By Dana McCauley
Food Minister Richard Colbeck met twice with alcohol industry lobbyists, including a major political donor, before a ministerial forum he chairs sent the independent regulator's proposed mandatory pregnancy warning label back for review.
Senator Colbeck met with the industry representatives in February and March after Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) recommended the label, with red and black lettering stating "HEALTH WARNING: Any amount of alcohol can harm your baby", be printed on alcohol bottles.
The regulator wants the existing voluntary DrinkWise label to be replaced with a mandatory health warning.
Just weeks later, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, which Senator Colbeck chairs, asked FSANZ to review its recommendation, saying the label would place "an unreasonable cost burden on industry".
The latest official data shows half of pregnant women in Australia consume alcohol knowingly or unknowingly, with a quarter continuing to drink after learning they have conceived, despite health authorities advising there is no safe level at which to drink while pregnant.
Documents tabled in the Senate reveal Senator Colbeck spent half an hour with representatives from multinational beer and spirits manufacturer Diageo and Lion Pty Ltd, the Japanese-owned company behind dozens of Australia's best known beers and ciders, on February 27.
According to disclosure returns lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission, Lion Pty Ltd has donated $280,000 to the Liberal Party of Australia and $22,330 to the National Party of Australia over the past five financial years.
Also present at the February 27 meeting were the Brewers Association of Australia, Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated and the peak industry body Alcohol Beverages Australia. Senator Colbeck met with ABA chief executive Andrew Wilsmore at a further meeting on March 3.
Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick asked the minister in Parliament on Thursday why the government had questioned the FSANZ label despite its own department concluding the industry's cost argument was wrong.
Senator Colbeck said food ministers had "listened closely to all perspectives" before asking FSANZ to "do some additional work" and remained "firm in our view there should be compulsory labels".
"In the weeks leading up to the March meeting, I met with organisations who requested meetings, and in fact, limited the number of meetings requested from alcohol sector to a round table rather than all the individual discussions they had requested," he later said in an emailed statement.
Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) chief executive Caterina Giorgi said the minister had allowed powerful vested interests to undermine the "independent" and "robust" process of the food safety regulator, which had already consulted extensively on the label.
She called on the minister to listen to FSANZ and departmental advice "that the best thing for the health of women, children and the broader community is clear, visible and honest labelling".
A briefing paper prepared by the Agriculture Department, also tabled in the Senate, rejected the alcohol lobby's argument that the proposed label would be too costly, saying: "There is a lack of evidence to support the concerns raised by ... alcohol industries."
FSANZ has advised that a small reduction in the incidence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder would justify the cost of changing the labels, with research indicating about 5 per cent of children born in Australia each year have the condition, costing the health system and economy $1.18 billion.
A Health Department briefing also tabled this week said the alcohol industry had bombarded FSANZ with objections to the proposed warning label, with 83 submissions outlining concerns.
It said the industry believed mandatory labelling was unnecessary as the current voluntary system was "working well" and objected to the use of red lettering because requiring manufacturers to use red ink would be too costly. The industry also opposed the use of the words "health warning" because it "may imply broader health impacts", the briefing said.
Mr Wilsmore said the FSANZ design "was the most expensive option" and, if implemented, would cost manufacturers $400 million, which they would pass on to consumers. He said the industry supported mandatory pregnancy warning labels but the proposed design was inappropriate.
The forum will next consider the proposed label next month.
Get our Morning & Evening Edition newsletters
The most important news, analysis and insights delivered to your inbox at the start and end of each day. Sign up to The Sydney Morning Herald’s newsletter here and The Age’s newsletter here.