol-related causes. The proposed plan is a very risky one. An alternative strategy should be developed in consultation with public health experts.

The challenges of eliminating Ontario’s deficit are likely substantial and will require innovative approaches and exemplary decision-making. As the provincial government attempts to raise revenues and “modernize” the sale of alcohol, it should focus on strategies that can achieve that aim without increasing the risk of alcohol-related harm. Possibilities include:

  • Minimum prices on alcohol could be raised
  • Product prices could be based on alcohol content, and taxation protocols could be adjusted, so that there is an incentive for production and consumption of lower-strength beverages
  • Marketing expenditures by the LCBO could be reduced
  • Further efficiencies can be introduced to the LCBO, such as using its buying power to get better prices from manufacturers and wholesalers

The course being discussed by decision-makers, in its current form, seems certain to contribute to an increase in alcohol-related harm and costs. We should encourage decision-makers to choose instead a course that fosters greater public awareness of alcohol-related risks and encourages the reduction of those risks. The health of Ontarians should come first.

Author: Dr. Norman Giesbrecht, Senior Scientist Emeritus, Public Health and Regulatory Policy Section

*Please note that the material presented here does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement by individuals at the Centre for Addictions Research of BC.

Evidence-based planning of alcohol and other drug treatment services in BC: A collaborative effort between CARBC and the Ministry of Health

A map of BC's Health Service Delivery areas

As researchers, our ultimate goal is to provide evidence-based information that will go on to inform policy and practice. Recently, we were lucky enough to have the opportunity to do just that.

For 18 months, the Centre for Addictions Research of BC (CARBC) has been collaborating on a project with the BC Ministry of Health. The Ministry’s initiative was to create 500 substance-use treatment spaces throughout the province; however, they wanted to know where these spaces would be best utilized. Would it be in the more Northern communities where substance-use treatment is scarcer? Or would it be in more busy urban areas where demand for these services is higher? These were some questions that a small team here at CARBC, alongside some key individuals within the Ministry, sought to answer.

From a health service delivery perspective, British Columbia is divided geographically into health authorities (HAs), health service delivery areas (HSDAs), and local health areas (LHAs). This is a nested structure where the 89 LHAs nest within the 16 HSDAs, which in turn nest within the five larger HAs.

We set forth to replicate a needs-based planning model developed by Brian Rush and colleagues (2014). This model applies a number of different parameter estimates based on substance-use issues reported by population survey data. The estimates were derived from an extensive literature review as well as input from a national review of experts. For example, in tier 4 (i.e., specialized care functions targeted to people assessed/diagnosed as in need of more intensive or specialized care), Rush’s model estimates that 60% of the help-seeking population will require withdrawal management services.

Further subdividing withdrawal services into three specialized types the model estimates that 36.8% of those people will require home-based/mobile treatment, 52.6% will require community/residential treatment, and 10.5% will require complexity-enhanced/hospital-based treatment. We created population estimates from aggregated 2009/2010 results of the Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Survey (CADUMS), a national telephone-based survey that has been ongoing since 2008,  for each of the five tiers or levels of substance issue needs, stratified by problem severity. The parameter estimates were applied and the number of individuals 15 and older in each Health Authority (i.e., Interior, Fraser, Northern, Vancouver Coastal, and Vancouver Island) requiring specialized services and supports (e.g., withdrawal management services, community services and supports or residential services and supports) was calculated.

The aforementioned collaborative project resulted in a report for the health authority representatives. The estimated number of in-need services was then compared to current capacity to create a gap analysis. This gap analysis is being used to explore opportunities to re-allocate resources to better match need-based planning.

This collaborative project between CARBC and the Ministry of Health provided evidence-based research to inform British Columbia’s future substance use treatment planning. This project also helped foster a long-term working relationship with Ministry of Health and Health Authority staff that will continue to build on the experiences and lessons learned from this successful collaboration.

Authors:

Chantele Joordens #3a Scot Macdonald

Chantele Joordens and Scott Macdonald, Centre for Addictions Research of BC

Joanne MacMillan, Ministry of Health

*Please note that the material presented here does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement by individuals at the Centre for Addictions Research of BC