For many years,
some drug, alcohol and health organisations in Australia have advocated
the use of health warning labels on alcohol products as a way of combating
alcohol misuse.
In 1999, the Society Without Alcoholic Trauma (SWAT) lodged
a submission with the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) requesting
that alcohol products contain a warning label stating: “This product
contains alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug.”
SWAT submitted that “the (alcohol) industry has developed
into a gigantic global machine extending its tentacles everywhere…”
SWAT believes that “alcohol is a drug (whose) excesses must be controlled”
and it wants to ensure that the principles applied in relation to other
drugs are also applied to alcohol. SWAT’s stated aims are to “keep
the problem of alcohol on the public agenda…to effect reform of a problem
that has burdened societies in many parts of the world for decades…and
to change the role of alcohol in (Australia) and the cultural image it portrays”.
Industry Response
DSICA, other members of the alcohol beverage industry and other interested
stakeholders strongly opposed this application for the introduction of health
warning labels on alcohol products. The industry’s opposition was based
on several grounds:
First, there is very little research to indicate that a warning
label applied to an alcohol product actually produces a positive change
in drinking behaviour or reduces alcohol-related harm.
Second, there is very little evidence to show that a health
warning label on an alcohol product is the most appropriate way of informing
consumers about the health risks associated with alcohol misuse.
Third, there is only very limited evidence of the positive impact
of health warning labels on consumer knowledge and attitudes towards alcohol
consumption.
Finally, it is accepted that there are significant health benefits
from low to moderate consumption of alcohol, and a warning label as proposed
does not fully inform consumers.
Application
Rejected
In July last year, after receiving some 47 submissions in response
to the application, ANZFA rejected warning labels on alcohol, citing
a number of reasons, including that: |
|
•
|
scientific
evidence indicates that while warning labels may increase awareness,
this does not necessarily lead to positive changes in behaviour, and
may even result in increased ‘undesirable’ behaviour in
‘at-risk’ groups; |
|
•
|
simple,
accurate warning statements would be difficult to devise given the
complexity of issues surrounding alcohol use and misuse; |
|
•
|
there
is a steady downward trend in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related
harm in Australia and New Zealand; |
|
•
|
comprehensive
health strategies concentrating on interventions known to work are
already implemented in both countries; |
|
•
|
alcohol
has significant health benefits when consumed at low to moderate levels; |
•
|
alcohol
labels already provide content and standard drink information; and |
|
•
|
direct comparisons
with tobacco warning statements are not valid because unlike alcohol,
there is no level of tobacco consumption that can be considered to
be safe or low risk. |
Overseas Experience
DSICA strongly believes that warning labels are not the answer to combating
alcohol misuse, particularly amongst at-risk groups.
This view is backed up by the international experience of
warning labels. A 1993 US study reported in the Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing found that
“among risk drinkers, the label law clearly has not affected drinking
behaviour”.
In 1996, the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, in statements
to a House of Commons Standing Committee, said that they have “seen
no direct, incontrovertible evidence that applying warning labels to alcoholic
beverage containers has any impact on reducing the problems associated
with abusive drinking”. Before the same Committee, a former Canadian
Deputy Minister of Community Health made the salient point that alcohol
education and awareness programs run by the alcohol industry, governments
and the community have “created a sufficiently aware public that
the kind of simple message that can practically be applied to bottles
and packages is no longer of any real value”.
And a study reported in the March 2001 Journal
of Studies on Alcohol reported that “the
results show that earlier exposure to the alcohol warning does not significantly
reduce alcohol consumption, suggesting that the warning does not have
a deterrent effect”. The report concluded that “the results
of this study in conjunction with prior results for both adolescents and
adults support the conclusion that the alcohol warning label does not
reduce alcohol-related risk behaviours”.*
Education the Key
DSICA’s long-held view is that carefully targeted public information
and education campaigns are the only effective means of combating alcohol
misuse. The alcohol beverage industry in Australia has long been very
active in this area and in fact DSICA alone has spent over five million
dollars on public and industry education campaigns during the last decade.
* MacKinnon P., Nohre L., Cheong J., Stacy A., Pentz
M., “Longitudinal Relationship between the Alcohol Warning Label
and Alcohol Consumption”, Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, March 2001, 221–237
Back to Top
|
 |
