|
EDITOR'S
NOTE
Alcohol and the first amendment |
|
Image
by Malcolm Garris/PhotoDisc
For at least seven years, researchers have known that moderate alcohol consumption cuts the risk of coronary heart disease. When compared with nondrinkers, those who have an average of one or two drinks a day of beer, spirits, or wine live longer and have significantly fewer heart attacks. The physiology is thought to be somewhat simple: Alcohol helps generate high-density lipoproteins (good cholesterol) and clot-dissolving enzymes. Even the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans now specifically state the coronary benefits of moderate drinking. But folks at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms argued against allowing a simple statement about the benefits to appear on alcohol labels because they felt a paragraph presenting the pros would be misleading and any label with a full list of pros and cons would be too long. They worried that too positive a label might lead to inappropriate drinking. Yet, lobbied hard, the Bureau recently approved labels for wine—but not for any other alcohol—that advise consumers to consult their physician or the federal Dietary Guidelines to learn more about the health effects of moderate consumption. The new label isn’t exactly in plain English. Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, thinks the label needs to be clearer and more direct than the wording just approved. He thinks it should be possible to say, "There is significant evidence that moderate consumption may reduce the risk of heart disease." Kazman argues this "is very well-established, truthful information" and useful for the public to see. This issue isn’t just about drinking. Kazman says a study by cereal companies in the late ’80s—after they were allowed to boast about the fiber content—found that sales of high bran cereals went up significantly after ad campaigns. They found that especially among blue-collar families, advertising made a difference in health habits. "Advertising bans probably hurt people most who are educationally deprived," Kazman says. One of the best ways to get proven health information across to people is through advertising and labels on the products themselves. Health professionals don’t have the luxury of carefully dispensing peer-reviewed journal information to patients one by one. The word has to get out through innovative forms of mass communication. How broad a role should the government have in deciding how research is translated onto labels and into advertising? How much protection from the raw facts do people need? As we work to get the public health message out about all sorts of issues—safer sex, nutritional supplements, immunizations, osteoporosis, cholesterol—society will need a combination of government oversight and First Amendment freedom-of-speech protections. Government oversight is important to make sure that manufacturers label their products accurately. On the other hand, freedom of speech should allow manufacturers to say things that are advantageous to them (as long as their claims are true). But in this case the government restrictions have gotten in the way of simple, clear information. I think people are smarter than most bureaucrats believe. What do you think? Barbara
Bronson Gray, MN, RN |
|
|
PREVIOUS Lose
it Alphabet
Soup If you are looking for rewards, try nursing Honoring our profession Keep "alternative" in alternative therapy What is wrong with a healthy profit? How much education do RNs need? Nursing your image in the media
|
|
|
PREVIOUS Ease
the pain Virtual
Viagra New
blood
Protecting
the Planet Burdens
of Care |