Government's decision to delay alcohol health labelling is bowing to lobbyist influence

Irish Examiner

a day ago

How are decisions made in government? One would hope that decision-makers would have access to facts and that this would form the basis of decision making.
However, while officials are certainly in possession of the facts when it comes to alcohol harm, the basis of decision-making seems to rest with who has access to government.
Never was this clearer than in relation to the recent decision to delay the introduction of alcohol health information labelling. These labels provide basic information to consumers including that alcohol causes liver disease and fatal cancers as well as a warning about drinking in pregnancy; they also include details of calories, alcohol content and a link to a public health website.
The regulations are part of a package of legislative measures, Public Health (Alcohol) Act, introduced in 2015 and passed overwhelmingly in 2018 by the Oireachtas. The aim was to reduce Ireland's alcohol consumption by 20% by 2020 - a modest target still not fully achieved.
The labelling had been through extensive assessment and notification processes with the EU Commission and the World Trade Organisation and had been signed into law in 2023 to become operational in 2026. Polling indicated strong public support of over 70% for the measures.
Labels had even started to appear on dozens of wines, beers and ciders from at least 10 countries in shops right across Ireland as businesses adapted to the regulations expecting the government to deliver on its own law.
However, following extensive lobbying of government by the alcohol industry, a memo was brought to Cabinet last week by the Tánaiste and minister for foreign affairs and trade, Simon Harris, to delay labelling until 2028. Does a postponement matter?
Some seemed to regard the labels as merely an administrative issue as opposed to a serious public health matter designed to help address issues such, as, for example, the birth of 15 babies every day in Ireland with the life-long neurodevelopmental condition of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, (FASD), or the fact that three people daily get a cancer diagnosis caused by alcohol, or that rates of liver disease have nearly doubled over the past two decades.
According to lobbying records, alcohol industry representatives met with senior members of government, including the Taoiseach, at least seven times between January and April 2025. Freedom of Information requests also revealed that immediately upon the formation of the new government, multiple letters were sent to ministers all making the same points – such as worries about possible tariffs, costs to small businesses and a call to wait for an EU label.
Alarmist claims were made about jobs and trade, even though labels have nothing to do with exports and the EU Commission adjudicated that labelling does not constitute a barrier to trade.
To be clear, this industry has opposed these labels from the outset and employed variations of all the above arguments for years - in addition to false claims that alcohol has health benefits and doesn't really cause cancer. Whatever industry says to government about supporting public health measures (though not just at this time) what they say to their shareholders is that labelling might lead to reduced alcohol consumption.
Perhaps the most ridiculous claim from industry is that as population-level alcohol consumption has decreased in recent years, there is apparently no need for further regulation - an argument akin to saying if road deaths decrease, why not increase drink-driving limits.
The various entreaties worked and in early April comments were made by the minister for finance about the regulations needing to be 'examined again'. This opened space for industry and bad-faith actors to rehash all the debates which had already taken place over the past decade – debates which had been settled by evidence and fact.
Once again health experts were dragged into discussing whether alcohol really causes cancer; the answer is the same now as it was in 2018 – yes. Moreover, we have since learned even more about alcohol and cancer and that it can cause the disease at even relatively low levels of consumption.
The usual, unoriginal, worn-out tropes of nanny statism reappeared as if only the alcohol industry has the right to decide what information consumers are entitled to.
Government ministers trumpeted that other measures of the Alcohol Act had been introduced (albeit painfully slowly) as if somehow that reduced the necessity to commence all of the legislation which is designed to work as a package.
At the same time, multiple health and social organisations, those who are at the coal face dealing with the impact of alcohol harm, were writing to the government warning of the consequences of delaying the regulations.
Academics highlighted that alcohol costs Ireland at least 2.5% of GDP - €12 billion annually – in health, justice and lost productivity. That's 10 times what is raised through excise duties.
There are other voices which were raised but were ignored. Some of those most hurt by alcohol including those who have grown up with the trauma of alcohol harm in the home, those who are now in recovery and some who have lost precious family members to this drug wrote to government and the media highlighting the importance of these measures.
Dr Sheila Gilheany: 'Perhaps the most ridiculous claim from industry is that as population-level alcohol consumption has decreased in recent years, there is apparently no need for further regulation - an argument akin to saying if road deaths decrease, why not increase drink-driving limits.'
Requests were made for meetings to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste, minister for finance and the minister for enterprise. These were refused.
Meetings were granted with Department of Health officials including the minister, but it is clear that the running on this issue was being made by other departments and in any case, surely the minister for health didn't need to be convinced of the importance of her own department's regulations?
All of this, though, distracted focus from the fundamental question which is not, do we need labels, but rather, why is the alcohol industry getting an opportunity to overturn democratically mandated regulations which are there to protect public health?
This assault on democratic processes is being presented as a mere delay due to unfortunate trading uncertainties. There are assurances that the regulations will go ahead in 2028.
Yet the alcohol industry is already crowing - 'This pause shall be more than just a delay, it is a much-needed chance to rethink how we ensure consumers are well-informed, while also safeguarding the legal and economic coherence of the European market,' said European wine trade body, CEEV. The twist is that industry wants a weak-worded label buried in a meaningless QR code.
So, the government decided to pander to the alcohol industry, choosing to believe their claims over the evidence that was presented to them by unbiased sources. Perhaps they didn't really believe the industry arguments but somehow it was expedient to go along with it, maybe in the hope of obtaining a supposedly better trade deal regardless of the health and economic impacts of ignoring the harm from alcohol.
Or maybe it is the default position of elements of government to place shareholder profit ahead of public interest since private whispers are louder than the voices of civil society. If so, the dangers are not just to public health but also to public trust in government.
Dr Sheila Gilheany is the CEO of Alcohol Action Ireland