As the brawl over the Government's proposals to reform the alcohol and entertainment licensing laws gets ugly, much of the argument centres on the impact of "24-hour opening" on local communities.

Those against the reforms argue that excessive alcohol consumption leads to severe health problems and is a major contributory factor in crime and anti-social behaviour - aspects of our "drink culture" that will worsen with relaxed pub opening hours.

This "alcoholic nation" argument proffers the view that as a whole, we drink too much, too often, too fast and too young. Some campaigners argue that it would be wrong to make it easier for an alcoholic individual to obtain and consume more alcohol - so why make it easier for an alcoholic nation?

However, opponents of this argument say this is too simplistic, and that an overhaul of Britain's archaic laws on alcohol and entertainment is long overdue. Tessa Jowell, Culture Secretary, has argued in the national press repeatedly that the "anti-reformers" are wrong, and that the proposed Licensing Bill contains a balanced package of deregulation, supported by tough measures elsewhere in government, that will remove unnecessary bureaucracy for industry as well as benefiting the public - the majority of whom are responsible citizens.

The Government and its supporters argue that there is evidence that in itself, fixed early "last orders" leads to an increase in crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour, fuelled by binge drinking. Plans to make it an offence to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 - under any circumstances - and for local residents to have a greater say in the licensing process are aimed at promoting a more responsible attitude to drinking, and in theory, will tackle anti-social behaviour and reducing drink-related crime.

But the Licensing Bill is about more than the extension of opening hours. We take a look at the main thrust of the proposed bill, which includes the plans to transfer responsibility for liquor licensing from magistrates to local authorities. Where does environmental health fit in to the new regime?

Another debate that has been gearing up recently concerns the best approach to improving food hygiene and standards in businesses and the home. "Education or enforcement" is the much touted quote, and in this issue we report on some of the options available, including the role that private sector consultants have in the continuous battle against poor food hygiene standards.

Then following the Environment Agency report late last year on the state of contaminated land in England, Nick Warburton talks to a number of experts on the slow progress being made by local authorities in identifying and dealing with contaminated sites under the Part IIA regime. How are individual authorities rising to the challenges presented since the introduction of the regime three years ago? And why are some local authorities struggling under the burden of the regime?

Finally in this issue, we tackle the issues surrounding environmental health in the media. "Reality TV" is a huge ratings success, as proved by the BBC series "A life of grime", and like it or loathe it, further programmes are being planned for the future. This can leave individual environmental health practitioners or environmental health departments with the dilemma of whether to support and co-operate with the making of such "docu-soaps". Accordingly, the Chartered Institute has produced a guidance document, Considerations when communicating with the media, which is a vital read for all members. EHJ looks at the key considerations.

Tracey Khanna Editor