GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – Grog’s own country or Grog’s own health system?
Richard Seddon is Aotearoa New Zealand’s longest prime minister (back then called premier). He assumed the position in 1893 and continued for over 13 years without losing an election until his death in 1906.
As the dominant political leader of his time he was known for many things, good and bad. One that stands out and is long remembered was his description of New Zealand as ‘God’s own country’.
Adapting Seddon’s descriptor, in 1959 Conrad Bollinger then working for the Public Service Association, and subsequently an English language lecturer at Victoria University, published his first book, Grog’s own country (revised edition in 1967).
The book was a readable searing attack on the alcohol laws and the liquor industry in New Zealand.
Looking under questionable rocks
I thought of Bollinger’s book when listening to and reading Radio New Zealand’s investigative journalist Guyon Espiner’s latest piece (20 August) on the secretive attempts by the alcohol industry to influence the Ministry of Health on alcohol harm policy following the forced release of Ministry documents: Alcohol lobby influence exposed.
As our only public radio station RNZ is a critical cog in the democratic process. It has its critics – some on the mark and others vitriolic.
Espiner is one of its several journalists who, in terms of investigative rigour, really cuts the mustard. He knows how to look under questionable rocks.
From beneath the bureaucratically protected rock he reveals the tactics of the alcohol industry towards the Health Ministry over policies that might threaten its profits.
His investigation included a long struggle with the Health Ministry to obtain documents it tried to keep secret. This involved formal requests under the Official Information Act and a successful appeal to the Ombudsman.
The failure of the Ministry to respect the importance of open disclosure and transparency reflects poorly on its statutory stewardship role in the health system.
Industry lobbied against WHO recommendations measures to reduce alcohol harm
The industry actively lobbied health officials not to adopt measures endorsed by the World Health Organisation as among the most effective ways to reduce alcohol harm.
Specifically these measures involved raising taxes on alcohol and curbing supply or cutting industry sponsorship of sport.
Undermining measures to combat Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
The industry even went further. It endeavoured to shape a government strategy to combat Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).
Let’s be explicit about what FASD is, where alcohol fits in, and the risks of harm are. Health New Zealand describes it this way on its website:
Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a diagnostic term for a neurodevelopmental disorder caused by exposure to alcohol before birth. The main effects from this exposure are to the brain but alcohol can also affect other parts of the body.
A diagnosis of FASD requires evidence of alcohol exposure before birth and severe impairment in at least three of ten specified domains of central nervous system structure or function. Not everyone who is exposed to alcohol before birth is able to be diagnosed with FASD, but they may still have impairments caused by alcohol.
People who have FASD, or potential FASD, can experience complex physical, behavioural, learning and intellectual problems that persist throughout their lives. Impairment also varies between people depending on when and how much alcohol was consumed during the development of their brain and other parts of their bodies before they were born.
Although FASD is preventable, many pregnancies are unplanned and damage from alcohol exposure may happen before a woman knows she is pregnant and stops drinking alcohol.
Health NZ and the Ministry of Health advises to stop drinking alcohol if you could be pregnant, are pregnant or are trying to get pregnant. There is no known safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
So what is the response of the alcohol industry? In Espiner’s words:
Officials handed the draft FASD plan to alcohol companies for feedback – while keeping it from the public. Spirits New Zealand dismissed estimates that up to 3000 babies are born with the disorder each year as “not credible” and attacked a taxpayer-funded ad campaign from 2019, even though it won five awards.
As Espiner reports, whereas the Health Coalition Aotearoa said the industry should have no role in shaping alcohol policy, the Ministry was relaxed about it. Relaxed is my word, not Espiner’s, but it seems an appropriate summary description.
A spot on diagnosis I can’t emulate
By harming health system’s response to alcohol harm, patients are harmed
I was impressed with the quick but penetrating response to Guyon Espiner’s investigation by Dr Trevor FitzJohn on LinkedIn (20 August):
Very interesting to see the machinations of politics and big business in this case “Big alcohol “. 3 major issues here for me. Firstly that NZ allows lobbying like this, secondly the alcohol interests raising near spurious arguments to defend their profits, and thirdly the Department felt ashamed enough of its actions that it tried to hide them. That in itself shows it’s duplicity.
Excepts
Ministry of Health deputy director general Andrew Old “accepted the alcohol industry was motivated by profit.
“I also would hope that, in doing that, they don’t want to be doing harm,” m. Being naive?
The Brewers Association also warned against using the Alcohol Levy to fund “controversial” programmes it believes won’t reduce harmful consumption.
“Examples raised in our meeting included research with little application actions in the outcomes, funding of legal support for opposition of licences and replacing sponsorship arrangements in sport organisations with funds from the levy.” Really? They don’t remember the success of “Smokefree”?
We cannot see how any FASD (Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder) -prevention plan can be started without good data as a baseline. We would ask that the Public Health Agency give assurances that work on measurement frameworks occurs prior to other plan elements being launched.” Really? Again this so echoes the early days of smoking and “lung cancer is not related to smoking”.
As a responsible alcohol producer I am against irresponsible alcohol promotion that leads to alcohol abuse. The alcohol industry needs to regulate itself so harm can be reduced and the public can enjoy alcohol drinks.
Well done Guyon Espiner.
This says it all. I can’t match or surpass this analysis. Dr FitzJohn’s diagnosis is spot on. If Conrad Bollinger was alive today, he might be tempted to opine Grog’s own health system!
Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Otaihanga Second Opinion
An easy answer would be to place a one dollar per standard drink tax on alcohol sold off license to help fund the social harm unrestricted sales of alcohol cause. For beer alone, the approximately 220 million litre sold this way each year would gather $660m in tax. My box of Tui I got yesterday would cost $36 not the $24 I paid.
Like it sleepyH. Its costly pressuring people with laws and fines. So let them pay part of the costs when purchasing; a different type of human charity, supporting each other. The idea would be understood by all, that people don’t want rigid laws about drinking, will agree to take responsibility for a balanced approach to their own in return for fewer laws; there would still be some about opening times, and noise levels at events needing permits.
Each purchase would include the special small percentage over other taxes dedicated to go as a contribution to helping addicted people from a charitable outlook to the addicted of other drinkers. They would be underwriting and providing support for the remedial facilities needed, and sponsoring those trying to overcome addiction to alcohol mainly. Some who are multi-addicted would need more input.
It would not be perfect but would show willing, and alcohol abstinence would be encouraged for short times like the 40 hour famine stop on food there used to be, or Catholics eating no fish on Friday; let people stop the convivial drink habit once a month say.
Would anyone be surprised by the alcohol industries lobbying? It’s pretty much identical to the tobacco industry, which knew about smoking’s relation to lung cancer early on and hired both spin doctors and hack scientists to obfuscate, delay, and oppose any legislation which is restricted their activities.
Thanks for a decent article on this subject, while my personal view is that we don’t need alcohol I know that I am a minority however I view people insisting that they need alcohol the same way that I view people who insist that they need other recreational drugs. What I find surprising is the number of regular alcohol users who condemn those using illicit drugs while they lack the ability to recognize that the only difference between them and those they condemn is a profitable industry making sure that the laws support their ability to destroy the health and safety of society. Yes some drinkers are more responsible than others but that applies to other drugs users as well.
Damn good article Ian Powell.
When you put a boy in charge of health expect only lollies.
Bunch of Rechabites, i’m looking forward to my beer tonight wont be getting pissed or anything like that just enjoy a Friday night beer