By Heath Aston and political correspondent
Alcohol makers have rejected an offer by a senior federal health bureaucrat for the industry to put forward experts to join a panel reviewing Australia's controversial safe drinking guidelines.
The offer was made by Anne Kelso, chief executive of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is overseeing the five-yearly review into what level of alcohol intake is deemed safe.
Australia has some of the strictest guidelines in the world on levels of safe drinking.Credit: iStock
The process was quietly kicked off in October but was quickly mired in controversy after Fairfax Media revealed the review panel included two members with direct associations with Christian-linked temperance organisations that campaign for "alcohol-free social interaction".
At two standard drinks a day, Australia has one of the strictest standards in the world for alcohol consumption deemed unharmful.
Illustration Matt Golding
By comparison, Japanese authorities advise men they can safely drink four units of alcohol without risking long-term health effects.
The industry is concerned that the Australian safe drinking benchmark will be lowered further by the current panel.
In a letter to Professor Kelso outlining the concerns of brewers, winemakers and distillers, Alcohol Beverages Australia chief executive Fergus Taylor declined her offer to put forward industry-endorsed experts qualified to join the panel.
"This letter is to formally respond to your specific offer in the meeting, to the industry – to put forward a list of names of relevant experts, for consideration by the NHMRC as additional members of the AWC [alcohol working committee].
"Alcohol Beverages Australia members are united in the view that this would be an inappropriate industry intervention in the NHMRC process and would in fact constitute an equal and opposite inflammation of the existing conflicts of interest that currently threaten the independence and integrity of the process.
"The Australian public has every right to expect that neither alcohol industry representatives, nor anti-alcohol activists and temperance zealots, should be involved in the independent review component of the process."
Mr Taylor renewed calls for the NHMRC to "remove the conflicted members of the AWC".
"Or at the very least, put in place conflict management plans to the extent the industry and the public may have confidence restored in the independence and objectivity of the process," he said.
A spokeswoman for the NHMRC said the industry had raised concerns that the AWC did not have "sufficient understanding of modern alcohol consumption in Australia or the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption".
"Based on these concerns, Professor Kelso asked ABA to identify any experts who could provide that advice and who would not have significant conflicts of interest, for NHMRC's consideration as additional members of the AWC. ABA has advised that that they will not put forward any names," she said.
"NHMRC remains confident that the AWC comprises the most eminent researchers and experts in alcohol research in Australia."
The ABA has singled out panel member Michael Livingston, a board member of the Australian Rechabite Foundation, which was established by the the Independent Order of the Rechabites, a temperance society which dates back to the mid-1800s and promotes "total abstinence from alcoholic beverages".
Dr Livingston said: "The ARF is not a temperance society – the board includes people with a range of attitudes to alcohol and the foundation funds research and programs broadly aimed at reducing the negative impacts of alcohol in society. This includes projects that focus on reducing harm from alcohol consumption without targeting abstinence. I am not and have never been a member of a temperance organisation and my work on the board of the ARF has no impact on my ability to provide expert advice on alcohol epidemiology."
Panel chairwoman Kate Conigrave recently quit as a board member of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) but said the decision was not linked to criticism by the industry.
She said she had been "run off her feet" with alcohol research projects.
CURRENT ALCOHOL HEALTH GUIDELINES
- No more than two standard drinks* on any day reduces the lifetime risk of harm from either alcohol-related disease or injury.
- No more than four standard drinks on a single occasion reduces the risk of alcohol-related injury arising from that occasion.
- For children under 18 years, not drinking alcohol is the safest option.
* Standard drink: 1 middy full-strength beer/100ml wine/30ml spirits