DSICA
Column – Our Hotel – September 2007
‘Health Warning Labels’
By Gordon Broderick
Recently the Tasmania-based Drug Education Network started
a petition urging the Federal Government to mandate health warning labels on
alcohol products. This is despite a spokesperson supporting that group acknowledging
that there was no evidence that warning labels changed behaviour.
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.
A number of these organisations have renewed these calls recently, and a health
group in New Zealand has lodged an application with Food Standards Australia
New Zealand (FSANZ) which, if successful, would require labeling advising of
the risks of consuming alcohol when planning to become pregnant and during pregnancy.
This road has been travelled before. In 1999, the Society Without Alcoholic Trauma
(SWAT) lodged a submission with the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, FSANZ’s
predecessor, requesting that alcohol products contain a warning label stating: “This
product contains alcohol. Alcohol is a dangerous drug.”
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 health benefits from low to moderate consumption of alcohol, and a warning
label as proposed does not fully inform consumers.
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 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.
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 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”.
Further, 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”.
And
a study reported in 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”.
Health warning labels may be appealing to some health lobbyists and certain governments
because they are highly visible and they can point to them and say “look
what we’ve done”. DSICA considers in this case that such ‘action’ does
not equate to policy effectiveness. By all means, women should be made aware
of the dangers associated with unsafe alcohol consumption during pregnancy, but
labels are not the best way to deliver this information. DSICA’s long-held
view is that carefully targeted public information and education campaigns are
the most effective means of combating alcohol misuse.
