No Pregnancy Warning Labels On Alcohol
Press Release – Alcohol Healthwatch
The report has some worrying findings, chief among them that over a third of alcohol products still do not have the correct pregnancy warning label. Just under half (44%) of the 400+ products audited either had no label, or had the label hidden on the …
– 34% of alcohol products have no pregnancy warning label, shows new report.
– 16% of alcohol products with the correct label have it hidden on the bottom of the packaging where it is less likely to be seen.
Every baby deserves the best possible start in life. But new report by Alcohol Healthwatch of New Zealand's first audit of pregnancy warning labels on alcohol products, suggests that the low presence of correct labelling might be undermining this.
The report has some worrying findings, chief among them that over a third of alcohol products still do not have the correct pregnancy warning label. Just under half (44%) of the 400+ products audited either had no label, or had the label hidden on the bottom of the packaging.
The Government-mandated pregnancy warning label became compulsory from August 2023, following over twenty-years of advocacy by public health professionals and communities. Pregnancy warning labels are an important tool to share the information that no amount of alcohol is safe to consume when pregnant. Exposure of alcohol in-utero can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), a lifelong disability characterised by cognitive, emotional, and functional deficits. FASD comprises over half of the estimated $9.1 billion dollars in alcohol harm felt in New Zealand annually.
'Communities have been fighting for a pregnancy warning label for twenty years,' says Sarah Sneyd, lead study author and Senior Health Promotion Advisor at Alcohol Healthwatch. 'People tell us all the time that if they pick up a bottle of wine, they expect that it will have the pregnancy warning label on it. But what we've found is that even a year after being mandatory, there's a good chance it won't have the message.'
Spirits was the least likely to have the pregnancy warning label on it, with only 48% of spirits audited showing the warning label. This is likely due to its longer shelf life, as the law only states that alcohol manufactured from 31 July 2023 is required to have a warning label, not all alcohol sold. Wine was the next least likely to show the label, with only 57% showing the warning label.
'Spirits are some of the strongest alcohol you can buy, and wine is very popular among women,' says Sneyd. 'And they're the least likely to show a pregnancy warning label! It's just not good enough – this is a massive loophole that needs to be closed.'
There is no requirement for any other health or warning label on alcohol products, such as the fact that it causes cancer. Furthermore, unlike almost every other consumable food or drink item, alcohol products (apart from RTDs) do not have to provide an ingredient list. Like Big Tobacco tactics, Big Alcohol has an incentive to delay or sidestep labelling requirements for as long as possible, to protect profit margins at the expense of health.
However, the audit revealed much higher rates of industry-designed labels, with 78% of products having an industry-designed label, including urges to 'drink responsibly'. Often this messaging was located next to or near the pregnancy warning label, and may confuse viewers. This highlights the urgent need for a range of rotating health warnings to meet consumer rights for information. These labels must be prominent (i.e. not located at the bottom of packaging).
Sneyd believes that in order for consumers to make informed decisions, they need the information. 'We're talking about preventing babies being born with brain damage; it goes without saying that this is an important message. If we can get communities the information they are entitled to, then we're one step closer towards every baby having the best possible start in life.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
No Pregnancy Warning Labels On Alcohol
Press Release – Alcohol Healthwatch The report has some worrying findings, chief among them that over a third of alcohol products still do not have the correct pregnancy warning label. Just under half (44%) of the 400+ products audited either had no label, or had the label hidden on the … – 34% of alcohol products have no pregnancy warning label, shows new report. – 16% of alcohol products with the correct label have it hidden on the bottom of the packaging where it is less likely to be seen. Every baby deserves the best possible start in life. But new report by Alcohol Healthwatch of New Zealand's first audit of pregnancy warning labels on alcohol products, suggests that the low presence of correct labelling might be undermining this. The report has some worrying findings, chief among them that over a third of alcohol products still do not have the correct pregnancy warning label. Just under half (44%) of the 400+ products audited either had no label, or had the label hidden on the bottom of the packaging. The Government-mandated pregnancy warning label became compulsory from August 2023, following over twenty-years of advocacy by public health professionals and communities. Pregnancy warning labels are an important tool to share the information that no amount of alcohol is safe to consume when pregnant. Exposure of alcohol in-utero can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), a lifelong disability characterised by cognitive, emotional, and functional deficits. FASD comprises over half of the estimated $9.1 billion dollars in alcohol harm felt in New Zealand annually. 'Communities have been fighting for a pregnancy warning label for twenty years,' says Sarah Sneyd, lead study author and Senior Health Promotion Advisor at Alcohol Healthwatch. 'People tell us all the time that if they pick up a bottle of wine, they expect that it will have the pregnancy warning label on it. But what we've found is that even a year after being mandatory, there's a good chance it won't have the message.' Spirits was the least likely to have the pregnancy warning label on it, with only 48% of spirits audited showing the warning label. This is likely due to its longer shelf life, as the law only states that alcohol manufactured from 31 July 2023 is required to have a warning label, not all alcohol sold. Wine was the next least likely to show the label, with only 57% showing the warning label. 'Spirits are some of the strongest alcohol you can buy, and wine is very popular among women,' says Sneyd. 'And they're the least likely to show a pregnancy warning label! It's just not good enough – this is a massive loophole that needs to be closed.' There is no requirement for any other health or warning label on alcohol products, such as the fact that it causes cancer. Furthermore, unlike almost every other consumable food or drink item, alcohol products (apart from RTDs) do not have to provide an ingredient list. Like Big Tobacco tactics, Big Alcohol has an incentive to delay or sidestep labelling requirements for as long as possible, to protect profit margins at the expense of health. However, the audit revealed much higher rates of industry-designed labels, with 78% of products having an industry-designed label, including urges to 'drink responsibly'. Often this messaging was located next to or near the pregnancy warning label, and may confuse viewers. This highlights the urgent need for a range of rotating health warnings to meet consumer rights for information. These labels must be prominent (i.e. not located at the bottom of packaging). Sneyd believes that in order for consumers to make informed decisions, they need the information. 'We're talking about preventing babies being born with brain damage; it goes without saying that this is an important message. If we can get communities the information they are entitled to, then we're one step closer towards every baby having the best possible start in life.'
Kiwiblog
14-05-2025
- Kiwiblog
Much ado about nothing
Radio NZ reports: 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 This is a classic issue and example of why you do want to consult with industry. Sticking another logo on labels can have large compliance costs, and actually make no difference at all to FASD. I bet you there is no peer reviewed evidence anywhere that these warnings on bottles have led to a decrease of FASD. 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.
Scoop
09-05-2025
- Scoop
Alcohol Lobbyists Given Input On Health Policies, Documents Reveal
Article – RNZ Industry groups helped develop several initiatives about alcohol harm – including one on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Guyon Espiner, Investigative reporter, In Depth Booze industry lobbyists have been granted input into the development of alcohol policies, including how to deal with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. 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. The papers, released under the Official Information Act and sent anonymously to RNZ, show the booze industry has been given input into several government initiatives to tackle alcohol harm. 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. 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. 'Following consultation and Ministerial approval we intend to have the framework finalised and published in the first part of next year to inform the next levy setting process. Let me know any questions, otherwise, thank you in advance for your input.' 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. 'At the same time we would be happy to update you on the conversations our industry bodies are having at the international level,' a lobbyist for the wine industry wrote in an October 2024 email. Health Coalition Aotearoa spokesman Steve Randerson said it was wrong to give the alcohol industry input on FASD, the alcohol levy framework and New Zealand's stance on UN strategies for reducing alcohol harm. 'There is a fundamental conflict of interest underlying alcohol industry input to the government on such issues, given most alcohol harm only reduces if we drink less, and alcohol sales drop,' Randerson said. 'When it comes to alcohol, our most harmful drug, we believe New Zealanders and policy officials dealing with alcohol harm should have real protection from alcohol industry lobbying.' The papers also show that references to a review of safe drinking guidelines were removed from a Health New Zealand website after complaints from a booze lobbyist. Safe drinking guidelines are a sensitive issue for the alcohol industry as evidence emerges that even moderate amounts of alcohol can lead to health issues. The New Zealand safe drinking guidelines set the limit at 15 standard drinks a week for men and ten for women – much higher than Australia. In 2020 Australia lowered its safe drinking guidelines from a maximum of 14 drinks a week to ten drinks a week for both men and women. A lobbyist with the Brewers Association emailed Ross Bell in October 2024 asking why the website, run by Health New Zealand, was reporting that the safe drinking guidelines were under review. Bell investigated and then replied that he had told Health New Zealand it wasn't their responsibility and that it had now paused the review. 'They had thought that a refresh of the guidelines was in order. I've advised them that it's the Ministry's responsibility to lead on any technical/clinical public health guidelines, so they are pausing that specific piece of work on the guidelines,' Bell told the Brewers' Association. 'A refresh of the guidelines is not on our current alcohol levy-related work programme, which is something we would need to agree with relevant ministers anyway. I'll let you know at future meetings if this changes.' A month later the Brewers Association lobbyist emailed Bell again, asking why references to a review of safe drinking guidelines were still on the website. 'It was raised with me by one of our stakeholders that the website which hosts the NZ guidelines is still stating that they are under review. Given what you have noted below I was wondering why this was still stated as the case online.' Bell responded the next day but much of the email has been redacted by the Ministry of Health, using a section of the OIA which protects 'the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials'. It's not clear how this section of the OIA can be used to protect an exchange between an alcohol lobbyist and the Public Health Agency but the sections that are released show Bell is receptive to the industry's concerns. 'On the guidelines – I am hoping the HNZ website will be updated within the next day or so. I'll try to keep an eye on that,' he told the Brewers Association. In a statement to RNZ, Bell confirmed that material was removed from the website. 'Reference to the drinking guidelines review was removed from the website to avoid confusion about roles and responsibilities as the guidelines are now led by the Ministry of Health – rather than Health New Zealand who own the site. This was an internal Ministry decision.' He said work had been done on the review of safe drinking guidelines but was now on hold while the Ministry of Health considered its priorities. Randerson said policies to reduce alcohol harm should be protected from 'commercial and other vested interests that can interfere with and undermine public health objectives'. He said the alcohol industry 'paints itself as a legitimate partner while employing certain tactics in its policy advice' which focus on individual responsibility rather than regulating the marketing, price and supply. Randerson said a poll commissioned by Health Coalition Aotearoa and the Cancer Society showed 71 percent of New Zealanders felt the alcohol industry should not be involved in developing policy on alcohol. But Bell said the Public Health Agency needed to engage with the alcohol industry on issues such as the FASD action plan and how to spend the alcohol levy. 'The FASD action plan includes activities funded by the levy on the alcohol industry, and the framework sets out criteria for how the levy is spent,' Bell said. 'Development of the action plan and levy framework are intended to ensure levy funding is invested where it will have the biggest impact in addressing alcohol harms affecting the lives of New Zealanders.'
