Now you see it, now you don’t

Now you see it, now you don’t: How alcohol industry interference made marketing restrictions disappear from the 10 Year Health Plan in England

In July 2025, the UK Government published its 10 Year Health Plan for England. Despite a media leak and subsequent Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) statement indicating that the Plan would contain alcohol marketing restrictions, these did not appear in the final document.

Alcohol industry influence has been identified as a major barrier to the introduction of effective policies to reduce alcohol harm. We were therefore keen to understand to what degree the removal of marketing restrictions from the 10 Year Health Plan might have been a result of commercial influence. To investigate further, we made freedom of information (FOI) requests to different UK Government departments for correspondence with the alcohol industry in the month ahead of the Plan’s release.

From the documents we received, we can demonstrate:

The alcohol industry targeted the Health Secretary and DHSC over potential marketing restrictions – This is a clear example of alcohol companies seeking to interfere with health policy and the NHS.

Other Government departments were leveraged to lobby DHSC on behalf of the alcohol industry – The documents we received show that alcohol companies and industry-funded organisations wrote to the Department for Business & Trade, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and HM Treasury, encouraging them to put pressure on DHSC to drop the planned marketing restriction policy.

Alcohol industry actors likely coordinated their approach – The existence of joint letters, the timing of correspondence and striking similarities in the content of the letters all suggest a coordinated campaign.

Alcohol industry correspondence contained a range of well-known arguments and rhetorical strategies used by alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food and drink and fossil-fuel companies, among others – These included: cherry-picking data about alcohol harm trends and the evidence base for restrictions; arguing (contrary to the evidence) that self-regulation is effective; making catastrophic economic claims; arguing that the alcohol industry is an appropriate partner in reducing harm (despite evidence that this is ineffective and even harmful); and stating (contrary to the evidence) that advertising does not increase drinking and benefits society. Specific arguments used are outlined and compared to authoritative sources of evidence and found to be misleading in our full report.

A summary of key arguments and example quotes:

Alcohol industry claim	Quote	What the evidence says
Alcohol harm is reducing, so marketing restrictions are unnecessary.	“We believe that such a proposal would be disproportionate and ill-targeted, given the generally positive trends on alcohol across society.” Portman Group in a letter to DHSC	Alcohol consumption has been increasing over the past decade. Data from 2025 showed that alcohol deaths were at record levels across the UK, and England’s alcohol-related hospital admission rates were at their highest.
Alcohol marketing restrictions undermine the UK Government’s growth policy.	“This news has come as a shock to us and others in the sector, especially as Labour came into Government promising to be a “pro-business Government”. However, this proposal appears to go entirely against this pledge.” Budweiser in letters to DBT, DHSC, HMT	The Labour Party entered Government promising a “prevention revolution” and to tackle health inequalities. Alcohol marketing restrictions are consistent with these commitments. Alcohol harm is a drain on the economy, costing England an estimated £27 billion+ per year.
Alcohol marketing does not increase consumption but is about influencing brand choice.	“While advertising may influence brand choice, it does not increase aggregate alcohol consumption.” BBPA in a letter to DHSC	The Public Health Scotland evidence review in 2025 confirmed that alcohol marketing increases consumption and that comprehensive restrictions can help reduce harm.
Claims that the alcohol industry cares about, and has a role to play in supporting, public health.	“We support efforts to improve public health and tackle inequalities.” BBPA and Heineken in letters to DHSC	There is a conflict of interest between public health goals and the alcohol industry’s business model. The alcohol industry has no expertise in health evidence or health policy and is not an appropriate partner.

Obstacles to the FOI process

Access to documents via FOI requests made it possible to uncover this alcohol industry lobbying campaign. Though our report provides sufficient evidence of a coordinated campaign by the alcohol industry, we are aware that not all relevant industry correspondence was released. Our experience of making FOI requests across Government departments highlighted issues with the process, including delays beyond statutory deadlines and inconsistencies in the withholding and redaction of information. This suggests a tendency to protect commercial interests at the expense of public health policy interests and raises wider concerns about transparency and accountability.

Based on our findings, we make the following recommendations to UK Government:

• Revisit and introduce the proposed alcohol marketing restrictions
• Issue a new national strategy to tackle rising alcohol harm
• Reject industry self-regulation
• Say no to partnerships with the alcohol industry in line with WHO recommendations
• Recognise the inherent conflict of interest between alcohol and health policy as recommended by WHO
• Introduce principles for government departments to manage conflicts of interest arising from the involvement of companies that profit from unhealthy products in health policy