The difference between a pint and three-fourths of a pint, as any committed pub-goer in the UK will affirm, is no small beer. Which is why the idea of reducing the most popular British serving size for ales, as suggested by a Cambridge University study, has drawn sharp responses. For the scientists behind the study, the benefits of a smaller serving of beer are clear: Less alcohol consumed means less harm done to the body, leading to better public health outcomes in a country that has 546 words for drunkenness. But for those who look forward to getting stewed at their friendly local at the end of a long day, the idea undermines a hallowed tradition that goes all the way back to 1698 when the imperial pint was set at 568 ml.
The minority that supports this proposal believes that portion control would not be noticeable when it comes to alcohol. This is because, the Cambridge University study points out, most people think in terms of the number of servings rather than their size — a psychological quirk of the average consumer that lies at the heart of the strategy of shrinkflation, whereby companies shrink their products while steadily raising prices.
Should people be tricked into better drinking habits? While the goal of improving the health of the populace is laudable, the issue of mandating serving sizes is cloudier. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has stated that the government has no intention of being the “fun police” — and there’s no reason why they should be, given all the other avenues, including educational content and public health campaigns, through which the state can do its duty by citizens. In a time of rising prices and sea levels, the average Joe and Jane have enough on their minds. The last thing they need is a government-sized fly in their beer.
