NZ Government Soft on Alcohol Advertising

Sally Jackman, Executive Director of the New Zealand Drug Foundation

The New Zealand Government is treading softly when it comes to alcohol advertising. A paper outlining options for an independent review of alcohol advertising policy was not considered at a recent meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. Instead Ministers chose to discuss improving industry self-regulation with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) as a first step. The ASA is the self-regulatory body responsible for administering the voluntary code of practice on alcohol advertising.

This comes as a disappointment to public health organizations, calling for an independent and fundamental policy review. Such lack of progress seems incongruous with the Ministry of Health's own position. In 1998 the Ministry recommended that a complete ban be placed on all broadcast alcohol advertising.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation and numerous other public health organisations also want a ban of alcohol advertising on radio and television.

In a paper prepared for relevant Ministers last year, health officials said, "advertising controls may be a valuable harm minimization strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm. Controls also signal concern about alcohol-related harm and encourage society to support policies aimed at reducing these harms. However, these controls may have significant economic costs and may impact on rights to freedom of [commercial] expression".

Calls for a ban have come amidst growing concern in New Zealand and internationally about alcohol-related harm. Teenage binge drinking is of particular concern. The increasingly common spectacle of drunken teenagers in public places has many New Zealand communities and local governments worried.

Public health organizations in New Zealand have been heartened by international statements like the WHO Declaration on Young People and Alcohol made in Stockholm in February.

The declaration puts our efforts in an international context and gives weight to arguments for stricter controls on alcohol advertising. The declaration says public health policies on alcohol need to be formulated by public health interests, without interference from commercial interests. It calls for countries to undertake national measures to minimize pressures on young people to drink, including pressures of advertising and sponsorship.

The declaration is relevant for New Zealand as a previous government required the main alcohol advisory body to specially consult with the alcohol industry. This decision was recently reversed with a change of government. The declaration adds weight to this decision.

Rules governing alcohol advertising were relaxed in New Zealand in a series of policy changes. Since February 1992, alcohol brand advertisements have been permitted on television after 9pm. Since then alcohol advertising has become a major earner for the advertising and broadcasting industries and alcohol companies have become important sponsors of sports programmes on television.

An independent review of alcohol advertising would be a step forward but it is likely to meet with vigorous opposition from the liquor, advertising and broadcasting industries.

The ASA says self-regulation is working well. In 1998, it appointed a review team to examine broadcast advertising. The review team recommended that broadcast advertising should continue and said there was insufficient evidence to indicate a definitive link between alcohol advertising and alcohol-related problems. The review team cited the declining trend in alcohol consumption, which continued even after broadcast advertising of alcohol was allowed, as an argument against the need for an advertising ban.

However, public health organizations say a variety of factors, such as tougher economic times and effective use of various harm-reduction strategies have contributed to the steady decline in alcohol consumption since the 1970s until recently. In our view, the review team's shallow analysis of alcohol consumption trends fails to note that while fewer people are drinking, those who are drinking - particularly young people - are drinking more than before and handling it worse.

Annual surveys carried out by the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland, in the 1990s showed that 14-17 year old drinkers were drinking increasingly large amounts per drinking occasion.

In another New Zealand study, which monitored drinking among a large group of young people from age 9, it was shown that the extent to which they responded positively to alcohol advertisements at age 15 and 18 predicted heavier drinking at 21. This heavier drinking was in turn linked to self-reports of aggressive behaviour.

Another argument, which has been used to counter calls for an advertising ban, is that it restricts freedom of commercial expression. A private members Bill to introduce health warning labels on alcohol containers was voted down last year when it was suggested that it might contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, a legal opinion commissioned by the non-government organisation, Alcohol Healthwatch, says a ban on alcohol advertising would not contravene the Act if the health gains to be made outweighed concerns for freedom of commercial expression.

A fundamental policy review is still a possibility but is not the first choice for action by Ministers at this time. The New Zealand Drug Foundation believes that a fundamental review by Government of its policy is essential to ensure that public health interests take precedence over commercial interests in determining New Zealand's policy on alcohol advertising.

The students were asked where they usually consumed alcohol. In about half the countries "at someone else's home" scored the highest. The second most popular venue was at one's own home. As far as the consequences of their alcohol consumption were concerned, it is significant that those who imagined that these would be positive were found in those countries where consumption was highest.