Diageo: Irresponsible for being responsible?

As an industry, we are always being told we should take more responsibility for the consequences of the product we sell.

Changes in the Licensing Act and an introduction of the Mandatory Code all work to tighten legislation on what we, the on-trade, can and can't do when selling alcohol.

So it shouldn't surprise me, yet sort of does, that Diageo's involvement in funding training for midwives to educate expectant mothers on the health risks of drinking alcohol during pregnancy has brought about the wrath of groups including the British Medical Association and Alcohol Concern, up in arms that a drinks company should have the audacity to support their own claims that drinking while pregnant could have potential health ramifications for the unborn child.

It's as if the health groups refuse to believe that the drinks industry might actually have good intentions at heart.

There are obvious and understandable concerns over an industry giant like Diageo bank rolling a government scheme such as the 'responsibility deal', but without the financial clout offered by big business the chances are such initiatives would never get off the ground.

After all, in these austere times where else is the government going to get the money to do such a thing?

And if that means that Diageo get a bit of good publicity and their name in the newspaper, then so be it.

Newsflash: my mum smoked and drank and worked in a garage serving four-star petrol while she was pregnant with me and, whilst I wouldn't condone such actions in Twenty First Century Britain, and ignoring the fact that some people think I'm bonkers for liking Brulines, I've turned out okay.

Today we are far more health aware than we ever were nearly forty years ago yet health lobbyists brand the move to fund the National Organisation on Foetal Alcohol Syndrome a diversion and critics slam the government for getting in to bed with a corporation who, according to Don Shenker of Alcohol Concern in this weekend's Independent, can then become unaccountable for the risks that their product carries.

How, I wonder, can financing the training of more than 10,000 midwives on the health risks of alcohol in any way absolve them of their responsibilities when it comes to the sale of their product to the general public? Are the midwives all going to be made to wear uniforms with a Smirnoff logo?

I doubt it, and I'm willing to bet an expectant woman isn't, after her first meeting with her midwife, going to say: "ooh, look, my bun in the oven is sponsored by Guinness, let's go have a few pints," either.

Professor Ian Gilmore, of the Royal College of Physicians, states that the only way to truly make a difference and get the message about the evils of alcohol out there is to ramp up the price of booze and take tougher action on where it's made available.

No. All that will do is punish the majority of sensible, every day folk who enjoy a drink, force more small pub businesses and landlords in to administration and hand over control of the sale of alcohol to supermarkets. And for that, the big alcohol companies truly can't be held accountable...

Diageo's involvement ultimately ensures that the correct education will be given, that jobs will be secured, that children will be safe and healthy and it shows that the drinks industry wants to survive and operate in the safe and responsible manner in which we are being told we should.

That, I think, should be applauded.

Mark Daniels is the licensee at the Tharp Arms in Chippenham, Cambridgeshire​