Spin the bottle: How the UK alcohol industry twists the facts on harm and responsibility

Executive summary

Alcohol deaths are at an all-time high in the UK, yet current policy is unable to tackle this crisis.

The alcohol industry’s influence has been recognised as a key barrier to addressing alcohol harm. One strategy used by alcohol companies and trade groups to avoid further regulation is to present the sector as responsible and part of the solution to alcohol harm. However, as this report shows, the industry’s claims do not always match its actions, or statements made in other forums.

We analysed the public communications of six major alcohol industry and industry-funded organisations in 2024 to identify and assess the credibility of such claims.

Here is a summary of what we found:

Industry claim: Alcohol makes major contributions to the UK economy

Evidence shows: Alcohol harm costs the UK economy much more than alcohol sales bring in. Most jobs in the sector are lower paid. While claiming to be a decent employer, the alcohol industry pushed back against new employment rights for workers as well as threatening to cut jobs in response.

Industry claim: The sector is overtaxed and on the brink of collapse

Evidence shows: Changes in alcohol duty resulted in similar receipts in 2023-24 to the year prior, despite industry claims that HMRC lost billions of pounds. Alcohol taxation remains one of the most effective ways of reducing harm and inequalities. Far from collapsing, Diageo made over $6 billion in profit in 2024.

Industry claim: Alcohol harm is ‘going in the right direction’, so further policy is unnecessary

Evidence shows: Alcohol deaths are at an all-time high in the UK, yet the alcohol industry largely ignored this and cherry-picked selective topics to celebrate. Increasing price, restricting advertising and limiting the physical availability of alcohol are ‘best buy’ policy measures with the strongest evidence base – yet the industry claims a lack of evidence.

Industry claim: ‘Responsible drinking’ and no- and low-alcohol products will reduce harm

Evidence shows: ‘Responsible drinking’ campaigns do not work and may be harmful. The alcohol industry is behaving irresponsibly by undermining health policy and promoting misleading information. Industry marketing documents suggest that no- and low-alcohol products are not intended to replace full-strength products, undermining claims about them as a solution to harm.

Industry claim: Alcohol is key to communities

Evidence shows: Despite claiming to speak on behalf of pubs and local communities, the BBPA lobbies against policies supported by publicans and minimises community-level alcohol harms.

Industry claim: Alcohol producers are contributing to a more diverse and inclusive world

Evidence shows: Alcohol companies like Diageo are deliberately targeting women and LGBTQ+ people and making gestures of support and allyship. Both groups experience distinct and significant harms related to alcohol.

Industry claim: The UK alcohol industry is committed to environmental sustainability

Evidence shows: The alcohol industry lobbied against policies to reduce packaging waste and protect peatlands while claiming to be at the forefront of sustainability. Diageo has been reprimanded for not properly reporting its own emissions and its environmental efforts are often based on vague and unproven technologies. This might align more with greenwashing.

Industry claim: Organisations funded by alcohol companies are independent and have a role to play in tackling alcohol harm

Evidence shows: Organisations such as Drinkaware receive most of their funding from the alcohol industry.In 2024, Drinkaware repeatedly worked with alcohol brands and shared information that appeared to serve its funders’ interests more closely than those of the public.

Industry claim: The UK alcohol industry is part of the solution to harm

Evidence shows: There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the goals of the alcohol industry and the mission to reduce alcohol harm. We found evidence that the UK alcohol industry is engaging in a series of problematic partnerships to ‘educate’ people – including children – about alcohol harm using misleading, industry-produced materials.

Based on these findings, we recommend that policymakers:

• Acknowledge the essential conflict of interest between alcohol industry economic objectives and public health goals, in accordance with WHO recommendations.
• Reject partnerships with alcohol and all health-harming industries due to the fundamental conflict of interest, particularly in schools and on initiatives aimed at children and young people.
• Establish good governance processes that promote transparency and protect health-focused policymaking from alcohol industry interference.
• Contextualise all claims about the alcohol industry’s economic contributions with the costs of alcohol harm to the UK economy.
• Focus on the three policy measures to tackle alcohol harm for which there is the strongest evidence, as identified by WHO as ‘best buys’:
  • Increase prices of alcoholic drinks (i.e. via excise taxes and minimum unit pricing)
  • End or comprehensively restrict alcohol advertising (e.g. by ending sports sponsorship)
  • Restrict the physical availability of alcohol
• Put communities first: pay attention to community-level harms, which disproportionately impact the most vulnerable and worsen inequalities.
• Scrutinise environmental claims made by the alcohol industry, especially where the industry is also lobbying against environmental protections.