David Seymour insists health warnings are unlikely to be removed altogether. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
David Seymour says changes to warning labels for tobacco, nicotine and alcohol products are on the table in a labelling review by his Ministry for Regulation.
Public health groups have written to Seymour, asking for nicotine, tobacco and alcohol to be excluded from the review, but when asked by RNZ, the Deputy Prime Minister said: "No, I have no plans to do that."
Seymour said warnings about nicotine being addictive, tobacco causing cancer, or alcohol harming pregnancies were unlikely to be removed altogether, but changing the nature of those labels was still an option.
He gave the example of the requirement to use the colour red in labels warning about the danger of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).
"I think the real problem here is people (being) so irresponsible, they drink when pregnant and do massive harm to unborn children," Seymour said. "That, in my view, is the real problem here.
"The problem is not the colour of the label."
Seymour said he visited a craft beer business struggling with the requirement to use red in pregnancy warning labels.
"They use two-colour printing, but they can't get the third colour, unless they go to three-colour printing, which increases their costs," he said. "They made the quite reasonable point - you could still have a very effective 'don't drink when pregnant' warning, without putting that cost on them."
Alcohol Healthwatch executive director Andrew Galloway said the label was developed by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), after extensive research into what was effective.
Galloway said the alcohol industry fought the labels for more than 20 years, objecting to using the colour red - often associated with danger - and he was disappointed Seymour was open to this argument.
"It's about profit over public health."
Up to 3000 babies are born with FASD each year, at an estimated annual cost of $4.8 billion in health impacts and social harm.
"FASD is entirely preventable," Galloway said. "I don't think New Zealand should consider any changes to the hard-won warning label we have for Australia and New Zealand."
Seymour said the case could be made that the colour of the label made a difference.
"On the other hand, it may be that, actually, of all the things we could do to attack what is, I agree, a very serious problem, all this is doing is adding costs for no benefit." he said. "We can't, as a country, afford to have rules that add costs for no benefit."
The Ministry for Regulation has already sought industry feedback on labelling in an online survey, featuring a range of product categories, including "cigarettes, tobacco and products that contain nicotine".
Vape-Free Kids wrote to the ministry and to Seymour, asking for tobacco and nicotine products to be excluded from the review.
"The harm caused by these products is undisputed and far reaching," it said. "They cause numerous cancers and other severe health harms, and result in considerable morbidity and mortality.
"Vape-Free Kids NZ is concerned that labelling policies that have increased knowledge of these products' harms and reduced youth uptake is at risk of removal."
The group said warning labels played "a vital, lifesaving role in keeping people aware of the deadly consequences" of consuming tobacco and nicotine products.
"We call on the government to unequivocally confirm that tobacco and nicotine products will be explicitly excluded from any consideration in this review."
Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA) also wrote to Seymour, saying it was "deeply concerned" that tobacco and nicotine products were included in the review of product labelling.
"No government that values the health of its people should contemplate trading off death and disability against the convenience of 'doing business," HCA said. "Considering the well-documented and severe health consequences of smoking, such questions are, frankly, irresponsible."
Seymour said, while it was "pretty unlikely" the review would recommend removing alcohol and tobacco warnings, changes to the labelling requirements were possible.
"We ask the people who are regulated, 'What's getting up your nose?'" he told RNZ. "They tell us, then we go back and we sort of smash those rules up against the principles of good lawmaking.
"There's some things that actually have a legitimate public-interest purpose. There's other things that are, 'Who knows why they made that rule, let's get rid of it', and in the end, we produce a much more sensible set of rules."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
