Alcohol lobbyists have been actively involved in shaping health policies, as revealed in documents obtained by RNZ. The documents show the extent to which the booze industry influences government initiatives, including strategies to address Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). The industry’s input has impacted the development of alcohol policies and the implementation of measures to reduce alcohol harm.
A significant revelation from the documents is the removal of references to a review of safe drinking guidelines from a Health New Zealand website following complaints from alcohol lobbyists. This move highlights the influence wielded by the industry in shaping public health messaging and guidelines related to alcohol consumption.
The involvement of alcohol lobbyists in decision-making processes related to FASD, the allocation of the alcohol levy fund, and New Zealand’s stance on international strategies for reducing alcohol harm has raised concerns among health advocates. Steve Randerson from Health Coalition Aotearoa emphasized the inherent conflict of interest in allowing the alcohol industry to influence policies aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm.
The documents also shed light on the industry’s efforts to influence the safe drinking guidelines in New Zealand. The discrepancy between New Zealand’s guidelines, which set higher limits for alcohol consumption compared to Australia, underscores the industry’s interest in shaping public health recommendations to suit its commercial interests.
Ross Bell, a manager with the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Agency, acknowledged that material was removed from the website to avoid confusion about the responsibilities of different agencies. While Bell defended the engagement with the alcohol industry on certain issues, critics argue that public health policies should be shielded from commercial interests that may undermine their effectiveness.
A poll commissioned by Health Coalition Aotearoa and the Cancer Society revealed that a majority of New Zealanders believe the alcohol industry should not be involved in shaping alcohol-related policies. The industry’s focus on individual responsibility rather than addressing marketing, pricing, and supply regulations has drawn criticism from public health advocates.
Despite the controversy surrounding the involvement of alcohol lobbyists in health policy development, Bell emphasized the need for engagement with the industry on specific issues such as the FASD action plan and the allocation of the alcohol levy fund. He highlighted the importance of ensuring that levy funding is directed towards initiatives that have a substantial impact on addressing alcohol-related harms in New Zealand.
In conclusion, the revelations from the documents obtained by RNZ underscore the intricate relationship between the alcohol industry and health policymaking in New Zealand. The debate over industry influence on public health initiatives continues to spark concerns about the prioritization of public health objectives over commercial interests in addressing alcohol-related harm.