Uneasy truce in warnings war

MPs have decided that New Zealanders don't need to be remindedabout the perils of the demon drink before taking a sip. DITA DE BONI reports.

Should bottles of beer, wine or vodka carry warnings - like cigarette packages - pointing out the product's potential harm to pregnant women?

Is it appropriate that messages about the dangers of drink-driving scream from tipple labels?

Some politicians and lobby groups think so. Labour list MP Dianne Yates introduced a private member's bill to the House last week that would have made all sealed liquor vessels - including miniatures - carry these warnings:

Women should not drink liquor during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects.

Consumption of liquor impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.

The concept of putting warning labels on alcohol is not new, having been introduced into Parliament and thrown out several times previously. This time, the proposal was wedged between votes on legalising prostitution and an extension on the moratorium on new casino applications.

As some sources point out, it was undoubtedly an interesting two days for MPs more used to voting on tax reform and fishing quotas than delving into a titillating roster of sex, booze and gambling.

The MPs voted to further consider the merits of legalised prostitution and extended the new casino ban.

But the bill requiring liquor warning labels was voted out minutes before Parliament adjourned for the night.

The final count - 61 against labelling and 53 in support - has been hailed as a victory by liquor and advertising concerns. Worried about the cost, logistics and damaging PR implications of labelling liquor in the same way as society's most infamous bogey, tobacco, the two industries are breathing a sigh of relief - for now.

There is still a remote possibility that the concept will be reintroduced through food legislation, thanks to a determined Australian lobby group called the Society Without Alcohol Trauma (Swat) and the gradual marriage of food and beverage standards on both sides of the Tasman.

But that move, too, seems unlikely to succeed. In Australia in 1998, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority rejected an application for labels reading "alcohol is a dangerous drug," citing 17 reasons for its decision, including a claim that warning statements are "not effective in modifying at-risk behaviour in relation to consuming excessive amounts of alcohol."

The Distilled Spirits Association's Thomas Chin, who was in Wellington watching last week's vote, says the proposed warnings were not balanced.

"Medical evidence suggests that drinking in moderation can actually be beneficial to health. If you were to put the whole story [about alcohol] on a label on every sealed container as was suggested, you would fast run out of [label] real estate."

Mr Chin says there are better ways to target those who may abuse alcohol. "Studies out of the US now indicate these types of labels are ineffective at modifying the behaviour of those most at risk."

But the bill's sponsor, Ms Yates, says that is not the point. "Every little bit of advertising helps. It's not a matter of granny state either: it's just that people have a right to know and to be able to protect themselves from harm with that knowledge."

Insisting that she is not a wowser, Ms Yates says the fairly modest cost of labelling all bottles is probably far outweighed by the pricey legal opinion sought by the liquor lobby and presented, hard bound, to each MP before the vote on the bill.

The pro-label contingent has a different view of the US alcohol labelling situation. In the US, the only Western country to require warnings on all alcoholic beverages, the move seems to have been born less from public concern and more from the American corporate fear of lawsuits.

Mandatory health warnings on American alcohol appeared in the late 1980s in response to a case brought by Candace Thorp of Seattle against the makers of Jim Beam bourbon.

After drinking a quarter of a bottle every day during her pregnancy and giving birth to a retarded child with physical deformities, Ms Thorp won her lucrative case against James B. Beam Distilling Company, and a rigorous labelling regime was born.

To get around the mandatory labels, which read almost exactly like the proposed New Zealand examples, certain industries have lobbied to add labels of their own. The US wine industry, for example, has recently been allowed to add a phrase stating "the proud people who make this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the results of wine consumption."

And one study from New York, which canvassed more than 32,000 youngsters aged between 16 and 18, found that while warnings were widely and comprehensively remembered, their actual impact on behaviour wore off after three years.

A spokesman for the cigarette industry - where labels have been required for years - says there may be another reason labels do a disservice to younger, more impressionable consumers.

John Gilligan, head of corporate and regulatory affairs for British and American Tobacco in New Zealand, says that although the cigarette industry has had warning labels for decades, and recent Government measures have ratcheted up label specifications to one-third the size of a cigarette box, in both Maori and English, juvenile smoking has risen 55 per cent in the past decade.

"The industry is not against the labels, but we feel sometimes that it's only part of the mix of getting a message across to the people who need it most. Furthermore, could the use of these sorts of labels make the product more attractive to juveniles by 'demonising' it, like the recent debate over cannabis suggests?"

British American, which holds around 80 per cent of the New Zealand market with brands such as Holiday, Rothmans and Dunhill, says it talks with the Government before each labelling change is introduced - perhaps, one could argue, with negligible success - but is keen to ensure more reform does not "compromise the equity of the brands."

Jeremy Irwin, head of the Association of New Zealand Advertisers, says the equivalent of cigarette warnings on alcohol vessels would reduce the effectiveness of labels with "clutter," and customers would eventually have to bear the substantial cost of repackaging the industry's products.

Mr Irwin says self-regulation keeps liquor ads within appropriate confines.

"Our mandatory system of pre-vetting ads has been in place for five years, where an independent consultant works with clients through the concept stage. Ultimately, the medium the ad is placed with has the final decision."

"It's got to a stage in some cases where US advertisers refer to our system, knowing that if it is acceptable here it will be acceptable almost anywhere."