By Emma Rumney and Jennifer Rigby
LONDON (Reuters) -The Belgian beer industry, Mexico’s tequila makers and Heineken all lobbied governments this summer to resist a push by the U.N.’s health agency to introduce tougher rules targeting alcohol, letters and an email reviewed by Reuters show.
The previously unreported efforts reflect how the $1 trillion global drinks industry is taking on the World Health Organization over its hardening stance that there is no risk-free level of drinking.
That position is disputed by the industry. And as cash-strapped and increasingly health-conscious consumers cut back on alcohol, dealing a blow to companies’ profits, the stand-off reveals how the sector is ramping up its efforts to head off further threats.
ALCOHOL POLICIES WATERED DOWN IN UN HEALTH AGREEMENT
The WHO and other health authorities say drinking, sometimes even in small amounts, is linked to higher risks of certain cancers and other diseases.
Dag Rekve, the WHO’s technical policy officer, told Reuters that at the population level, these health harms were “consistent and well documented”.
But alcohol makers say the science is more complicated, and shows drinking in moderation is low-risk. Julian Braithwaite, CEO of the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking (IARD), told Reuters the industry aims to “take back control of the alcohol debate”.
To that end, IARD’s members, which include leading brewers and spirit makers, have increased the organisation’s funding to have it play a more active role in alcohol-related science debates and counter the message coming from health bodies.
The current flashpoint in that battle is a new U.N.-backed agreement, due for adoption by countries on September 25, that sets targets for tackling non-communicable diseases, some of them linked to alcohol.
Proposed WHO-backed alcohol controls appeared in the first draft of the agreement published in May. But a later version, from earlier in September, also public, shows they have been dropped or weakened.
The WHO said last week that the process had been affected by intense lobbying, including by the alcohol industry.
A letter seen by Reuters shows that, in May, soon after the first draft of the agreement was released, Mexico’s National Chamber of the Tequila Industry (CNIT), which represents top spirits makers, wrote to the Mexican government.
CNIT asked Mexican authorities to use talks with other governments to help remove references to WHO-supported policies, including commitments to raise taxes on alcohol and restrict its availability in stores, the letter showed.
Those proposals were subsequently tempered in the September draft to say countries should “consider” introducing tax increases “in line with national circumstances” and “consider … availability measures.”
A separate letter sent to the Mexican government on behalf of Dutch beer giant Heineken suggested changing a proposal to ban or restrict alcohol advertising to instead focus it on advertising to minors.
Calls for restrictions on alcohol advertising were dropped from the September version of the agreement.
Trade association Belgian Brewers, meanwhile, wrote to the Belgian deputy prime minister’s office in June complaining that the country’s health minister was pursuing “radical positions” in relation to the U.N. text, an email seen by Reuters showed.
The industry group pointed to attempts to change a reference about reducing the impact of harmful consumption, such as alcohol addiction, into a statement that referred to all kinds of drinking.
A SHIFT NEEDED?
Heineken, CNIT and Belgian Brewers told Reuters it was standard practice to communicate industry views to policymakers. CNIT said it did not seek to weaken the U.N. agreement, only to ensure that it was both effective and fair to the industry by providing robust science, and added that this resulted in better policies.
Both the Mexican chamber and Heineken said the private sector has a recognised role in the U.N. health process.
Belgian Brewers, meanwhile, said a shift to focus on all alcohol consumption risked being counterproductive.
It is not clear if the Mexican government adopted the industry’s suggestions during negotiations over the U.N.-backed document. Mexico’s health ministry did not respond to Reuters’ questions.
IARD’s Braithwaite said the changes made to the health targets reflected governments’ recognition that an approach that distinguishes between moderate and harmful consumption, such as drink-driving, works.
But Jeremy Farrar, the WHO’s assistant-director general in charge of health promotion, disease prevention and care, said that the body had to address the main causes of ill health – from alcohol to pollution – more strongly.
“There does have to be a shift,” he told Reuters.
A BATTLE OF MESSAGES
The WHO’s headquarters and European office have increased the number of publications released relating to alcohol since 2022, according to a Reuters review of their output. And in 2023, they moved to a stance that there is “no safe level” of drinking.
Company executives have argued the industry needs to more actively push back and promote positive aspects of moderate drinking.
In March, Diageo advertised for a new role on its global lobbying team, citing “an unprecedented challenge” from the WHO and related non-governmental organisations pressuring governments.
Such roles are a “standard part of how we engage with governments to advocate for proportionate, evidence-based policies that support both society and business”, a Diageo spokesperson said.
Diageo interim CEO Nik Jhangiani said at a recent conference that the spirits sector was being “outshone” by negative messaging, and it should do more to manage the dialogue.
And Carlsberg CEO Jacob Aarup-Andersen told Reuters last month that moderate drinking has benefits for socialising and mental health and said the industry should communicate those.
But health or policy arguments from drinks companies should be taken with a grain of salt, said Eric Crosbie, a professor at the University of Nevada, Reno’s School of Public Health.
“We have to remember these are businesses,” he said. “They’re there to make money.”
(Reporting by Emma Rumney and Jennifer Rigby; Editing by Adam Jourdan and Joe Bavier)
Comments