The author reports on changes in public attitudes toward alcohol control policies in the U.S. since the implementation of warning labels on alcoholic beverage containers, using general population survey data collected six months before and 18 months after implementation. Of the 13 policies assessed, only the warning label elicited sustained support in the intervening two years. Persons who reported seeing the label on a beverage container were twice as likely as others to support the warning label policy. More than half of the respondents believed warning labels are an effective way to change people's behavior, though supporters are split on the question of whether the label signals that alcohol is a dangerous product. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advocacy Institute (1992), Information Alert.Washington, DC: Advocacy Institute.
2.
Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 (1988), Public Law No. 100-690, 27 USC 201-211 (November 18).
3.
BlockerJack (1976), Retreat From Reform: The Prohibition Movement in the United States 1890-1913.Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
4.
CameronT. (1981), “Alcohol and Alcohol Problems: Public Opinion in California, 1974-1980,” unpublished report. Berkeley, CA: Alcohol Research Group.
5.
ConversePhilip (1987), “Public Opinion in the Political Process,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(4, Part 2), S12–S24.
6.
CrawfordRobert (1980), “Healthism and the Medicalization of Everyday Life,”International Journal of Health Services, 10(3), 365–88.
7.
deLintJan, and SchmidtWolfgang (1971), “Consumption Averages and Alcoholism Prevalence: A Brief Review of Epidemiological Investigations,”British Journal of Addiction, 66(2), 97–107.
8.
ElianyMarc, GiesbrechtNorman, NelsonMike, WellmanBarry, and WortleyScott, eds. (1990), National Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey: Highlights Report.Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare, Canada.
9.
Federal Trade Commission (1981), Staff Report on the Cigarette Advertising Investigation.Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.
10.
FreyJames H. (1989), Survey Research by Telephone.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
GiesbrechtNorman, and GreenfieldThomas (1991), “Opinions of Alcohol Policy Issues: A Comparison of American and Canadian Surveys,” paper presented at 36th International Institute on the Prevention and Treatment of Alcoholism, Stockholm, Sweden (June 2-7).
13.
GordisEnoch (1991), “From Science to Social Policy: An Uncertain Road,”Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52(2), 101–9.
14.
GravesKaren (1992), “An Evaluation of the Alcohol Warning Label: A Comparison of the United States and Ontario, Canada Between 1990 and 1991,” paper presented at the Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium, Kettil Bruun Society for Social and Epidemiological Research on Alcohol, Toronto, Canada (June).
15.
GreenfieldThomas, HudesEsther, and KrótkeKarol (1992), “Practical Sampling Design Issues in National Alcohol Surveys,” paper presented at Alcohol Epidemiology Symposium, Kettil Bruun Society for Social and Epidemiological Research on Alcohol, Toronto, Canada (June).
16.
HiltonMichael (1989), “A Comparison of a Prospective Diary and Two Summary Recall Techniques for Recording Alcohol Consumption,”British Journal of Addiction, 84(9), 1085–92.
17.
HiltonMichael, and KaskutasLee (1991), “Public Support for Warning Labels on Alcoholic Beverage Containers,”British Journal of Addiction, 86(10), 1323–33.
18.
HomelRoss, CarseldineDon, and KearnsIan (1988), “Drink-Driving Countermeasures in Australia,”Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 4(2), 113–44.
19.
KaskutasLee, and GreenfieldTom (1991), “Knowledge of Warning Labels on Alcoholic Beverage Containers,”Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, Vol. 1, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 441–5.
20.
KishLeslie (1965), Survey Sampling.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21.
MäkeläKlaus, RoomRobin, SingleEric, SulkunenPekka, and WalshBrendan (1981), in Alcohol, Society, and the State.Toronto, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation.
22.
RoomRobin (1990), “Thinking About Alcohol Controls,” in Controversies in the Addictions Field, Vol. 1, EngsRuth, ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall and Hunt, 68–75.
23.
RoomRobin, GravesKaren, GiesbrechtNorman, and GreenfieldThomas (1992), “Trends in Public Opinion About Alcohol Policy Initiatives in Ontario and the US, 1989-1991,” paper presented at Alcohol Policy Section meetings, 36th International Congress on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, International Council on Alcohol and Addictions, Glasgow, Scotland (August).
24.
SchmidT. L., JeffreyR. R., ForsterJ. L., RooneyB., KleppK. I., and McBrideC. (1990), “Public Impressions of Policy Initiatives Regulating Alcohol Use in Minnesota: A Multi-Community Survey,”Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51(5), 438–42.
25.
SmithElizabeth, GershonNicole, and KaskutasLee Ann (1992), “Revise and Dissent: The Controversy Over Warning Labels on Alcoholic Beverages,” submitted for publication. Berkeley, CA: Alcohol Research Group.
26.
SmithTed J., and Michael HoganM. (1987), “Public Opinion and the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 51(1), 5–30.
27.
Survey Design and Analysis, Inc. (1989), Alcohol Warning Label Study: Technical Report.Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Design and Analysis, Inc.
28.
Survey Design and Analysis, Inc. (1991), Alcohol Warning Label Study: Technical Report.Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Design and Analysis, Inc.
29.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (1979), Report on Consumer Health Warnings for Alcoholic Beverages and Related Issues…prepared by the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, Report, 96th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1987), Review of the Research Literature on the Effect of Health Warning Labels: A Report to the United States Congress.Silver Spring, MD: Macro Systems, Inc.
