Blog # 3 Alcohol and health (continued)
The basic reference used for these notes is http://www.wfa.org.au/activities/alcohol-and-health, downloaded 11/11/13.
The basic policy position of the Winemakers Federation of Australia (WFA) is that it backs action to encourage wine drinking in moderation and will encourage members to promote the responsible consumption of wine. It rejects the idea that wine does not have a legitimate role and acceptance by society,or, in modern terms, that it ‘has lost its social licence’.
The WFA has a four step industry ‘action plan’ that includes: presenting evidence in support of the social licence; funding research to improve knowledge about the positive effects and risks of drinking wine; supporting evidence based programs to address the cultural and social issues leading to abusive drinking, and finally, encouragement of members to participate in the educational process.
In support of that plan it has launched action of various kinds. The most recent of which is the ‘Responsible Winery Initiative’ the details of which are on the website but are is intended to set the standard for the industry. The focus of this program is to train in-house staff and re-assess other in house priorities such as introducing standard tasting pour quantities related to the more general standard drinks program as promoted by the National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Other aspects include reassessment of marketing plans, for example to include support for the ‘Drinkwise’ pregnancy labelling initiative. Drinkwise Australia is an industry supported not-for profit organisation, formerly encouraged by the Federal Government, a factor that the industry continues to portray as official support!. Finally, members are encouraged to develop their own enterprise ‘alcohol policy’.
Other established approaches include cooperation with the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) resulting in a joint position with respect to “the significant public interest” concerning both the positive and negative impacts of consumption. The two organisations cooperate in research that challenges or confirms traditional thinking. Current conventional thinking embraces the benefits from the moderate consumption of wine while acknowledging the risks from excessive drinking, particularly over extended periods or for specific special circumstances such as during pregnancy.
The WFA is a contributor and partially funds both Drinkwise Australia and the Alcohol Beverages Advertising (and Packaging) Code. A further contribution towards the health and social issues is made through the National Wine Foundation with a focus on the social problems leading to alcohol abuse and includes indigenous communities. As the leading national body for winemakers, the Association also responds, on behalf of members, in making submissions to various third party inquiries. Recent submissions have included, in February 2013, a response to the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA) inquiry on alcohol advertising and a second inquiry by the same institution on public interest for a minimum (floor) price on alcohol (august 2012). The WFA also submitted a response to a parliamentary inquiry into Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
Comment
It is apparent from these actions that the WFA is an integral player in the broad issues of alcohol and health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is also a committed participant. The WHO approach is scientific, quantified, and draws the conclusion that alcohol is a source of unacceptably high risks that impedes any improvement in public health trends due to its being a significant contributor to the ‘Global Burden of Disease’. As a consequence that institution is looking for a proportionate response to the risks identified through a long list of diseases and injuries.
The response of the international alcoholic beverage supply industry could not be more different. It argues at the scale of personal case histories, and generalises its justification for a social license, based on qualitative assertions, that do not even have the support of normal business plan implementation processes including clear objectives, responsibilities, deadlines, reports, review and re-commitment. In order to raise its contribution to the level of the WHO approach it requires funding to thoroughly analyse the findings resulting from the ‘Big Data’ exercise undertaken by WHO, and complete its own significant analysis to quantify the net economic benefits from the ‘ying and yang’ of alcohol. It also needs to introduce a cooperative process that matches the best performance standards of business when it invests under normal circumstances. Anything less can only lead to a conclusion that the industry is trying to ‘fob off’ the general public with a strategy based on guile.
WFA through its broader alcoholic beverages cooperation is tarred by some of the fall out from the confrontational tactics of the global enterprises. It should consider four improvements: elevate the alcohol and health issue to Board status through a sub-committee; instigate a more quantified and complete management process to replace the motherhood and apple pie sentiments of the current approach; cooperatively raise sufficient funds or resources ‘in kind’ to effect a full economic benefit analysis of the impact of alcohol on the country and finally raise funding to enlarge the medical research undertaken by the AWRI, not through the GWRDC, but as a direct client and insist on a full management process from that institution. As a second stage a more scientific approach could also be developed towards the general education programs dealing with alcohol and health.
ianpowrie 