Short post. I have just finished watching the final hearing of the Canadian Senate committee tasked with considering cancer warning labels on alcohol.
By the time they heard opposing views today, Senators had already heard from 10 or so health professionals and alcohol control lobbyists, as well as an impassioned presentation by Senator Brazeau, who originated the Bill.
Which meant the Senators were openly hostile by the time Brad Goddard of the Canadian Craft Brewers Association and Prof Dan Malleck, a medical historian from Brock University, got their chance to speak.
Prof. Malleck, who repeatedly told the committee that he was an academic, not an industry representative, was asked about his sources of funding. Although he reiterated that he’d never accepted so much as a beer from the alcohol industry, the questioning persisted. He now has to produce a list of his research and his funding — an onerous task, because he’s a distinguished academic.
And here’s the irony: although many of the previous speakers had dwelt at length on the nefarious nature of Big Alcohol, it was nowhere to be seen. Even though a number of its representatives had been invited to appear.
Brad Goddard, while clearly knowledgeable about some of the issues, was simply not prepared for the kinds of questions he faced, nor for the level of antagonism. I’d be surprised if he’d had formal media training, much less any experience in dealing with aggressive questioning.
I interviewed Dan Malleck on the podcast a while back — he’s an expert in the history of Prohibition — and he told me Prohibition happened because the liquor industry didn’t take the threat seriously. They thought their political contacts and their tax contributions were enough to shield them from the temperance lobby, and so they were complacent. We all know what happened next.
Prohibition is not on the table. Denormalisation is. The witnesses speaking today drew a clear link between tobacco control tactics and what they want to see happen with alcohol. The discussion included whether labels could eventually lead to plain packaging, an idea that was met with general approval from many of the politicians present.
I will write it up and publish it in the next couple of days. But the takeaway is that, far from being an omnipotent bogeyman, the wine, spirits, and beer trades cannot be bothered to defend their members, much less make an argument for the social and cultural value of their products.
The wine community needs to directly attack the idea of ethanol equivalency. Wine is a food beverage of moderation. Used as it has been for 8,000 years, as an accompaniment to complete meals, or with simple bites along its side, it is one of human civilizations great pleasures and achievements. It brings joy and happiness to people in an often otherwise bleak world.
In our province, the ‘head’ of the Liquor and Gaming component is a Mennonite, who doesn’t drink; we have one of the highest liquor taxes across Canada( works out to about 150%markup by the time it lands, for the gov’t). They have placed a social referencing price, which diminishes discounts so people drink less, yet they allow the liquors to open at 8am. Just recently I was at an charity event for cancer and the wine served was something I wouldn’t cook with, and they served it because for a whole host of reasons that would take too long to type. As someone who worked in the wine trade in the UK, then here in Canada, I’m usually infuriated everyday with the gov’t aka Cartel liquor trade. It drives me friggin bonkers and I share this will my wine tasting groups to help educate them on it.