President's Perspective

Alcohol warning labels epitomize a can’t-hurt, might-help, why-not approach to public policy. Proponents selectively pointed to “evidence” (a study on tobacco warnings) but ignored the big picture. 

A 2003 World Health Organization study found that warning 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 may even have made the products more attractive to both drinkers and non-drinkers. 

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

In its battle against drinking and driving, Canada has a far more effective weapon than labels — the Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving. Thanks in large part to STRID, road fatalities involving a drinking driver fell from 1,296 in 1995 to 850 in 2002, a drop of more than one-third.  The U.S. 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. In October 1992, Health Canada sponsored a major national symposium on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects in which the Canada Safety Council participated. It concluded that FAS/E are common, expensive and preventable, but no national strategy emerged. 

The government was set to spend millions of dollars on labeling legislation. The Canada Safety Council urged the Minister of Health to redirect this money to a national FAS/E strategy. When the bill died, the Minister promised such a strategy. 

Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, released May 11, 2005 by Statistics Canada and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development