Let’s get one thing straight: calling the alcohol industry “lobbyists elbowing into health policy” might make for spicy headlines. But dismissing their involvement outright? That’s naïve—or worse, irresponsible.

Yes, documents recently leaked by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health reveal alcohol lobbyists pushing back on proposed tax hikes, sponsorship bans, and public health messaging around Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). The optics aren’t great—especially when harmful policies could affect lives. But the louder scandal isn’t lobbied influence—it’s excluding voices that produce jobs, livelihood, and yes, responsible beverages.

Lobbying may be smeared as stealthy and self-serving—but it’s also structure. Spirits New Zealand was invited into the FASD dialogue by design, not by accident. The ministry’s deputy director-general Andrew Old emphasized that no veto power existed; these stakeholders were part of a deliberate and transparent engagement process. They came to the table. Their advice was recorded, weighed—but ultimately, decided by public health priorities. 

Rejecting all industry input gives us a rulebook, not a reflection of reality. We still need access to supply chains, trade logistics, and tax compliance. Hospitals don’t run unless vendors can fulfill orders. Advocacy isn’t about abolition—it’s about evolving frameworks.

Take Ireland’s Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, a sweeping reform with minimum prices and label requirements. It didn’t pass by ignoring industry—it passed by working with producers to regulate, not obliterate. 

Or the Yukon booze label story from Canada—where cancer warnings were diluted amid threats of lawsuits. That was a heavy-handed lobby move—but the point isn’t to vilify alcohol makers. It’s to recognize: excluding them entirely triggers backlash and lost research integrity. 

Public health scholars understand that lobbying is a strategic act, not a moral failing. Industry-led “corporate political activity” (CPA) is real—but so is public scrutiny. As researchers from Portugal, New Zealand, and Ireland illustrate, industry involvement works in both instrumental (action-based) and discursive (argument-based) capacities. The difference lies in transparency, not absence. 

Australian and global studies show that premature exclusion of industry hampers policy enforcement more than it protects health outcomes. Partnership, with accountability, yields better risk communication—minus the errant sabotage attempts from both sides.

“Lobbying” Isn’t a Dirty Word—Lying Is

The World Health Organization emphasizes that public health policies should be protected from commercial conflicts of interest—but not from dialogue. 

In effect, the line to defend is not between lobbyist and policymaker—but between transparency and secrecy. Removing a statement about guideline reviews from Health NZ’s site based on lobby pressure? That’s not “lobby” alone—that’s confidentiality turned into censorship. 

By contrast, Industry groups like Spirits NZ, when consulted, haven’t overpowered the process—they offered data, concerns, and alternative compliance pathways. If their feedback is good, it helps shape responsive policy—not stall it.

Here’s the truth: Public health needs industry clarity, not exclusion. Lobbying deserves guardrails, not gulags. No, public health remains paramount. But dismissing producers, bar owners, and distributors as villains in this narrative is not wisdom—it’s simplification.

Instead, what if we demand structured, transparent collaboration? What if we enforce standards—not bans? That’s the strength of policy, not the weakness of industry.

Because when the goal is harm reduction, ignorance isn’t a virtue. Participation is. And yes—sometimes, that participation comes with a glass of whiskey.