The Brewers Association against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3785
Council Meeting: 13 October 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories: Accuracy
Overview
1. On July 14 2025, RNZ published an article headlined Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal. The article reported Health New Zealand (HNZ) and Ministry of Health correspondence, showing how work to update official low-risk drinking guidelines that “understate the health risks” was put on hold. The documents included correspondence from the Brewers Association to the Health Ministry. It is one of a series of articles from RNZ about alcohol harm in New Zealand.
2. On July 21, RNZ published another article in the series headlined Booze warnings on hold. In this article, the journalist behind the series, Guyon Espiner, says the correspondence he received under the Official Information Act (OIA) shows health officials are “listening to the alcohol industry”.
3. Dylan Firth, Executive Director of the Brewers Association, complained about both articles under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
4. The article headlined Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal, published July 14, reports on correspondence obtained under the Official Information Act, showing efforts to update official low-risk drinking guidelines from 2011.
5. HNZ alcohol harm prevention manager Tom Devine wrote a memo in January 2024 recommending a review and update of guidelines to reflect latest evidence about the health risks of alcohol, the article says. In it, he wrote that the UK, Australia and Canada had all updated their advice, “resulting in much lower recommended drinking limits”. New Zealand's drinking guidelines say that to stay low-risk, men should have no more than 15 drinks per week and women 10.
6. The article, as initially published, said the maximum number of drinks recommended per week to stay low risk (for men and women) is set at two in Canada, 10 in Australia and 14 in the UK. It also carried a graphic comparing NZ’s guidelines against these three countries.
7. The article details how HNZ began work on a review in February, but work stopped in December, after intervention from Ross Bell, a manager at the Ministry of Health. Mr Bell ordered HNZ work on reviewing safe drinking guidelines to pause. He also demanded material referencing the review and guidelines from other jurisdictions be removed from HNZ’s alcohol.org.nz website.
8. Mr Bell told RNZ the requests for removal of material from the website was to avoid confusion, as the Ministry of Health led the guidelines, not HNZ. He said that was an internal decision and a review of the drinking guidelines was now on hold while the ministry considered its priorities.
9. Emails obtained by RNZ showed a lobbyist with the Brewers Association had emailed Mr Bell twice prior to his intervention, drawing his attention to the material about the review on HNZ’s website, and taking issue with the site linking to Canadian advice.
10. The article includes comment from Associate Professor Andy Towers, the co-director of the Mental Health & Addiction Programme at Massey University, who worked on the initial stages of the review for HNZ. "There's more and more evidence now, especially with longitudinal health data, to show that even low levels of alcohol use over a long time can result in some significant alcohol related harms," Mr Towers said.
11. The article also includes comment from Cancer Society evidence and insights lead Emma Shields, who said guidelines needed updating to come into line with the latest evidence and international guidance. She said alcohol caused seven different types of cancer including breast, bowel and oesophageal. “When it comes to cancer risk, there is no 'safe' level of alcohol use,” she said.
12. Following correspondence between Mr Firth and Mr Espiner on the day of publication (July 14), paragraphs were added to the story regarding the status of the Canadian advice cited in the story, and the reason for the Brewers Association contacting the Health Ministry.
13. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), which was commissioned by Health Canada to produce guidance, puts the low-risk drinking guidelines at a maximum of two drinks per week. However, that guidance has not been officially adopted by Health Canada - the Canadian Government’s health department. The government guidelines put low-risk drinking at no more than 15 drinks a week for men and 10 for women.
14. The CCSA guidance has been reported by the BBC, New York Times and previously by RNZ, as a significant reduction in Canada's low risk drinking advice and was also interpreted that way in the HNZ documents obtained by RNZ, the amended article says.
15. Mr Firth said that the official Canadian guidelines had not changed and that was part of the reason the Brewers Association had reached out to the Ministry of Health, the amended article says.
16. On July 28, the article was further amended. Paragraphs comparing New Zealand’s guidance to other countries including Canada were changed, the graphic comparing the countries was removed, and an editor’s note added to the top of the story. The note said comment from the Brewers Association was included and the graphic showing Canada’s official guidance for safe drinking was a maximum of two per week removed. The text was edited, removing the following paragraphs:
The maximum number of drinks recommended per week to stay low-risk (for men and women) is set at two in Canada, ten in Australia and 14 in the UK.
Canada, Australia and the UK all significantly reduced their safe drinking guidelines in recent years as evidence emerged about the health risks of alcohol, which is linked to seven types of cancer.
And replacing them with:
The maximum number of drinks recommended per week to stay low-risk (for men and women) is set at 10 in Australia and 14 in the UK.
Australia and the UK significantly reduced their safe drinking guidelines in recent years as evidence emerged about the health risks of alcohol, which is linked to seven types of cancer.
In Canada, a government-appointed group also recommended a sharp drop though this has not been officially adopted. The official guidance in Canada remains a maximum of 15 standard Canadian drinks per week for men and 10 for women.
17. A second article subject to Mr Firth’s complaint, headlined Booze warnings on hold, published July 21, serves largely as an adjunct to an episode of the broadcast programme The Detail, in which Mr Espiner discusses the correspondence between the Brewers Association and the Health Ministry, and other examples of contact between the alcohol lobby and health policy makers.
18. The article says New Zealand’s alcohol guidelines are outdated, but health authorities are “in no hurry to update them”.
19. In Canada, proposed guidelines for low-risk drinking set the weekly limit at two drinks, the article says.
20. In the article, Mr Espiner says health authorities are “listening to the alcohol industry, who are pretty exercised about this - because as you can imagine, this could have a significant effect on sales if people did take this advice and did drink significantly less."
The Complaint
21. Dylan Firth, Executive Director of the Brewers Association, says it was objectively false to say that Canada has set the safe level of alcohol consumption to two drinks a week, in the article Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal.
22. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) released a non-government report with proposed limits, but Health Canada has not adopted those recommendations, Mr Firth says, and the official guidelines remain the 2011 version (10 drinks/week for women and 15 for men).
23. The Brewers Association provided RNZ Government sources, official ministerial quotes and a timeline to demonstrate the inaccuracy, Mr Firth says. Despite this, RNZ did not correct or retract the original inaccuracy, but appended some general comment from the association, Mr Firth says.
24. While RNZ refers to media outlets such as the BBC and New York Times reporting on the CCSA proposal, those articles have no bearing on the obligation of correction once RNZ was put on notice of a material error of fact, Mr Firth says.
25. RNZ ignored an email on July 15 with further evidence that the reporting of Canada’s guidance was incorrect, Mr Firth says.
26. The Brewers Association also raised serious concerns regarding lack of balance in multiple RNZ reports on alcohol policy, including the article Booze warnings on hold, particularly where the Brewers Association or broader alcohol industry was named or referenced, Mr Firth says.
27. Rather than responding directly to the lack of balance in the stories referenced by the association, RNZ pointed to unrelated articles with comment from other industry stakeholders, which is irrelevant to the complaint at hand, Mr Firth says.
28. RNZ’s article has been referenced by other news outlets, perpetuating the misinformation, and demonstrating that the initial inaccuracy has had a real-world ripple effect, Mr Firth says.
The Response
29. Two highly respected media organisations, the BBC and New York Times, reported that Canada had issued new lower guidelines for low-risk alcohol consumption - two drinks per week, RNZ says. That was certainly the interpretation made by Health New Zealand in the documents cited in the article, RNZ says.
30. Neither media organisation has seen the need to amend or correct their articles, and readers of these two outlets would consider the official Canadian recommendations to be two drinks per week, RNZ says.
31. RNZ rejects the assertion it had not responded to the complaint in a timely manner. Mr Firth’s email was received at 10:09am on 14 July and the article amended to include his comment published at 12:06pm. Further adjustments made since then do not materially affect the information provided to readers at that time, RNZ says.
32. RNZ rejects Mr Firth’s concerns that RNZ did not pro-actively seek industry comment on alcohol-related public policy. The reports Mr Firth cites are a series of reports based on the release of documents to RNZ under the Official Information Act. They are accurate reports of the information contained within those documents. RNZ is entitled to make editorial decisions about which other organisations are contacted to provide its audience with context or comment. Where relevant, RNZ does seek comment to provide a balanced account, it says.
33. The story, with changes following Mr Firth’s complaint, that let stand the assertion that Canada’s official safe-drinking advice had changed to two drinks a week, reflected what could be seen as a confusing reality, RNZ says. Health NZ had interpreted the Canadian guidelines to be two glasses per day as well, as explained in the story, RNZ says.
34. On July 28, Eric Crampton published an opinion piece in The Post on the same subject, and Mr Firth lodged a formal complaint with RNZ.
35. Appropriately, RNZ reviewed the story again, removing the graphic containing the incorrect information and re-editing the story, RNZ says.
36. With these changes, Mr Firth is incorrect in his complaint that RNZ failed to correct the core factual error in the original article, RNZ says.
The Discussion
37. Mr Firth complains under Principle (1), Accuracy Fairness and Balance, which states:
Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
38. There is nothing to suggest that RNZ deliberately set out to misinform readers about Canada’s official safe-drinking guidelines in the article headlined Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal. But the article was inaccurate.
39. Guidance advising a safe level of drinking at two drinks a week was published by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), a Government-backed group tasked with developing drug and alcohol guidelines. Reputable news organisations had reported this as a new, stricter set of guidelines for Canada. This was also the interpretation of officials in the documents cited by RNZ in its reporting.
40. This guidance has however not been endorsed or disseminated by Health Canada, and therefore it is inaccurate to say it is the country’s official advice. It is an area of confusion noted in Canadian media. The Canadian Press reported conflicting guidance “has been an ongoing issue for the public health community and scientists” since the CCSA’s report.
41. RNZ’s initial response to Mr Firth’s complaint was commendably swift - but did not go nearly far enough. RNZ allowed information that was false to remain in the article for two weeks.
42. RNZ added comment from Mr Firth, saying the Canadian guidelines have not changed. But the incorrect information about Canada’s guidelines remained elsewhere in the article.
43. It was not until July 28, and after The Post’s opinion piece on the topic and a formal complaint from Mr Firth, that RNZ made further amendments that corrected the inaccuracy around Canada’s guidelines.
44. The amendments were not minor: key paragraphs were altered, a misleading graphic removed, and an editor’s note added to the top of the article.
45. It is notable that the article Booze warnings on hold, published July 21, says “proposed” guidelines advise a two-drink limit for low-risk drinking. RNZ had changed its language around the Canadian advice, suggesting its understanding of the Canadian position had evolved, but it was not until a week later that it corrected the earlier article.
46. Mr Firth says in addition to being inaccurate, the article Outdated alcohol guidelines understate health risks, ministry documents reveal is unbalanced, because it carried no comment from the Brewers Association, despite it being cited in the documents the article is based on. However, RNZ did quickly include comment from Mr Firth, albeit after Mr Firth directly approached RNZ following initial publication.
47. The article Booze warnings on hold contains a quote from Mr Espiner: “they’re listening to the alcohol industry, who are pretty exercised about this - because as you can imagine, this could have a significant effect on sales if people did take this advice and did drink significantly less", which arguably demands a reply. However, Mr Espiner is speaking generically in this piece - there is no direct reference to the Brewers Association in this article.
48. Alcohol industry voices are included in other coverage on the issue of alcohol harm, and these articles exist in a continuing series, as RNZ points out. Balance over time can be seen to be achieved.
49. The inaccuracy on Canada’s guidelines was an understandable mistake – one also made by the BBC, New York Times, and health officials here. Had it been promptly and adequately addressed, this complaint would not be upheld. But RNZ’s actions after being advised of the error fell short. The error was prominent and significant, and allowed to stand for two weeks before it was corrected.
Decision: Because of this inaccuracy, the complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah
Morris, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau
Tim Watkin and Jo Cribb left the meeting due to a conflict of interest