View in EDS

Regulation of Alcohol‐Free and Low‐Alcohol Drinks: Learning From a Comparative Analysis of Eight Countries.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Regulation of Alcohol‐Free and Low‐Alcohol Drinks: Learning From a Comparative Analysis of Eight Countries.
Authors: Burton, Robyn (AUTHOR), Angus, Kathryn (AUTHOR), Morgan, Amber (AUTHOR), Howell, Rebecca (AUTHOR), Critchlow, Nathan (AUTHOR), Kersbergen, Inge (AUTHOR), Holmes, John (AUTHOR), Bowdring, Molly A. (AUTHOR), Miller, Mia (AUTHOR), Waleewong, Orratai (AUTHOR), Halme, Aleksi (AUTHOR), Voogt, Carmen (AUTHOR), Fitzgerald, Niamh (AUTHOR)
Source: Drug & Alcohol Review. Mar2026, Vol. 45 Issue 3, p1-17. 17p.
Subjects: Government regulation, Taxation, Marketing, Label design, Legal doctrines, Non-alcoholic beer, Public health
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom, Australia
Abstract: Introduction: Governance of alcohol‐free and low‐alcohol (No/Lo) drinks has the potential to influence their public health impact. However, regulation remains poorly understood. This study aimed to identify, summarise and compare formal legal frameworks, non‐binding government guidance and recognised self‐regulatory frameworks for the labelling, taxation, licensing and condition of sale and marketing of No/Lo drinks across a diverse set of countries. Methods: We conducted a desk‐based analysis, supplemented by expert input. Eight case study countries (Australia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Thailand, the United Kingdom [UK] and the United States of America) were selected for their diversity in geography, alcohol consumption and policy environments. Targeted searches identified documents for determining how No/Lo products were regulated in relation to their labelling, taxation, licensing and conditions of sale and marketing. Data were extracted, tabulated and reviewed for accuracy. Results: Regulatory thresholds (%ABV) that determine when drinks fall under alcohol legislation vary widely both across and within countries and definitions of No/Lo products are uncommon. For example, drinks can be labelled as alcohol‐free at ≤ 0.05% alcohol by volume (ABV) in the UK, but ≤ 1.15% ABV in parts of Australia. Sales of drinks below defined thresholds generally do not require a premises licence. Marketing restrictions were generally shaped by those for standard alcoholic drinks, although new self‐regulatory guidance has been developed in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK. Discussion and Conclusions: Governance of No/Lo drinks is fragmented and inconsistent, with definitions and regulatory thresholds varying both across countries and between policy areas within countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Introduction: Governance of alcohol‐free and low‐alcohol (No/Lo) drinks has the potential to influence their public health impact. However, regulation remains poorly understood. This study aimed to identify, summarise and compare formal legal frameworks, non‐binding government guidance and recognised self‐regulatory frameworks for the labelling, taxation, licensing and condition of sale and marketing of No/Lo drinks across a diverse set of countries. Methods: We conducted a desk‐based analysis, supplemented by expert input. Eight case study countries (Australia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Thailand, the United Kingdom [UK] and the United States of America) were selected for their diversity in geography, alcohol consumption and policy environments. Targeted searches identified documents for determining how No/Lo products were regulated in relation to their labelling, taxation, licensing and conditions of sale and marketing. Data were extracted, tabulated and reviewed for accuracy. Results: Regulatory thresholds (%ABV) that determine when drinks fall under alcohol legislation vary widely both across and within countries and definitions of No/Lo products are uncommon. For example, drinks can be labelled as alcohol‐free at ≤ 0.05% alcohol by volume (ABV) in the UK, but ≤ 1.15% ABV in parts of Australia. Sales of drinks below defined thresholds generally do not require a premises licence. Marketing restrictions were generally shaped by those for standard alcoholic drinks, although new self‐regulatory guidance has been developed in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK. Discussion and Conclusions: Governance of No/Lo drinks is fragmented and inconsistent, with definitions and regulatory thresholds varying both across countries and between policy areas within countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09595236
DOI:10.1111/dar.70126