Waxing and waning on warnings
By Guest Columnist Christine Rogan, Health Promotion Advisor for Alcohol Healthwatch who has advocated for alcohol health advisory statements for pregnant women since 1996.
The other day I came across a premix vodka beverage with an alcohol content of 7% that was sporting a health advisory statement which said, “NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN, PREGNANT OR LACTATING WOMEN AND INDIVIDUALS SENSITIVE TO CAFFEINE. Caffeine? The message about the significant risk that alcohol posed to such consumers was simply absent.
How could such a situation come about? In 2001, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ mandated what it called “rigorous labelling” for caffeinated drinks. A FSANZ spokesperson interviewed at the time by the New Zealand Herald (01/08/01) said, “We are sure that this will protect the health and safety of people who drink these products”. There had at that point been three deaths linked internationally to the consumption of caffeinated drinks, two ironically where the caffeine had been mixed with alcohol.
Despite the fact no caffeine-associated deaths to my knowledge were reported in New Zealand and Australia, FSANZ moved quickly to regulate with this health warning. However, just one year prior, the food standards organisation, summarily dismissed such a move for alcohol, an altogether more significant and proven risk to human health. Why? Among the number of questionable arguments put forward at that time, was that a health warnings on alcohol containers would be ineffective at achieving desirable behaviour change and could even increase undesirable behaviour in some ‘at risk’ groups.
Why then would a health warning label be effective for caffeine one year hence? There is no rational explanation as to why a level of proof of effectiveness should be so different for alcohol.
December 15 2007 | Alcohol and Pregnancy | 1 Comment »