The Radio NZ campaign of misinformation continues

Radio NZ have managed to do what feels like a dozen stories about something which is totally benign, but they are trying to manufacture as a conspiracy.

All their articles push the lines that powerful alcohol lobbyists stopped a review of the safe drinking guidelines. The latest is here. They also use deceptive language to mislead such as:

Outdated alcohol guidelines put New Zealand out of step with modern research, but our health authorities are in no hurry to update them.

Who says they are outdated? An assertion reported as a fact.

In Canada, proposed guidelines for low-risk drinking set the weekly limit at two drinks.

Note the word I have bolded. The guidelines in Canada have not actually changed. They are insisting we change our guidelines based on what has been proposed (but not accepted) in Canada. They no doubt hope people don’t notice that key word. The guidelines they refer to were basically rejected by the Canadian Government.

Through documents he received through the Official Information Act (OIA), he found that Health NZ commissioned a review of the low-risk guidelines. But in October 2024, a lobbyist emailed Ross Bell, who is a manager in the Ministry of Health’s Public Health Agency, asking why Health NZ’s website said the guidelines were under review.

In December, following a second email which again asked about the review and also complained about mention of the Canadian guidelines on Health NZ-run website ‘alcohol.org.nz’, Bell emailed Health NZ saying “All work on this project will now pause. You will update relevant Health NZ websites to remove references to the review and also to other jurisdictions’ guidelines (including the Canadian one).”

I also have copies of the e-mails, and they are quite mundane. And Radio NZ fail to mention that the issue around mention of the Canadian guidelines is because they are not guidelines. They are proposed, not accepted. A correct description would be rejected.

Here is the initial e-mail from the staffer at the Brewers Association:

I was just on the alcohol.org.nz website and I noted there is an update stating the NZ Alcohol Guidelines are under review. Do you have any information on this process such as when was this work commissioned, a timeline and who is undertaking the review. 

Any information would be appreciated.

That was it? A government website said there was a review, and they knew nothing about it. So they simply just asked about the process, the timeline and who is doing the review? This is what Radio NZ would have you believe was inappropriate.

The MOH manager replied:

Let me follow up with Health NZ – this isn’t something on our work programme, and it’s probably a responsibility that should sit with the Ministry/Public Health Agency.

So the MOH manager said a review is their responsibility and it is not on their work programme. That was it. Health NZ is the delivery arm, and MOH the policy arm, so this is not a conspiracy, or some lobbying. It is just how the Government is organised.

The MOH manager further e-mailed to say:

I’ve talked with Health NZ (Health Promotion). They are undertaking a piece of work on Screening and Brief Interventions. To support this piece of work, they had thought that a refresh of the guidelines was in order.

I’ve advised them that it’s the Ministry’s responsibility to lead on any technical/clinical public health guidelines, so they are pausing that specific piece of work on the guidelines but are continuing the important SBI work, using current guidelines.

A refresh of the guidelines is not on our current alcohol levy-related work programme, which is something we would need to agree with relevant ministers anyway. I’ll let you know at future meetings if this changes.

So the MOH manager said he had followed up with Health NZ, any review would be done by the Ministry, and it is not on their work programme which would need to be agreed by Ministers.

Nowhere did the Brewers Association demand there be no review. Nowhere does MOH say they won’t do a review at some stage. They simply say it is not on their current work programme, which is agreed to by Ministers.

Perhaps Radio NZ thinks the Ministry of Health should be independent of government, and set a work programme based on what Radio NZ thinks they should be doing?

And the final e-mail from the Brewers Association to MOH was:

I just wanted to follow up on your email below as well as our previous discussions on the levy framework piece you were undertaking.

Firstly I know you mentioned we’d likely see something of the levy framework around now. I understand how these things can push out. Is that still a timeline we can expect or even prior to Christmas?

Asking a timeframe for a levy (which they pay!) review.

It was raised with me by one of our stakeholders that the Alcohol.org.nz website which hosts the NZ guidelines is still stating that they are under review. Given what you have noted below I was wondering why this was still stated as the case online.

So they noted that the website was still incorrect. Does Radio NZ think the website should state something that is false? They think it is bad that the MOH asked Health NZ to remove false information from their website?

Also, I see there is reference and a link to the recent CCSA publication, Which the site states “the following are more recent guidelines from other jurisdictions: ‘Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health’ “. While this information had been widely publicised. The Canadian official advise has not changed, nor does it reference this advice. I’m concerned the way it is presented on the Alcohol.org.nz site is somewhat misleading.

And again asking for the website to contain accurate information – that the Canadian proposed guidelines are not officially adopted, and shouldn’t be referred to as such.

In Canada there is an outfit called the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse and Addiction. They have proposed new guidelines but the Government of Canada has not accepted their proposed guidelines.

This story shows the significant controversy over the CCSA proposed guidelines. They state:

While the CCSA is a federally-funded research organization, it is not a branch of the civil service. As such, its work does not automatically come with an official imprimatur. Rather, its reports have to be adopted by Health Canada or another department to become government policy. This was the case with its 2011 guidance. It is not the case with CCSA’s new report.

In response to a query from C2C, Yuval Daniel, director of communications for Ya’ara Saks, the federal minister of Mental Health and Addictions, stated that, “The Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse and Addiction’s proposed guidelines have not been adopted by the Government of Canada. Canada’s 2011 low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines remain the official guidance.”

Note of this has been mentioned by Radio NZ. Top the contrary they have falsely reported the CCSA proposed guidelines as official guidance.

I have quoted all the e-mails in full, except for salutations etc. Unlike Radio NZ, I don’t selectively edit them to appear conspirational.