Labelling Of Alcohol Containers In Australia: Legislative And Regulatory Frameworks

Background

In late 2011, the Australian government released the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation, which requires labelling of alcohol containers. Consumers globally are more and more looking for additional information on food labels regarding issues, like nation of source of the brand and the ingredients that are genetically engineered. A voluntary front of the package based on health star rating process has been established for Australia’s food labelling. Public health supporters have continued to call Australia to order further health-connected information on alcohol containers, particularly wellbeing warning labels. Thus, at the global stage, the labelling of alcohol containers is supported by World Health Organization (WHO), that has the “Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol” comprises labelling of alcoholic products to show problems connected to alcohol use (Peadon et al., 2011). The paper will provide the background of the labelling of alcohol containers; regulatory and legislative frameworks on this public health issue; improvements of legislations; roles and responsibilities of stakeholders; and international context of the public issue. The paper will further discuss the merits and disadvantages of voluntary industry self-regulation as a strategy to presenting health label warnings for clients on alcohol beverage packages and the effectiveness of mandatory versus voluntary approaches. Finally, the paper will also examine the strategies in implementation of the legislation.

Alcohol is a primary cause of avoidable mortality, diseases, as well as hospitalization that costs the Australian economy around $36 billion annually. This shows how serious the alcohol problem is in Australia. There is a casual association amid alcohol along with 60 kinds of illnesses and harm, comprising road accidents, stroke, cardiovascular diseases, certain cancers, as well as pancreatitis. Consequences, alcohol alone results to around 3.2 % of the whole load of the illness, as well as  harm, 3,420 mortalities yearly, plus a loss of 85,437 disability adjusted life years (Liangpunsakul, 2010). Thus, it is approximated that 5,071 incidents of cancer may be linked to long-standing persistent consumption of alcoholic beverages annually in Queensland. Therefore, it is too approximated that 22 per cent cancer of the breast incidents in Australia is attributed to alcohol use. In spite of the extent of these wellbeing concerns, there are many people in Australia who are not completely aware of the harms linked to alcohol consumption. The 2011 AER Foundation Annual Alcohol Poll established that few people in Australia were conscious that alcoholic beverage consumption were linked to mouth in addition to throat cancer (24 per cent) plus even few individuals were conscious of the association amid alcohol, as well as breast cancer (about13%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2014). These statistics prompted the Australia government to develop a voluntary health warning scheme for alcohol containers in 2011. There exist some efforts to set up mandatory health caution labels on alcohol products to decrease these damages due to alcohol consumption (Payne et al., 2005).

The Food Standards Australians New Zealand (FSANZ) is an autonomous agency with the obligation for creating standards for food, which include standards in line with food labelling. Consequently, the primary labelling needs for alcohol products in Australia are contained in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code or Food Standards Codes. This Code establishes the information that ought to be integrated on alcohol warning labels with different messages. The code as well lays down the information that should not be integrated in these labels, except some requirements are fulfilled. The standards for alcohol labelling in Australia arise from a complex process that entails the Australian government and that of New Zealand (NZ), plus each of the states plus territories in Australia. A Commonwealth legislative organization, FSANZ is authorized to establish standards in line with food, comprising its labelling (AER Foundation, 2011). These food standards fashioned by FSANZ comprise the Food Standards Codes. Australia and NZ have settled, by means of an international treaty to use the Food Standards Code in their respective territories. Nonetheless, in Queensland, it is the territory and respective states that have the primary responsibility in applying, as well as enforcing the Food Standards Code (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 2006).

Regulatory and Legislative Frameworks on Alcohol Labelling

Additionally, the Food Standards Code stipulates standards for “food” that are sold or primed for vending in Australia along with NZ, as well as the imported into these nations. Alcohol is defined by the code as provided under the classification of “food”, though it is prominent that there exists no disconnect designation of “alcohol” in FSANZ Act or the Food Standard Codes. The obligation for the alcohol labelling under the code is derived from two origins: definite labelling standards definite to alcohol beverages in Alcohol Labelling Standard 2.7.1 of the Food Standard Codes; and group labelling standards that is pertinent to the entire “food”. Because alcohol is regarded as a food under the provisions of the code, this becomes the subject under the universal labelling necessities too (Martin-Moreno et al., 2013). The code’s labelling necessities pertain another way to “packaged” alcoholic products. The mainly burdensome needs for the labelling of alcohol are obligatory statements of (1) the brand’s alcoholic substance; plus (2) the quantity of standard alcoholic drinks in every package. The most important alcohol labelling prerequisite is in the section 3(2) of Alcohol Labelling Standard 2.7.1 that obligates that the label should contain a declaration of the estimate quantity of standard alcoholic beverages in every package (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2009).

Though the Food Standards Code is made by the Commonwealth legislative organization, the primary duty to conform to this code emanates from the Food Act in every state in addition to territory in Australia. For instance, there is a universal requirement under clause n 16(1) of the Food Act 1984(Vic), which an individual should conform to any prerequisite imposed on the individual by the proviso of the Food Standard Code in line with the food for vending (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

The goal of introducing warning labels on alcohol through voluntary approach is to modify the manner individuals’ drink so as to reduce damage; the present proof on alcohol caution labels is not convincing. Thus, the alcohol labelling warnings are designed to change the behaviour and stopping harm.  The voluntary labelling of alcoholic products has been deemed effectual in reducing the harm, which supports the need for regulation. In Australia, mandatory inclusion of warning labels on alcoholic products has been seen to be effectual both in boosting responsiveness of health threats, as well as modifying health behaviours (Jones & Gregory, 2009). The Australia Medical Association (AMA) emphasizes that warning labels could be an important deterrent in vital areas, like teenage drinking, as well as drinking when pregnant. This implies that the warnings on labels will act as a tool where person’s use of alcoholic product would be lowered, whether by a means of alteration in drinker’s individual knowhow regarding the alcohol or other individuals who may influence the user. In addition, Mandatory approach is considered to be important in changing the social climate in line with the alcohol. This means that the approach of using warnings through labels will influence surrounding that promotes consumption of alcohol. These will also making the drinker to consider the government policies towards lowering the use of alcoholic beverage, such as escalating the cost of alcohol or restricting physical accessibility (Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 2006).

Merits and Disadvantages of Voluntary Industry Self-Regulation

The demand for stringent legislative regulation by government through warnings appears to be founded on the alarms, which the alcohol sector is not healthy to control itself due to the sector’s main clash of interest. Thus, the voluntary labelling requirements is its commercial concern to increase its sales along with profits that is perceived as irreconcilable with the role of establishing a type of warnings labels that are ineffective at lowering harms from alcoholic beverages. This kind of clash is questionably exaggerated if the objective of the cautions in labels is to lower all alcoholic product use plus not basically damaging alcohol use. It has been argued that because alcohol is food plus an enjoyment in addition to that provided that it is not abused, it does no damage, in self-control, do more good (Kypri et al., 2007).

Many studies have established that there is the requirement for caution labels on alcohol products to be obligatory, as well as government-controlled. Voluntary alcohol labelling systems have been established to be unproductive, for instance, voluntary system of labelling regulation in other nations like the United Kingdom (UK). Also, in 2007, the Department of Health in UK agreed to form a contract with the alcohol sector to incorporate alcoholic brands unity and wellbeing information containers that is used to pack alcohol. A study carried out on sample of United Kingdom alcohol labels showed that in the absence of mandatory regulatory to govern the labelling, nearly 30 per cent of the alcohol manufacturers did not incorporate any wellbeing warning information on their warning labels (Wilkinson & Room, 2009). This demonstrated that there is the need for countries like Australia to embrace mandatory regulations on labels on alcohol to boost its efficiency because voluntary labelling of alcohol products has proved ineffective. The alcohol manufacturers who did not use labels on their products were found to be manipulating the messages on their labels so that it incorporated the brand name. In addition, the labels examined consumed an average only around 1.2% of the entire printable region and in some cases had deprived legibility, for instance, glossy surfaces (Martin-Moreno et al., 2013).  

In addition, voluntary labelling has been seen to decrease productivity by the industry players. The Australian government has the core role of improving its productivity. However, the obligation of extra conformity along with regulatory load via mandatory caution labels is deemed to reduce efficiency plus government with a swell in resource allotments for regulating the labels.  Thus, the inefficiency of voluntary regulation of labelling in alcohol sector may be shown in the Australian case where employing the case of Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code (ABAC). An official assessment of the sectors’s self-regulation of marketing, undertaken in 2003, by the National Committee for Review on Alcohol Advertising (NCRAA) established considerable errors in the ABAC. The review established that several grievances were not probed on time; some grievances were inspected at all while very little grievances were upheld. Therefore, the mandatory alcohol industry regulation on labels is effective than voluntary form of regulation (National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2017).  

The government plays a leading role in ensuring implementation of regulations. The government provides the necessary regulatory mechanisms in addition to formulating laws that will ensure that the producers place warning labels on alcohol beverages. In addition, the government has the role of providing the necessary finances that is used to implement the regulations. They are required to provide the necessary framework that will ensure that there is successful implementation and enforcement of regulation on warning labels on alcoholic beverages (Anderson & Baumberg, 2005).

The alcohol industry in Australia has the role of ensuring that the products they produce meet the safety and health standards. They are expected to ensure that they provide warning labels in their alcoholic beverages to promote the safety and health of the consumers. Furthermore, the industry ensures that they comply with regulations that governing warning labels on alcohols by not violating the regulations (Stockwell, 2007). They have a role of being in the forefront in ensuring that all the products have the specified warning labels on alcohol beverages. They must ensure that there are clear warning messages and specifications of nutrients on the labels towards the safety and health of the public (Anderson & Baumberg, 2005).

NGOs play a role providing the necessary resources towards implementation of the warning labels on alcohol. The main resource provided by NGOs are finances that will be used to implement the regulations and also provide material resources that are used to educate the public regarding the need to ensure that the alcoholic products they consume have labels. This role is attained through collaboration with the government in many spheres of implementation of regulations on warning labels on alcohol beverages. They further play a role of creating awareness on policy concerns related to labels on alcohol products (Stockwell, 2007).

The Australian legislation that governs the labelling of the alcohol products is in line with the international legislations. Australia is among the nations that have adopted laws that govern the labelling of alcohol products like other countries globally. Internationally, more than 18 nations or regions have initiated laws, which need mandatory use of health caution labels on alcohol beverages. These nations comprise South Africa, France, Honduras, Costa Rica, Ecuador, United States, South Korea, as well as Mexico. The principal goal of these messages used in the labels is to pass information concerning the problems, which have been confirmed to be product of alcohol consumption.  Instances of messages that are employed in labels comprise that alcohol “can raise cancer threat”. Whilst Australian manufacturers are not needed to carry health caution messages on brands sold in Queensland, they are needed to fulfil the mandatory labelling necessities of other nations and use wellbeing caution labels to the brands exported to other nations across the world (Boisrobert, 2009).

There are several strategies that are employed in Australia while implementing legislation on placing labels on alcohol beverages. The implementation of health warning labels is done through public education where there is strict evaluation and review process. This is an important strategy in making sure the legislation achieves what is intended to do, that is, reducing harm to the public. The evaluations use considers the impact of the legislation on shifting both the attitudes, as well as behaviours of the public. The evaluations are carried out on a regular basis to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation. Additionally, the evaluations as a strategy take into consideration the way the regulation on mandating health warning labels interrelates with other policy reforms plus must evaluate any changes in public encouragement for the legislations (Babor et al., 2010).

Conclusions

From the discussion, it is apparent that the primary labelling necessities for alcohol in Australia are provided under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Thus, the Food Standards Code stipulates the information that should be integrated on alcohol labels that serve as warnings. It is also clear that mandated regulation on health labels on alcohol products is effective than voluntary regulation. This mandated regulation on labelling of alcohol products has been successful in many countries including the US and UK. Voluntary regulation has proved ineffective because it provides some loopholes that will encourage producers to manipulate the labels and go away with it. Australia complies with international standards of mandated regulations labelling of alcohol products that they export, but this is not applicable at home. Beneath the present code, the entire alcohol brands in Australia are exempted from having to offer some information, like nutritional on their products. Australia should totally adopt mandatory regulation in home to promote the safety and health of its citizens because the current labelling regulations do not totally cushion citizens from tampered labelling. 

References 

AER Foundation. (2011). Annual Alcohol Poll: Community Attitudes and Behaviours. Canberra: AER Foundation Ltd.

Anderson, P. & Baumberg, B. (2005). Stakeholders’ views of alcohol policy. A report for the European Commission. United Kingdom: Institute of Alcohol Studies.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2014). 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 28. Cat. no. PHE 183. Canberra: AIHW.

Babor, T.F., Caetano, R., Casswell, S., Edwards, G., Giesbrecht, N. & Graham, K. (2010). Alcohol: no ordinary commodity. Research and public policy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berryman, P. A. U. L. (2017). Advances In Food And Beverage Labelling. S.L.: Woodhead.

Boisrobert, C. E. (2009). Ensuring global food safety: Exploring global harmonization. London: Academic.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2008). National preventative health taskforce. Technical Report No 3 Preventing alcohol-related harm in Australia: a window of opportunity. Canberra: Australian Government.

Jones, S.C. & Gregory, P. (2009). The impact of more visible standard drink labelling on youth alcohol consumption: Helping young people drink (ir)responsibly?. Drug and Alcohol Review. 28 (2); 230-234.

Kypri, K., McManus, A., Howat, P.M., Maycock, B.R., Hallett, J.D. &  Chikritzhs, T.N. (2007). Ingredient and nutrition information labelling of alcoholic beverages: do consumers want it? Med J Aust. 187(11–12):669.

Liangpunsakul S. (2010). Relationship between alcohol intake and dietary pattern: findings from NHANES III. World J Gastroenterol. 16(32):4055–60.

Martin-Moreno, J.M., Harris, M.E., Breda. J., Møller, L., Alfonso-Sanchez, J.L. & Gorgojo L. (2013). Enhanced labelling on alcoholic drinks: reviewing the evidence to guide alcohol policy. Eur J Public Health. 23(6):1082–7.

Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. (2006). National clinical guidelines for the management of drug use during pregnancy, birth and the early development years of the newborn.  Sydney: NSW Health and Commonwealth of Australia.

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2009). Australian Guidelines: to Reduce Health Risks from Drinking. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

National Heart Foundation of Australia. (2017). Two year progress review report on the implementation of the Health Star Rating system – June 2014 – June 2016. National Heart Foundation of Australia.

Payne, J., Elliott, E., D’Antoine, H., O’Leary C., Mahony, A., Haan, E. & Bower C (2005). Health professionals’ knowledge, practice and opinions about fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol consumption in pregnancy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 29(2):558-564.

Peadon, E., Payne, J., Henley, N., D’Antoine, H., Bartu, A., O’Leary, C., Bower, C. & Elliott EJ. (2011). Attitudes and behaviour predict women’s intention to drink alcohol during pregnancy: the challenge for health professionals. BMC Public Health. 11(1):584.

Stockwell, T. (2007). Working with the alcohol industry on alcohol policy: should we sometimes sit at the same table? Addiction. 102(3): 1–2.

Stockwell, T.R. (2006). A review of research into the impacts of alcohol warning labels on attitudes and behaviour, British Columbia. Canada: Centre of Addictions Research of BC, University of Victoria.

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. (2009). Alcohol health information labels: Report of qualitative research into health information labels on alcoholic beverages. Carlton South: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

Wilkinson, C. & Room, R. (2009). Warnings on alcohol containers and advertisements: International experience and evidence on effects. Drug and Alcohol Review, 28(2), 426- 435.