Booze industry lobbyists have been granted input into the development of alcohol policies, including how to deal with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
This is framed to seem like something bad, but all it means is that the very industry being regulated gets consulted on regulations that affect them. They don’t get any special access. They simply are one of many stakeholders.
The hard left activists think that companies which make money are inherently evil and should never be allowed to have a say on regulations that affect them. But this is preposterous. Of course those impacted by regulations should be allowed to have a say on them.
Documents obtained by RNZ also show that references to a review of safe drinking guidelines were removed from an Health New Zealand website after an alcohol lobbyist complained to Ross Bell, a manager with the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Agency.
Further down you learn the reason why. Nothing to do with all powerful alcohol lobbyists. It is simply that the review was a matter for the Ministry of Health, not Health NZ. And that Ministers had not agreed to a review. So Health NZ had incorrect information on their website, which got corrected.
An October 2024 email from New Zealand Winegrowers to Bell, which copies in a lobbyist with the spirits industry, shows the extent to which alcohol lobbyists are involved in the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) strategy.
“Appreciate the link to the speech and FASD initiatives,” the wine industry lobbyist says. “We’d be interested in discussing the opportunity for industry engagement in the refresh of the action plan, as we were involved in the development of the initial plan.”
FASD affects about 1800 babies a year in New Zealand. The alcohol industry fought a 20 year battle against product labels warning pregnant women not to drink, before they finally became compulsory in 2023.
No one wants kids born with FASD. If the Government and industry want the same outcome, why would you not engage with them. This does not mean you agree with them – just engagement. Engagement is good.
As for the issue of warning labels, it is (in my view) one of those initiatives that is entirely ineffective. To think that a warning label about drinking while pregnant will have an impact, you need to believe the following:
- The pregnant woman genuinely doesn’t know she shouldn’t drink when pregnant
- She is purchasing alcohol from a bottle, rather than at a bar or restaurant in a glass
- She picks up her bottle of wine (or beer) and before drinking from it, reads the various logos and info on the label
- She sees the no drinking while pregnant logo and realises she should not be drinking, and then puts down the bottle she has purchased, and leaves it undrunk
There are many good initiatives you could take to reduce FASD. Information at Plunket. Targeted advertising. Television advertising. Whanua Ora funded programmes etc.
The story makes it seem like the industry is against reducing FASD levels, as opposed to wanting initiatives to be ones that actually will make a difference.
The documents also show that the alcohol industry has input into how the Ministry of Health spends the alcohol levy, a ring-fenced fund of $16.6 million, used to support alcohol harm reduction measures.
Bell emailed lobbyists with the wine and beer industries in November 2024, giving them information about the alcohol levy process and calling for their input.
Of course they get consulted – they pay the levy into the fund. Just as Telcos get consulted on how the Telco levy is spent.
Consultation is not decision making. It is government best practice.
Alcohol is a legal product in NZ, and is enjoyed by the vast majority of NZers. It is a minority, not a majority, that abuse alcohol. Why should a vineyard not be consulted on how a levy they pay, is used?
The documents show lobbyists from the beer, wine and spirits industries also secured a meeting with health officials on “the development of New Zealand’s position” at a United Nations meeting.
It is the job of officials to meet with any interested party, to developed positions on an issue. I am sure they also had scores of meeting with public health activists.
What this is about is the activists don’t want any contrary views to their own to be heard or considered.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment