Self-supporting thinking and drinking 9 November 2007

Beyond banning the papsak, how devoted is ‘the industry’ to combatting alcoholism? wonders Tim James in his latest Noseweek article

They’ve banned the papsak, that floppy foil bag full of the dregs of wine tanks, sold cheaply to the poorer stratum of those with a serious alcohol problem.The emblem of the wine industry’s (and society’s) failure to grapple with the endemic alcoholism that the infamous dop system entrenched in the winelands is now doomed.

The trouble is that they (national government which did the banning, industry leaders who urged it) seem to think that they’ve thereby solved the problem. Johan van Rooyen, chief executive of the SA Wine Industry Council exults that the “‘papsak’ culture can now once and for all be eradicated” – neatly eliding banning the papsak and banning the culture which took the papsak to its heart (and brain, womb and liver).

For Dr van Rooyen it is, apparently, certain types of container which “led to alcohol abuse and social disintegration – especially among low income and rural communities”. This allows for a splendidly easy solution to what troublemakers take more seriously: just get rid of the containers! Presumably the reasoning (can we call it that?) is that the alcohol-ravaged sots, frustrated in their desire to buy wine in papsaks, will recoil horrified from the now-mandatory “self-supporting containers” and turn to (unfermented) fruit juice. A self-supporting container, by the way, is elegantly described as one “which retains its original or assembled shape irrespective of whether it is filled or empty”. Self-supporting thinking does much the same.

The wine industry claims to be committed to “combating alcohol abuse” and Dr van Rooyen sulkily complains that it’s a commitment for which they “have not been receiving the recognition we deserve”. Perhaps he’s thinking of (amongst many reproaches that the industry is doing nowhere near enough to respond to the appalling situation it helped bring about) the noises currently being made by the Black Association of the Wine and Spirits Industry. Bawsi is threatening to bring legal action against the government and the industry over the issue, and demands, amongst other things, a fund to deal with endemic alcoholism. In terms of action and money at present, industry commitment is not exactly obvious; private charities and NGOs unquestionably do more.

Interestingly the Wine Council has not been forthcoming on the related matter of health warnings on liquor labels. One might have thought that they would leap at the idea of another easy, cheap and essentially meaningless response to a grave social problem – one that tends to interpret it as an individualistic problem (just say no!). After all, if dronkies aren’t deterred by self-supporting containers, perhaps they’ll take heed of a stern admonition about the dangers of drinking and driving.

The Department of Health did indeed recently publish regulations to compel alcoholic drinks to carry health warnings within 18 months. But at this point the wine industry’s burning commitment seemed to flag. No smugly supportive congratulations from Dr van Rooyen (or the chair of the Wine Council, one Kader Asmal). Instead, rumours abound that Distell (amongst other big players, as these powerful monsters like to call themselves) is furious, and determined to thwart the regulations.

Just a day or two after the Health Department’s announcement, another important industry body, the Wine and Spirit Board, advised producers not to comply with the regulations as yet – they might never come into force, it suggests, at least not in this form. How interesting that this statutory body should be blatantly undermining government’s intentions (I wonder what Professor Asmal thinks of that). The communiqué blandly adds that the Board has heard that “the industry is to solicit a formal opinion regarding the said regulations”.

Given that what the Board usually seems to hear and pay attention to is the wishes of wine big business (the Distell-KWV axis primarily), presumably this is what it means by “the industry” that is sending forth its lawyers into battle with government. Although it must be pointed out that publicly Distell has been as grimly silent about it all as the Wine Council. Oh dear, just as we were starting to rejoice about how keen everyone is to do something about alcohol abuse, we must wonder why they don’t want to warn mums-to-be not to drink too deeply from their self-supporting containers.

• This article first appeared in Noseweek, 'South Africa's unique investigative magazine'