News

Last fall, NDP member of Parliament Judy Wasylycia-Leis introduced a motion in the House of Commons calling on manufacturers of alcoholic beverages to put labels on their bottles warning consumers not to drink and drive, or drink if they are pregnant.

It is not the first time Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has raised this matter. In April, 2005, the House of Commons killed a private member's bill that would have required similar labelling on all containers of alcoholic beverages. Prior to Parliament's adjournment in December, MP Paul Szabo, the foremost proponent of this legislation, spoke in favour of it in the House, where this issue likely will resurface.

The Canada Safety Council has gone on record as firmly opposing such legislation. Alcohol warning labels epitomize a can't-hurt, might-help, why-not? public-policy approach that is irresponsible and illogical. Good laws are driven by (evidenced-based) objectivity, hard facts and realism — not by flawed public policy, political expediency and emotion.

Proponents selectively point to "evidence" but ignore the big picture. The simple truth is that there is no compelling evidence to show that warning labels will have any effect in reducing the irresponsible use of alcoholic beverages. Several major research studies, including one by the World Health Organization (WHO), have concluded that mandated labels have had no significant impact on consumption patterns in other jurisdictions around the world, including the United States. The WHO study in 2003 found that labels affected awareness and knowledge, but had no direct impact on consumption or alcohol-related problems. Among youth, the warnings did not increase perceptions of alcohol risk, and even may have made the products more attractive to both drinkers and non-drinkers.

A survey on literacy in Canada, released in May of 2005, revealed that 42 per cent of Canadian adults have low literacy. The fact is that warning labels may not even be read or understood by some of the at-risk groups.

In its battle against impaired driving, this country has a far more effective weapon than labels — the Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving. Because of STRID, road fatalities involving drinking drivers fell from 1,296 in 1995 to 850 in 2002, a drop of more than a third. The United States has had mandatory alcohol warning labels since 1988, but that country's fatalities did not go down at all during those years.

In contrast, we have no strategy to prevent birth defects and conditions caused by alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The tragedy of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and fetal alcohol effects (FAE) is compounded by the fact that this condition is fully preventable if alcohol is avoided during pregnancy. Canada desperately needs a strategy to address the tragic consequences of FAS/FAE, which must include counselling and treatment targeted at high-risk groups.

Until this strategy is put in place, efforts to eradicate this serious public-health problem will fail. This will have to be a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. The Canada Safety Council and other organizations with important interests and constituencies have advocated for such a strategy since 1992.

A quick-fix mentality pervades society. It affects personal expectations, business practices and public policy. Unfortunately, quick fixes often sacrifice long-term progress for short-term actions, without doing anything to address the underlying causes. Too often, they may also have unforeseen consequences. When it comes to public health and safety, quick fix solutions —taken without proper consideration — usually create new problems.

The Canada Safety Council and many other organizations and individuals believe that alcohol warning labels will divert resources and attention away from proven measures and personal interventions that actually can make a difference.

Emile Therien is former president of the Canada Safety Council.