Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I recognise there are strongly held views on this issue around the House and the country. Those who are making their views known are representing what they believe to be the best interests of their constituencies. Fianna Fáil's position is that we are supporting the inclusion in primary legislation of cancer labelling. Why are we taking that position given there are strongly held views in the Chamber? We have heard from Sinn Féin, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. There are a number of questions we have to ask. Is there a material risk of cancer associated with alcohol consumption or is it a marginal risk? Are we talking about burnt toast or are we beginning to move into the realm of cigarettes? Is it a material risk? If it is a material risk, is it a known material risk? How many people know? If it is materially carcinogenic, do people know it is? I do not mind saying in the Chamber that I did not know it was. When I first heard about this amendment I thought it was nanny statism at work. Are they going to start putting labels on rashers and telling me if I burn my toast I am eating it at my own risk?

I did some research and spoke to clinicians. The figures I got back shook me. They showed that 500 people die every year in this country from alcohol-related cancer. That is about three times the number of people who die in this country every year on the roads, which is a number of tragic fatalities that gets a huge amount of investment and warnings and rightly so. Three times more people die from alcohol-related cancers.

Then there is the question of whether this only applies to excessive drinkers and everybody else should be absolutely fine? The data I was presented with indicate it is not fine for everybody else. There are many data and many Members have them. I will mention the increased risk of breast cancer or association with breast cancer. On average, for every 10 g of alcohol consumed per day a woman's risk of breast cancer increases by 7%. What does that mean? It turns out that the average daily consumption of alcohol is 30 g. The average consumption of alcohol in this country would therefore be associated with a 21% increase in the risk of breast cancer. That is a material risk and it applies at average consumption levels. The idea that we are in the world of rashers and burnt toast is not true. The idea that a person has to be drinking ten pints a day for it to be associated with a risk of cancer is not true. It is a material risk and that risk begins at low levels of alcohol consumption. That answers the first question.

Let us now discuss the second question. Do people know that alcohol is carcinogenic? I will move from data to anecdote, which always makes me a little bit nervous but I will do it anyway. I asked friends about this when I got the data. I asked them if they knew alcohol was carcinogenic. The answer pretty much across the board was "No." I spoke to one friend who had a family association with cancer and she became upset when I gave her the facts. One's genetic disposition is a factor and there are significant variables and complexity involved but if one is drinking the average amount, the data indicate that one will increase the risk of getting breast cancer by more than 20%. She got very angry. The idea that we would know this and not tell people in order that they can make an informed decision is not one I agree with. Maybe I just know many people who do not know much about healthcare. There was a tweet yesterday from a nurse called Laura. It struck me because it summed up the question of whether people know. I thought perhaps non-clinicians did not know but doctors and nurses knew. Laura said:

32 students attended my nurse triage clinic today & were asked about their usual intake. Only 1/32 [nurses] were aware that alcohol is a carcinogen!

The answer to the second question about whether it is widely known that alcohol is associated with cancer would appear to be "No, it is not widely known." Is it a material risk? Yes, it is. Does the public know about it? No, it does not. Do many clinicians know about it? I am going on one tweet but if we are to accept it, they do not know. I apologise to all the clinicians who do know.

The position we are taking is to support the inclusion of cancer in the primary legislation. There are legitimate counter-arguments, including around hierarchies of diseases. There were concerns about the EU's potential response and they, too, are legitimate. My view is that the EU should accept this. It is our business, our country and our public health. If we, as the democratically elected Parliament, believe it is in the public interest to do this, the EU should respect that. If it does not and we find ourselves in some position where we are boxed in legally, the Minister can bring forward a short miscellaneous Bill. Let us not forget there is probably a four-year lead-in before this labelling will appear, which means there is ample time for a miscellaneous Bill, if necessary. The risk to the progress of this is eminently within the powers of the Minister to deal with. For that reason, we believe the cancer warning needs to be in the primary legislation.

See this speech in context