Few would dispute that John Streicker is in a very challenging position.

As the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corp., he’s also responsible for mediating the future of the Northern Territories Alcohol Study, the nationally-lauded, nationally-maligned experiment that saw cancer warnings and moderate drinking suggestions affixed to bottles and cans in the Whitehorse liquor store.

On one side, he’s been working with researchers Erin Hobin and Tim Stockwell through the evolution of the study designed to assess the impacts of alcohol labelling on consumer attitudes and behaviours.

After years of planning and more than $700,000 in Health Canada funding, the researchers saw the Yukon Liquor Corp. push pause on the labelling phase of the study one month into what was supposed to be an eight-month run.

The liquor corporation’s motivation for doing so comprises the other side of Streicker’s dilemma – three of the biggest players in the alcohol industry shared concerns about the study and its labels.

Beer Canada, Spirits Canada and the Canadian Vintners Association are trade associations that represent major alcohol brands.

The Star interviewed the presidents of each association to determine what, exactly, they’re concerned about.

Jan Westcott of Spirits Canada was in the Yukon for a short visit recently.

“One of the things that struck me was, I was chatting with people … the different communities in the Yukon, and how many of them don’t speak English very well.

“You have a lot of different languages up there. Are labels in English the best way to reach populations, particularly some vulnerable populations? I’m not sure.”

Westcott also said the content of the label that reads “alcohol can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers” is scientifically debatable.

“We’re not very happy with the presentation that drinking alcohol in moderate or light amounts causes cancer. There’s really no evidence of causality; there’s some correlation evidence.”

Dan Paszkowski, of the Canadian Vintners Association, explained that he participated in the development of Canada’s Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines.

The guidelines inform the study’s second label, which encourages female consumers to limit themselves to two drinks a day and males to three, with two or more non-drinking days every week to reduce health risks.

The low-risk drinking guidelines are complex, and were not created for inclusion on labels, Paszkowski said.

There’s even some concern the label might encourage light or non-drinkers to increase their consumption, according to Paszkowski.

Luke Harford of Beer Canada cited a similar worry about the misinterpretation of the low-risk drinking guidelines in label form. They could potentially be taken to mean it’s safe to drink this amount before driving, he said.

All three association presidents stressed that the health of consumers is always a priority, and that they have spent years working on initiatives to this end.

“There’s this perception that the whole industry is simply engaged in selling more and more and more… and getting people to drink more. That’s absolutely not true.

“Our vested interest is making sure that we have consumers and customers that can use our products on a safe and regular basis,” Westcott told the Star.

“We do not accept this idea that there’s a monopoly on concern about the welfare of the people using our products.”

The presidents and one of the study’s researchers have at least one other area of apparent common ground.

All three sit on the National Alcohol Strategy Advisory Committee with Stockwell, who, along with being one of the study’s lead researchers, is the director of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria.

The presidents pointed out that the committee wasn’t consulted about the study, and that’s another concern.

“There isn’t opposition to labelling per se, but the way that the labels were selected without consultation with industry and without consultation with the National Alcohol Strategy Advisory Committee that has expertise to ensure that the labels are accurate, and beneficial,” Paszkowski said.

Stockwell said there’s absolutely no obligation for researchers to consult with industry before initiating a public health study like this one, and there was no motivation to voluntarily do so in this case.

“We know we’d never get consent from them to go and do this, because like the tobacco industry, they just want to fight tooth-and-nail against the consumers having these kind of warnings on their products,” he told the Star.

Westcott said he resents the comparison, which some people have been making publicly since the study and its pause began to draw national attention.

“There’s a segment of people out there that continue to want to say to people that alcohol and tobacco are the same thing,” he said.

“I’m sorry – there is no safe way to smoke a cigarette. We believe there is a safe way to have a drink. We also believe that there is a healthy way to have a drink.”

Stockwell pointed out that the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies alcohol as a carcinogen.

His research partner, Hobin, also noted that the study had to receive approval from the institutions they work for – the University of Victoria and Public Health Ontario – and relies on peer-reviewed literature.

“From a professional perspective, I believe that effective policy relies on independent science to identify the causes and solutions to health issues, and try and keep an arm’s-length away from industry,” she told the Star.

She also pointed out that in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories – the two jurisdictions participating in the study as the experimental and control groups – interest in the labels was evident.

The researchers conducted a baseline survey of 900 drinkers in both territories before the labelling phase began.

Results showed that up to 75 per cent of respondents were not aware that alcohol can cause cancer, according to Hobin, and a majority were in favour of health warning labels on alcohol containers describing the link between the two.

The irony here, as Stockwell pointed out, is that this study was supposed to be exactly that – not a permanent change, but a public policy experiment.

“As it’s a new study, let’s wait and see what the results are, and then let’s discuss them. I think it’s self-defeating, really, to stifle knowledge being developed.”

Dr. Brendan Hanley, the Yukon’s chief medical officer of health – whose personal endorsement of the cancer message is included on the study label – said he was disappointed to see the study paused, but understands why the Yukon Liquor Corp. had to make the difficult decision.

As Streicker pointed out in an interview with the Star Wednesday, the Yukon is the only Canadian jurisdiction that opted to participate in the labelling experiment.

Every other provincial and territorial liquor association was approached before the study began, Stockwell confirmed. The Yukon was the sole labelling volunteer (the N.W.T. is the study’s control group, so no labels were utilized there).

The Yukon Liquor Corp. believed and continues to believe in the science behind the study and its legal right to participate, Streicker said, and pausing the study wasn’t its preferred outcome.

But, as Hanley pointed out, “it ends up being a risk management strategy.”

The territory is facing industry giants which have aired concerns about legislative authority, trademark infringement and defamation, according to comments from the liquor corporation when the study’s pause was made public in the Star last month.

Whether litigation is a real possibility remains up in the air.

All three industry association presidents told the Star they did not threaten the liquor corporation with legal action.

Stockwell also said he believes doing so “would be a public relations disaster.

“It’s something that I think angers people at a very basic level, that the public is denied information that they think should be on these products.”

Streicker had a different instinct.

“I think there is a real chance that we’re going to not find common ground between the researchers and the national (associations), and then that means that we’ll be left with a very difficult choice.

“And that choice is whether to risk litigation, and if litigation comes, then to pay for that.”

When asked how they’d like to see their concerns about the study resolved, Harford and Westcott said they’d like to see the study end, and the conversation about labelling continue, with industry.

Paszkowski said some compromise could be reached that would allow the study to continue, as long as industry is consulted.

Talks were scheduled with the Yukon Liquor Corp. today.

According to Streicker, the corporation has an obligation to residents of the territory to promote safe and responsible drinking. He now faces a decision about the best way to fulfill that mandate.

The liquor corporation could participate in a modified version of the study more amenable to industry. But that’s not ideal, Hobin explained. Alterations to the study could affect the integrity of its results.

A complete withdrawal from the study is a second possibility. The threat of litigation, real or not, would likely vanish.

As well, rather than potentially spending money on legal fees, the liquor corporation could fund public education and other programs designed to reduce alcohol-related harms, Streicker explained.

Finally, the liquor corporation and the researchers could push forward with the study, industry dismay be damned.

That would be ideal, according to the chief medical officer of health, if the Yukon had a powerful ally by its side – Health Canada.

The study’s source of funding has seemingly been exempt from the conversation and controversy surrounding it.

The Star wasn’t able to secure an interview with a Health Canada representative before this afternoon’s deadline.

“We need to put public health in the driver’s seat of public policy, and not industry,” Hanley said. Support from the federal government could enable that.

“It would give Yukon the confidence to say, ‘We don’t think they’re going to sue, they say they’re not going to sue, and we will go ahead, but if there are legal consequences, we’re not alone.

“I think it’s great that Yukon is carrying the flag for this, but it would be preferable that this were a national initiative.”

Streicker, meanwhile, might have to choose a path forward for the study sooner rather than later.

“We’ll make our decisions and face criticism based on trying to do the best that we can for our citizens. And that’s about safe and responsible drinking,” he said.