Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The government is trying to let people know more about how many units they are drinking and how many they should be. My feeling is that Brits have a bad relationship with booze and we are in denial about how much we are dependent on it and how much we pretend we are not.

My friend Kerry was a binge drinker and would drink to excess on most occasions. She hasn't had a drop for two years nearly now and, looking back, she realises just how addicted she was and how oblivious she was to that need at the time.

It's got me thinking, and when I read about the Black Cherry and its blow-ins and how people go out to get drunk has really made me question why I drink. I also look back at my excessive drinking and really wish I hadn't done it.

So, I reckon I am alcohol dependent to a certain degree - I associate booze with certain times of the day, special occasions, etc, and would feel odd if I didn't have a drink at those times. I've gone on the wagon for up to three months several times and admit that I thought about what I was missing even though I didn't feel a need to have a drink.

How about you lot?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/
Share on other sites

I drink wine daily with my meal - and have a couple of drinks in the pub over the weekend. Government guidelines would probably indicate that I 'binge' on a regular basis and have a alcohol dependency. I on the other hand think that I enjoy the finer things in life, as I don't get drunk or suffer hangovers except on very rare occasions.


I enjoy wine, and would feel my life would be a sadder and emptier place without it - does that make me an alcoholic?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104899
Share on other sites

Yes, mildly dependent for getting on for 2 decades now. Have occasionally managed a few weeks off, and am trying (largely unsuccessfully) to cut mid week alcohol out completely.


Agree that booze is culturally ingrained in this country, meeting people - pubs, pubs - drink. special occasion - drink etc.

Have entertained serious thoughts about knocking it on the head for a year, just to see if I can, but so many special occasions....

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104900
Share on other sites

I enjoy wine too, but I don't really, truly love it and don't know that much about it. So, very often, I drink it just because it's there and I can. That, to me, is akin to eating indifferent food just because it is there. I love champagne and certain white and red wines, but most of the time I don't know what I'm drinking and whether I really like it.

Right now, I look forward to a good G and T after 6 (good to me means the one that I like, not the one that Wallpaper* tells me to drink) with a decent tonic. Even as I write this, I feel an excitement, a kind of mini-rush. That to me suggests some kind of very strong attraction, but I get that with fish and chips, a good curry, bacon barmcakes, in fact, anything I really like.

The thing is, I'm pretty black and white most of the time, but the booze questions - are we addicted, why do we do it, does it really have that much of a bad effect on our health - leave me with many grey areas.

But I do feel sad when so much of Brits' free time is spent in a pub or elsewhere, drinking. It's so predictable and hackneyed.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104902
Share on other sites

Agree with you on most of those points Nero.


What I really want to do is cut out forthesakeofitbooze. Like draught lager 90% of which is shit. (a good bottle of truly nice crisp (usually Asian) beer on a hot day however = marvellous), house wine in a pub etc


But a decent drink in a good place is something to marvel at. If you like G&T go to Bedford & Strand and get them to make you one, I prefer them pretty dry, but they made a wet one with very good quality gin and tonic, and it was soooooo good.


And yes, that first drink on a friday does help iron out the creases of a bad week. There are, I'm sure, better ways to do it, but I lack the imagination.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104906
Share on other sites

Having a child worked for me. 11 months off the booze and then a few months of light, once a week drinking. I felt like a different person. Although, I work in the wine industry - so temptation is high and self restraint is low. Also - I get my wine really cheap from work.


It is my job and I work in the industry because I love food and wine. I don't think I would feel complete without sharing a beautiful bottle of wine with friends.


I suppose I am addicted but I'm not falling into gutters or blanking out any parts of the evening.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104907
Share on other sites

I don't see why we as Brits can be told that we're dependant on booze when the folk over the water in the Med, drink wine daily with meals as a standard thing. Why should we feel guilty because we like a glass of wine at night with our food. The French, Italian, Spanish, would tell the govt to f-off if they were told enjoying a glass at night made them dependant bindge drinkers.


I have this year signed myself up for three races of 10k, 10 miles and a half marathon. The reasons behind this are to loose weight, give myself a goal in life apart from working and paying the bills, and if I'm honest, to keep my away from the booze.


I found myself drinking a glass a night, that turned into half a bottle which very easily turned into a full bottle. The 5 times a week training I have to do in order to compete in these races does not allow me to have more than a couple of glasses a week; although I would very much like to have more.


So. Why are we being told that we are dependant on the booze? That the people who can afford wine with their meals are the secret binge drinkers of our nation (apparantly the middle-classes and the female sector of it), when others nations enjoy there vino and no one batters and eyelid?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104908
Share on other sites

It's the government that's blooming turning me to drink - diesel up 29%, gas up, electricty up, food up, euro down - goodness I need a glass of wine with my meal to give me something to look forward to.


As CamberwellOz says - I like a drink but I am not aggressive, not an NHS statistic, AND I am putting money into the economy - surely we are being encouraged to do that!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104910
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the sensible Mediterranean style drinkers being targetted here MadWorld (mind you, if you've ever witnessed a botellon you might think otherwise of younger Spaniards).


It's the half to one bottle a night types that are damaging themselves much more than they think, and of course the binge culture types that are a plague on the nation.


I'm prone to having too many beers myself, but to echo CamberwellOz, I'm unlikely to end up passed out in a gutter or feeling the need to punch or trash anyone/anything.


As in all things a bit of sense and moderation is fine. Enjoy a drink, once or twice a week enjoy a few at the weekend, but give your organs some recovery time every now and then. Same with Burgers, nothing wrong with a MaccyD's (well, apart from flavour etc) as long as it's not your staple diet.


This government is more nannyish than necessary, but I think in terms of booze the message isn't getting through and things are getting worse (liver disease up huge amounts), so it's right to try and warn people.

Though as someone pointed out, the campaign with the frothy 3 on the side of a beer glass just makes you want a beer!!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104911
Share on other sites

I just placed my order in for weekend wines. I spent twenty minutes looking through our wine list and chatting to everyone in the office about what would be good to drink on the long weekend.


For me it is like reading a really good menu at a restaurant. I think about where I will be drinking the wine, what I will be eating and who is coming. Each variable will change what I order and how much I spend on the bottle.


I'm quite looking forward to and old vines Pouilly-Fuisse that my husband and I are going to drink with roast pork that our friend Terry breeds down in Sutton Valence.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104913
Share on other sites

It's the half to one bottle a night types that are

> damaging themselves much more than they think, and

> of course the binge culture types that are a

> plague on the nation.



Well I guess that was me a while back. It's easy to get into!.....After my 10k race on Monday I shall be in my garden with my feet up enjoying a Wanden Valley red from the Hunter Valley. The Govt can go f themselves.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104915
Share on other sites

It was the world's greatest disease-nobbler Louis Pasteur who said "alcohol is the most helpful and hygienic of beverages".


And over the years the genius chemist was proved spot-on. Research revealed that a few drinks every day can protect against heart disease, osteoporosis and anaemia, aid digestion, reduce the severity of colds, lower cholesterol, increase blood flow, improve bone strength and reduce stress.


In fact, experts believe knocking back two glasses of wine a day means you're 30 per cent more likely to live longer than a teetotaller.


Hence the lauding of the Provencal diet, which encourages lashings of red wine, as the most beneficial known to man.


So where are the governmentbacked campaigns warning teetotallers of the dangers of smugly walking past bargain booze?


Why no ads starring the Grim Reaper cackling at an empty pint glass as his scythe beckons abstainers towards an early grave?


Why? Because ever since Britain signed up to a World Health Organisation (WHO) pledge in 1980 to slash overall alcohol consumption by a quarter, we've been fed lies.


Take the latest ?10million campaign warning men to drink no more than 21 units and women 14 units every week. We're given no evidence as to how they arrived at these figures, or how they can possibly apply to everyone. That's because they're made up.


Are we supposed to believe that drinking more than a pint of strong lager a day threatens our health?


If so, why hasn't buying rounds been banned? Any drinker will tell you the first pint barely touches the sides, two relaxes you, three gets you going and four does the trick.


Up until two decades ago that was scientific reality. In 1979, the government advised men to drink no more than 56 units a week.


After the WHO pledge it was gradually cut until the current ludicrous maximum of 21 units-aweek was imposed in 1987. When Andrew Barr (author of Drink: A Social History) asked Richard Smith, a member of the panel which fixed the 1987 limits, where the figures came from he said: "We just pulled them out of the air."


These wildly-low thresholds are not there to give intelligent people the truth about drinking but to scare problem drinkers into abstention. Even though they, along with alcoholics, bingers and teenagers will ignore it.


The only drinkers taking notice are the ones who need it least - the mature and informed - who tend to know when they're hitting it too hard and when to give it a rest.


The ?10million misinformation campaign is the latest act of a cowardly government who want to be seen to be addressing bingedrinking (while happily raking in billions in duty) but are simply indulging in binge-whinging.


Let me repeat: alcohol is good for you. Until 21 years ago experts told us that having up to four drinks a day was fine. It relaxed you and made you enjoy life more.


So what happened? Did alcohol become more dangerous, or man less able to hold it?


No. Health fascists decided to treat us like idiots. Fine by me, so long as there's consistency. So Mrs Primarolo, I'll accept your propaganda about alcohol if you'll highlight the dangers of abstention.


Can I suggest a campaign using the words of that celebrated imbiber WC Fields: "Never drink water because fish screw in it," as a warning to all those teetotallers heading for an early grave?


Asked where the figures came from he replied: "Out of the air"

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104917
Share on other sites

I found myself drinking a glass a night, that turned into half a bottle which very easily turned into a full bottle.


MadWorld74, you are answering your own question. You are indignant that the government should proclaim us alcohol dependent, yet you readily acknowledge that you need to cut down. And do you really think that the French and the Italians are like us when it comes to drinking? They are not. The pub culture doesn't exist, and the tribal, ritualistic drinking-to-get-drunk attitude doesn't exist in the Med. (That's not to say that people never drink to get drunk, as they do, but it's not got that lairy, loutish, Fat Les-ishness about it.)


Booze is much more available and cheaper than ever before in real terms. It's become such a part of our lives that we don't understand how much we drink.

I agree totally with Mockney in that cutting down on the just-for-the-sake-of-it boozing is a good thing. I am finding that I spend more on a fine wine or a good bottle of gin or vodka, likewise on good beers and bitters.

As for that cold beer on a hot day abroad feeling, well, that is one I share. Icy Singha in Thailand or a cold Sam Adams in the US - I wouldn't want to give that up.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104919
Share on other sites



And that's the governments fault because.....?


Sorry different thread that one


As for booze I can only echo Nero and Mockney's points - quality rather than quantity should be the watchword but I fear I am on the quantity side of the equation at the mo. And it's not because the government is telling me this - I'm more than aware of it myself

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104920
Share on other sites

Yes Nero I agree it was getting a bit silly that's why I've cut back and I enjoy wine more now.


I'm totlally bloody fed up with being told what to do in this country. Can't smoke there (I'm actually an ex smoker), can't drink that much or you'll die, can't drive your car there or you'll get penalised for it.....and it goes on. In the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's when both sexes drank like fishes and smoked continously, did they die a younger age? Were they that much more unhealthy than us? My father was born in 1926 and is still going strong. He says that the country is being bullied and we no longer have the freedom to do what we want with regards to drinking etc, without someone somewhere preaching to us and condeming our actions.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104923
Share on other sites

I think the point of the current campaign is to make people aware of how many units are in each drink as research has shown that most people underestimate how many units they drink.


I don't think that's unreasonable. Whatever you view on whether the the government should interfer in our health related decisions, surely they have a duty to inform.


Let's see if the research behind the campaign is reflected on the forum...

Answer this: If a woman drinks half a bottle of wine each evening with dinner, three large glasses in the pub on Friday and Saturday and a bottle of lager on a Sunday afternoon how many units has she had?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104925
Share on other sites

I disagree, MadWorld. We know things now that we didn't know before. We can all say 'I know a woman who smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish but lived to be 99', but we all know really that that is an exception rather than a rule.

We have free will and access to knowledge, courtesy of the government. Whether we believe it and act upon it or not is our decision.

It's almost as if we can't bear to face up the fact that alcohol can be dangerous. It's like realising a good friend isn't really on our side and could, in fact, be a rather insididous enemy.

And I think Jah Lush, who defines himself as a 'drinker' even though his EDF name does the trick without spelling it out, can't be dispassionate about the topic.

Quality not quantity seems a good way to go.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104929
Share on other sites

"we no longer have the freedom to do what we want with regards to drinking etc, without someone somewhere preaching to us and condemning our actions"


Very few proscriptions about our ability to consume drink should we so wish to be fair. And I think you'll find society was much more judgemental regards, what they would doubtlessly have called in 1929 'intemperance', compared to now.


In fact if anything drinking has been seen as pretty cool for the last 15-20 years; witness the flourishing of wine bars and cocktail bars, even on our own fair lane.

It's the happy hour mentality, knock as much back as quickly as possible, that is being attacked, and I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

If Brits could learn how to drink responsibly* then there wouldn't be any need for these campaigns.


*and by responsibly, I don't necessarily mean small amounts. I've witnessed the likes of Jah or Keef put enough away to sink a small naval vessel and remain gentlemen to the last...that's what I mean!!


The last bit of this cracked me up http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/huge-dome-to-be-placed-over-middle-east-20080521966/

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104930
Share on other sites

noone is seriously arguing that life expectancy is the same in 2008 as it was in 1950 are they????


Whatever the pros and cons of living longer, better diets and reduced tobacco and alcohol consumption do mean people live longer - you just don't have to take the advice. But why be so upset about it? WHy get in a tizz about the government - here are some guidelines - youdon't have to do anything about it


But you would be a damn fool not to see the problems excessive alcohol consumption causes

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104931
Share on other sites

She wouldn't though would she MW74, she'd being drinking the amounts that we've been talking about and she'd think she was fine.


Like it or not this is particularly relevant for women. Women's livers are more at risk of alcohol damage and have less capacity to regenerate. Heart disease is also becoming more common in women, we're almost catching up with men in the numbers it kills each year, and that may also be partly due to increased alcohol intake.


Jah is right, there is good evidence that total abstinence is not healthy, 1-2 small glasses of red wine daily has been shown to be beneficial, and balanced information is vital for people to make informed decisions.


But that doesn't alter the fact that most of us are drinking too much and those who work in public health and health promotion have a duty to give us that information, so that we can make decisions about our health.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104934
Share on other sites

Half a bottle of wine a night - could be between 4 and 6 units depending on the strength of the wine (or more for strong red?)

Three large glasses = 1 bottle so say between 8 - 12 ish

Bottle of lager - depending on the size and strength of the lager could be between 2 and 6 units (guessing here -)


So total per week would range from 46 to 72 (if the wine in the evening was drunk in addition to the other weekend drinking)


However didn't the government scientist who laid down the units amount admit fairly recently that they had absolutely NO idea of what was sensible drinking when it comes to units, they had to put down something and so they did. A few years ago the limits went up from 14 and 21 to 21 and 28, and were then moved back down again.


Jah - really enjoyed your post - will print it out and pass onto all the teetotalers I know (not sure if I know any though)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/3355-alcohol/#findComment-104938
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...