Dry January, the challenge of going without alcohol for a month, is proving to be more popular than ever sign up. Alcohol Change, the charity responsible for the campaign, hopes that people will reflect on their relationship with drink and go on to reduce their consumption beyond this month.
But despite Dry January having run for more than a decade, there has been little independent of its effectiveness. For example, we don’t know what when people reach the end of January: do they continue to reduce the amount of alcohol they use? My concern is that having abstained for a month they might think they have done their bit and return to drinking as usual.
Evaluating the outcomes of a campaign like this is more than it seems. One problem is that when people make changes to one aspect of their life, it can often be accompanied by changes to other aspects, such as diet or exercise. So, it can be difficult to say that any benefits are down to one thing.
Advertisement
Another problem is that not everyone succeeds in abstaining for the month. For those that don’t, this could lead to self-doubt and feelings of failure, and in turn they might think why bother or see it as something they can’t do. This loss of confidence might be misplaced, as we that it can take several attempts to change a habit, be it drinking or smoking.
There are also people for whom it could be fatal to participate in Dry January – those who are on alcohol. Abruptly stopping drinking could be life threatening or, at best, uncomfortable for them. Instead, they need specialist support for any attempt to reduce their alcohol consumption, to reduce risks to physical and mental health. (Alcohol Change does also work on more focused programmes to deal with serious alcohol abuse.)
In the main, Dry January is attractive to those who already drink small quantities of alcohol on a regular basis. For them, it is a relatively easy challenge as it doesn’t make much of a difference to their lives; they can already take it or leave it.
More broadly, there has been an increasing on the role of personal responsibility by a number of and agencies, including the alcohol industry, promoting this in relation to lifestyle activities such as drinking alcohol. The idea that the individual is culpable is a convenient for the alcohol industry, as it effectively absolves producers of responsibility. Understandably it is something the industry promotes vigorously, blaming individuals for lacking control and making poor decisions. This distracts attention from the way it markets its products and lobbies governments to ensure its products face minimal restriction in availability and aren’t taxed further.
There is little doubt that the alcohol industry has been in promoting its product and policy-makers to protect it from tighter regulation across the world. In some ways Dry January plays into its strategy of deflecting responsibility and placing blame on the individual. To counter this and the growing harms that alcohol is causing to health, we need a coordinated approach from governments across the world. So far there appears to be little in the way of a global strategy to meet this challenge.
While Dry January might be an opportunity for some to reduce their alcohol consumption, many of these people already drink moderately. So the Dry January campaign risks distracting attention from those who need specialist help, but often struggle to access it in a timely manner.
Even for those not at high risk of harm, it could be argued that abstaining on a regular basis rather than just for a month would be beneficial. Some public health bodies going without alcohol for at least two days every week. So rather than going alcohol free for a month, why not try abstaining for a couple of days every week throughout the year? That could be a more attractive and achievable challenge.
Ian Hamilton is an associate professor in addiction at the University of York, UK.
