Editorial: Cancer Society’s alcohol and sport sponsorship call for new Government

The Cancer Society wants the incoming Government to tackle alcohol advertising in sport. Photo / Matimix

Editorial

EDITORIAL

National’s coalition talks with Act and New Zealand First to form the next Government have continued, as the parties negotiate their bottom lines and compromises on all manner of policies.

While Prime Minister-designate Christopher Luxon is not talking about the negotiations in public, the main issues on the table have been well canvassed and are likely to include crime, justice and prisons; tax and tax cuts; roads and rail; superannuation; and the future of everything from the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori Health Authority to Three Waters and the new Resource Management Act, the Zero Carbon Act and the Climate Change Commission, and the firearms register.

Any number of individuals and groups also have their own wishlists for the incoming Government - whatever form it takes.

For the Cancer Society, the top of the list of 12 pressing issues it hopes to get traction on are smokefree progress and reducing alcohol harm, which cause thousands of deaths between them and come at a social and economic cost to the country in the billions of dollars.

Significant progress has been made on smoking harm, through legislation covering the likes of advertising and smokefree environments, and attitudes appear to have changed markedly - although the rise of vaping is clearly concerning health experts.

Meaningful alcohol law reform has been the elephant in the room for some time, however, and there has been less political appetite to take on the powerful industry players.

Yet the Cancer Society says the public’s attitudes towards alcohol have also changed significantly, and our political leaders are actually out of step with society on this issue.

It says a study in conjunction with the University of Otago found the majority of respondents supported major changes - such as banning alcohol sponsorship at sporting and community events, and that the alcohol industry should not be involved in developing alcohol harm policies.

The findings are significant. The alcohol industry’s links with sport have existed for some time. National squads, social teams and school and community events have all been sponsored by alcohol companies and brands, in a supposed win-win; financial sponsorship enables teams to survive, and through marketing exposure opportunities, their sponsors to thrive.

But there has been enough research now that shows exposure to alcohol advertising has a detrimental effect, particularly on impressionable youth, as it has the effect of normalising products, which can lead to early drinking and excessive drinking. And the sporting association is clearly at odds with healthy pursuits, and not just for youth.

The Cancer Society’s research also appears to show a sea change in attitude from our traditional big-drinking macho Kiwi image. The demand for low- or no-alcohol wines, beers and mocktails clearly shows that, as does the uptake in campaigns such as Dry July and Sober October by individuals concerned about the impacts of their drinking.

But change comes slowly without direction from the top. As our health system creaks under the weight of many and varied demands, including alcohol-related harm, we need a meaningful revision of liquor advertising, availability and affordability. Will the new Government be game enough to tackle all that?