Producer:

Sazerac UK Limited

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“At first glance, the product resembles a squash or soft drink, which has a particular appeal to under-18s. While the label clearly states alcohol, the font, colours, and overall design are likely to appeal to teenagers, which should raise concerns”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(h)

3.2(h) A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way have a particular appeal to under-18s. A producer must not allow the placement of brand names, logos or trademarks on merchandise which has a particular appeal to under-18s or is intended for use primarily by under-18s

 NOT UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company explained that it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sazerac Company, Inc., one of the world’s largest distilled spirits companies, owning brands such as Southern Comfort and Buffalo Trace. ​ The company highlighted its nearly 400-year history as a family-owned business with strong cultural foundations of integrity, trust, ethics and values, emphasising its close connections to the communities it served. ​ The company stated that it had taken its obligations under the Code seriously and carefully considered the complaint, concluding that the complaint was not well-founded and could not be upheld, as Burst Blue Raspberry did not have any particular appeal to under-18s. ​

The company explained that Burst Blue Raspberry had been introduced to its product line in October 2020, manufactured in the United States and sold in the UK through licensed premises and retail outlets. ​ It described the product as a raspberry fruit-flavoured liqueur intended to be consumed in small measures for a tart, refreshing taste, with its blue colour distinguishing it from other red fruit flavours such as strawberry and watermelon. ​ The company added that the drink was part of a range of fruit-flavoured liqueurs under the “Burst” brand, developed to meet market demand for sweeter-tasting, lower ABV liqueurs catering to customers seeking better-tasting, lower-alcohol spirit drinks. ​

The company argued that Burst Blue Raspberry was neither labelled nor marketed to have any particular appeal to under-18s, emphasising that it was clearly identifiable as an alcoholic beverage. ​ The company pointed out that the front label prominently displayed the wording “ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WITH FRUIT FLAVOURING” and “Alcohol 15% vol” with similar information repeated on the back label alongside statutory alcohol product labelling. The company disagreed with the assertion that the product resembled a squash or soft drink at first glance, stating that even minimal attention to the packaging would reveal its alcoholic nature. ​

The company rejected the notion that the drink’s bright blue colour had a particular appeal to under-18s and explained that blue raspberry had been a recognised food colouring for over 60 years and was used to distinguish raspberry from other red fruit flavours. ​ It noted that other well-known alcohol brands also used bright blue colouring. ​

Regarding the font used on the label, the company stated that it was designed to emphasise the brand name “Burst” and the flavour, using clear and uncluttered designs without child-like or playful elements. ​ The company explained that the colours, explosive design and raspberry imagery were intended to highlight the product’s characteristics as a fruit-flavoured liqueur and appeal to adult customers seeking a fresh, fruity drink. ​ The company added that the design was consistent with the brand and similar to other alcohol products using bright colours to emphasise fruit flavours.

The company rejected the assertion that bright labelling would appeal to teenagers and explained that the packaging clearly identified the product as alcoholic and was designed to reflect its characteristics.​ The company argued that finding bright colours inherently appealing to under-18s would be unreasonable and would implicate a wide range of alcohol products across the market. ​

The company argued that a breach of rule 3.2(h) of the Code required the Panel to be satisfied that Burst Blue Raspberry had a “particular appeal” to under-18s. ​ It stated that the complaint had not identified any such appeal, emphasising that the packaging and labelling were designed to reflect the product’s characteristics and appeal to adult customers seeking a fruit-flavoured liqueur. ​ The company highlighted that similar packaging designs were widely used across the spirits market, demonstrating their appeal to adult consumers. ​The company concluded that there was no basis to determine that the product had any particular appeal to under-18s and, therefore, no breach of rule 3.2(h) of the Code had occurred. ​

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel considered whether the packaging could have a particular appeal to under-18s as raised by the complainant. The Panel first discussed the drink’s flavour ‘blue raspberry’ and noted that the flavour was fairly common in sweets and confectionery items which were popular with children, but that it was also a flavour that was well-established in adult-targeted products including alcohol. ​The Panel discussed previous precedent cases and noted that a sweet flavour in isolation was unlikely to have a particular appeal to under-18s under the Code.  Instead, while a sweet flavour could contribute to the level of appeal a label might have to under-18s, it should be considered as one factor in the context of the overall impression conveyed by the packaging in its entirety.

The Panel then considered the imagery used on the label in more detail. The Panel noted the inclusion of raspberries which were realistic depictions of the fruit and were clearly intended to be representative of the drink’s flavour. ​ As the raspberries were not cartoon-like or anthropomorphic, the Panel considered they would not have a particular appeal to under-18s as fruit and recognised that fruit flavours broadly appealed to all ages. ​ The Panel noted that the predominant word ‘Burst’ was used on the front, back and neck of the label and discussed whether there was any similarity between the drink’s name and that of soft drinks like ‘fruit burst’. ​ The Panel noted that there were several positive alcohol cues on the packaging such as the drink’s alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) and the phrase ‘alcoholic beverage’ prominently positioned in a clearly visible white font. The Panel considered that the packaging was typical of a spirit drink in a 700ml bottle and as such it bore little resemblance to soft drinks targeted at children which created a separation between the packaging and drinks aimed at under-18s. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the majority of the font used on the packaging employed straight edge lines which overall presented as more adult-like. The Panel considered that while ‘Burst’ may have a level of appeal to under-18s, on balance, the drink’s label was fairly simplistic in design. It had few colours, mainly pink and blue, including the liquid which was visible through the glass and while the colours were bright, the colour palette was limited and not highly contrasting. The Panel considered that these elements, alone or combined, would not be sufficient to cause the packaging to have a particular appeal to under-18s in this case.

Taking the above points into account, the Panel concluded that the straight-lined font, simplistic design and realistic depictions of fruit meant that the overall impression conveyed by the packaging was adult and mature. ​ The Panel concluded that the drink did not have a particular appeal to under-18s and accordingly, the complaint was not upheld under Code rule 3.2(h). ​

Action by Company:

None required.

Producer:

Põhjala Brewing AS

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (2025 Independent Proactive Audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition (Amended)

Complaint:

“Product is in a 330ml soft drinks can and the front design has minimal text with product name only. It is in only when the back of the can is read it’s clear it is alcoholic with very small wording for ‘Beer’ and the vol % slightly larger”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.1 The alcoholic nature of a drink should be communicated on its packaging with absolute clarity

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company appreciated the opportunity to address the concerns about the packaging of the drink and explained that Heli Imperial Gose was a small-batch, barrel-aged specialty craft beer targeted at enthusiasts within the premium beer segment. It was distributed through specialty alcoholic product channels like bottle shops, bars, and curated online platforms and was not available in mainstream soft drink contexts or UK supermarkets. The company acknowledged concerns about the minimal text on the front of the can but emphasised that the back of the can clearly included the word ‘Beer’ and the product’s alcoholic strength by volume (8%). The company also highlighted that the can included all legally required alcohol labelling as per Estonian and EU regulations and met export compliance criteria. The company explained that in Estonia, all alcoholic beverages were required to be registered on the Estonian Alcohol Register which involved a review of packaging and labelling elements by national authorities to ensure compliance with local laws on alcohol visibility and responsible presentation. The company confirmed that Heli Imperial Gose had been reviewed and approved by the Estonian Alcohol Register, validating that the packaging clearly communicated its alcoholic nature under national standards.

The company explained that the front-facing design of the product was minimal, reflecting a common aesthetic in the craft beer segment, particularly for specialty or barrel-aged releases. The intention of which was to communicate a refined, artisanal product rather than resemble a soft drink. The company stated that the product’s alcoholic nature was clarified through several elements: the high ABV (8%), which was uncommon for soft drinks; the inclusion of “Imperial Gose” in the name, a recognised beer style; and the 330ml can format, which was typical for craft beer and did not suggest a soft drink in the market context. Furthermore, the label prominently displayed the drink’s alcoholic strength of 8% in large, legible text on the upper-left corner. Beneath this, the word ‘BEER’ was clearly written in multiple languages. Additionally, the term ‘Imperial Gose,’ as both the product name and a recognised beer style, appeared in the description, contributing to clear communication of the product’s alcoholic nature. The company reviewed the similar cases of Yonder Pink Lemonade, Blossom Hill Spritz and Hello Kitty Pinot Noir and stated that Heli Imperial Gose differed significantly in intent and execution. The company explained that the drink’s muted, artistic design and labelling targeted an adult audience and did not include imagery or language which would appeal to children or mimic soft drink branding. The company highlighted that only 72 cans of the product had been sent to the UK as part of a one-off small batch release for specialist outlets and it was not distributed through mainstream retail as it was intended for a niche audience of craft beer enthusiasts. The company articulated its commitment to responsible marketing and expressed willingness to make minor adjustments to the front-can design in future print runs to better clarify the product’s alcoholic nature, while preserving its brand identity and design integrity.

The Panel’s assessment

The Panel discussed whether the packaging communicated the drink’s alcoholic nature with absolute clarity as raised by the complainant. The Panel first assessed the packaging, which incorporated a minimalist stylised design of a predominantly black background superimposed with green shapes that stretched around the majority of the can. The Panel noted that the front label did not include any positive alcoholic cues such as the legal name of the drink, alcoholic drink descriptors or the alcoholic strength by volume (ABV) but did have the company name ‘Põhjala’ presented clearly in white text within a white outlined box. The Panel considered that a company name would not be considered a positive alcoholic cue because consumers might be unfamiliar with the fact that the company was an alcoholic drinks producer and therefore may not associate the drink with alcohol. Given that the front label of the drink did not contain any references to alcohol, the Panel considered that it was difficult to determine what type of drink it was, particularly as the artwork was abstract and did not relate to beer in any overt or obvious way. However, the Panel also noted that mandatory legal information was not required to be presented on the front label either by law or under the Code and therefore it was important to assess the label in its entirety to determine compliance under Code rule 3.1. The Panel considered the back label of the drink and noted that there were some

positive alcohol cues such as the drink’s ABV, the word ‘beer’ in a number of different languages and the pregnancy warning logo. However, the Panel noted there was no other best practice information such as unit content information, the Chief Medical Officer’s low risk drinking guidelines or responsibility messaging. The Panel noted that while these points were not required under the Code, they were positive alcohol cues that UK consumers would be familiar with on alcohol packaging and therefore would help the drink to communicate its alcoholic nature. The Panel discussed the font size on the back of the can which was particularly small and noted that it was particularly difficult to read white text which had been overlayed on an iridescent pattern. The Panel noted that the largest font on the product, after the company name, was ‘Heli Imperial Gose’ on the side of the product which appeared above text describing the tasting notes of ‘sloe berries and lemon thyme’. The Panel considered that ‘gose’ was not a particularly well-known beer descriptor and would not necessarily be understood as a reference to alcohol in and of itself. The Panel noted that this was also compounded by the fruit flavour descriptors directly underneath it which would be more understood as flavours associated with a soft drink. The Panel discussed the producer’s response that only 72 cans had been sent to the UK and were intended for a niche audience of craft beer enthusiasts. The Panel sought to remind producers that the remit of the Code and its application applied solely to the product packaging as opposed to an assessment of how a product was retailed. Whilst the Panel acknowledged that some products could have a limited distribution, all products and companies were treated equally under the Code for regulatory consistency and fairness. The Panel therefore carefully considered whether the drink’s packaging had the capacity to cause consumer confusion taking the above points into account. When assessing the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging, the Panel concluded that the minimalist front label, which was absent of any alcohol descriptors, combined with the fruit flavour descriptors, comparatively minimal references to alcohol, the drink name ‘Heli Imperial Gose’ which was not a well-known reference to beer in the UK and the difficult to read small white text overlayed on an iridescent label meant that, on balance, the drink did not communicate its alcoholic nature with absolute clarity. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.1.

Action by Company:

Was limited edition.

A complaint against Chronic Cellars Space Doubt Zinfandel has been upheld by the alcohol industry’s Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), the full decision can be read here.

The complaint, made by Zenith Global Commercial Ltd, as part of the Portman Group’s independent proactive audit of the UK market^[1], raised concerns that the term ‘chronic’ was associated with high-strength marijuana and that the name Space Doubt, was a play on words sounding similar to ‘spaced out’ which had an association with drug taking.

The Panel also considered whether the name of the product, Space Doubt, alongside the name of the producer, Chronic Cellars, could be in breach of Code Rule 3.2(b)for creating an association with illegal behaviour.

The producer argued that the name ‘Chronic’ was surfer lingo meaning ‘the best’ and that the surfer slang reflected the founders’ passion for surfing and the idea of selecting the best grapes to create exceptional wines The producer also explained that the name ‘Space Doubt’ was created to reflect the complexity and wonderment of the world, encouraging moments of contemplation with the double meaning reflecting on vineyard row spacing during replanting.

The Panel considered the meaning of the word ‘chronic’ and noted that, whilst it had a number of meanings including ‘persistent’ and ‘the best’, it could also refer to strong cannabis. Given the number of ways ‘chronic’ could be interpreted, the Panel considered how the word was presented in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.

The Panel considered the front label, including the company name ‘Chronic Cellars’, a stylised image of a skeleton sitting on top of the Earth observing a planet and the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ alongside it. The Panel noted that the packaging was absent of any reference to surfing to give context to the intended meaning of ‘Chronic’ as explained by the producer. The Panel noted that the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ sounded phonetically like ‘spaced out’, a phrase commonly used to infer impairment due to the effects of illicit drugs.

The Panel considered all of the elements of the packaging including the word ‘chronic’ in the context of being ‘spaced out’ and the positioning of the skeleton, which was sitting cross-legged in a relaxed pose staring into space, and concluded that whilst each element could have been acceptable in isolation, taken together they gave an overall impression of an association with illicit drugs. The Panel also considered that because the packaging created an association with illicit drugs and alluded to the effects of cannabis use, the product packaging also indirectly created an association with illegal behaviour.  Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code Rules 3.2(c) and 3.2(b).

Chair of the Independent Complaints Panel, Rachel Childs, said: “This case highlights how important it is to consider the overall impression conveyed by a product’s name and labelling when assessing compliance under the Code. Elements that may be acceptable in isolation can take on a different meaning when combined together. It’s important that producers take this into account when choosing a product name and designing associated labelling.”

[1] Part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended

Producer:

WX Brands

Complainant:

Zenith Global Commercial Ltd (as part of the independent proactive audit of the Naming and Packaging of Alcoholic Drinks Code, Sixth Edition Amended)

Complaint:

“The term “chronic” is associated with high-strength marijuana. The wine is named “Space Doubt” which is a clever play on words sounding very similar to ‘Spaced Out’, which has a strong association with drug taking. This, when added to the text on the label “Space Doubt is your resident guy in the sky,” adds more emphasis to the allusion to illicit drugs, as to be ‘spaced out’ or ‘in the sky’ are synonyms for getting high”.

Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(b)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous, anti-social or illegal behaviour

UPHELD

Under Code paragraph 3.2(c)

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs.

UPHELD

The company’s submission

The company acknowledged the concerns raised by Zenith Global regarding its wine ‘Chronic Cellars Space Doubt’ and expressed its commitment to responsible alcohol marketing. The company emphasised its dedication to promoting responsible drinking by including the UK Chief Medical Officers’ drinking guidelines and alcohol unit information on back labels, along with promoting the Drinkaware website. The company explained that Chronic Cellars was founded in California in 2004 and was a brand committed to making high-quality wine with a playful and unconventional approach. The company added that as a brand it used Californian slang and humour as part of its identity.

The company explained that the name ‘Chronic’ had been registered in the UK and EU and was surfer lingo which meant ‘the best’. The surfer slang reflected the founders’ passion for surfing and the idea of selecting the best grapes to create exceptional wines. The brand name was intended to represent quality and creativity, independent of its illustrations.

The company then explained that the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ was created to reflect the complexity and wonderment of the world, encouraging moments of contemplation. The company stated that the name carried a double meaning, combining the idea of ‘spaced out’ wonderment and the physical spacing of elements, inspired by the founders’ reflections on vineyard row spacing during replanting. The company explained that its brand emphasised whimsy and avoided literal illustrations, aligning with Chronic Cellars’ playful approach to wine labelling.

The Panel’s assessment

3.2(c)

The Panel discussed whether the drink’s name or packaging suggested any association with, acceptance of, or allusion to, illicit drugs as raised by the complainant. The Panel first considered the meaning of the word ‘chronic’ and how it would be interpreted by a UK consumer. The Panel noted the company’s response which explained that ‘chronic’ was surfer dialect used in California, where the company was based, to communicate that something was ‘the best’. The Panel discussed that in the UK, ‘chronic’ had a number of meanings including ‘persistent’ in the context of a medical ailment and ‘the best’, albeit the latter definition was more likely to be used by a younger generation. The Panel noted that ‘chronic’ could also refer to strong cannabis and this definition was prevalent in some subsections of society but was not universal across the whole of the UK. Given the number of ways chronic could be interpreted, the Panel noted that it was important to consider how the word was presented in the wider context of the rest of the packaging.

The Panel considered the front label which included the company name ‘Chronic Cellars’, a stylised image of a skeleton sitting on top of the Earth observing a planet and the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ positioned alongside it. The Panel noted that these elements were repeated on the back label alongside the romance copy which included the line ‘Space Doubt is your resident guy in the sky, always pondering on the best ways to get into far out mischief’. The Panel noted that the packaging was absent of any reference to surfing, surfing culture or surfing language to give context to the intended meaning of ‘Chronic’ as explained by the producer, rendering it open to interpretation. In light of this, the Panel discussed the brand name ‘Space Doubt’ and noted that it phonetically sounded like ‘spaced out’, a phrase commonly used to infer impairment due to the effects of illicit drugs. The Panel considered that ‘chronic’ in the context of being ‘spaced out’ reinforced the perception that the word ‘chronic’ was a reference to cannabis use in this particular context. The Panel then discussed the positioning of the skeleton which was sitting cross-legged in a relaxed pose staring into space. The Panel considered the pose and positioning of the character which suggested it was experiencing a surreal out-of-body experience akin to the effect of drugs and this was compounded by the inclusion of ‘Space Doubt’, ‘Chronic’ and references to a ‘guy in the sky’, all of which could refer to getting high.

Taking all of the above into account, the Panel stated that while each element could have been acceptable in isolation, the cumulative effect of all of them meant that the overall impression conveyed by the drink’s packaging did suggest an association with illicit drugs. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld under Code rule 3.2(c).

3.2(b)

Given its decision under Code rule 3.2(c), the Panel raised Code rule 3.2(b) for consideration to determine whether the packaging created an association with illegal behaviour. The Panel noted that the company was based in California and that the sale of recreational-use cannabis was legal in that state. However, the Panel considered that within the UK, cannabis was controlled as a class B drug and therefore it was illegal to possess it. The Panel considered that because the packaging created an association with illicit drugs, and alluded to the effect of cannabis use, the product packaging also indirectly created an association with illegal behaviour. On that basis, the Panel found that the packaging was also in breach of Code rule 3.2(b).

Action by Company:

Withdrawn from UK market.

The Portman Group is delighted to welcome Lucky Saint as an associate member, making them the first alcohol alternative member company in our history.

Lucky Saint was launched in the UK in 2018 by its founder Luke Boase with a 0.5% unfiltered lager product. Since then, it’s become one of the most recognised and popular alcohol alternative brands, now featuring on draught in over 1250 pubs in the UK and expanding their range to include a 0.5% hazy IPA in January 2024.

The Portman Group has long been an advocate of the low and no category, as we know from our own annual research with YouGov that alcohol alternative products have become a vital tool for helping people to moderate their drinking and to reduce alcohol harms such as drink driving.

Lucky Saint join Coca-Cola GB and Punch Pubs, our first dedicated UK pub company, who are also associate members.  Suntory Global Spirits, who joined the Portman Group as associate members in August last year, have now become full members.

The associate member category was launched last year to further increase representation across the entire sector, bringing The Portman Group’s overall membership to 21 companies from across the drinks industry – the largest ever.

The new associate member tier allows more flexibility for companies who are keen to engage with and support the work of the Portman Group whilst tailoring the commitment level that is best suited to them. Associate members receive access to the latest alcohol news, policy summaries, insight into research, rapid 24-hour product advice and free Code training.

Luke Boase, Founder of Lucky Saint, said: “The Portman Group has long championed the growth of alcohol-free options, setting the standard for responsible marketing across our industry as the category continues to grow rapidly.

“We’re incredibly proud to become the first dedicated alcohol-free member of the Portman Group, ensuring that brands like Lucky Saint – and the alcohol-free category as a whole – continue to be represented.

“Together we look forward to working with the Portman Group to help to shape the future of the industry moving forward, showcasing the positive role alcohol-free can play for individuals and the industry.”

Matt Lambert, CEO of The Portman Group said: “We are thrilled to welcome Lucky Saint as our newest associate members, not to mention our first alcohol alternative member. As low and no products continue to grow in popularity it’s more important than ever for our membership to include this representation, and for both categories to work in partnership to market their products responsibly and be leaders in best practice across the drinks industry.

“We’re also delighted that Suntory Global Spirits have become a full member, thereby demonstrating their commitment to responsible business practices”

In response to the release of the Alcohol-specific deaths in the UK ONS report for 2021, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

“Today’s figures show an increase in alcohol-specific deaths on top of last year’s increase, every death is a tragedy for the people concerned and their family and friends. The longer-term impact of pandemic drinking for a small group of drinkers continues and there is increasing evidence that targeted, health focused action is needed for those drinking at the highest harm level.”

Responding to the University of Stirling’s packaging focus group, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group, the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator, said:

“This study demonstrates that the packaging of a product is designed to appeal to different audiences something that would ring true across all forms of marketing and is not in itself a surprise. The key thing is that the naming, packaging and promotion of products must respect the Portman Group Code of Practice which protects consumers from inappropriate marketing and ensures that alcohol is promoted in a responsible way. The Code ensures that alcohol marketing does not target under 18s in particular. It has contributed to over a decade of declines in underage drinking rates in Scotland”.

Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said:

“Today’s figures continue the highly welcome long-term trend for falling alcohol related accidents and casualties on the road. However, each death is a tragedy and we remain cautious about over-emphasising the lowest overall figures on record given the impact of COVID-19 in 2020 resulting in fewer journeys by car.

“We are supportive of the THINK! campaign by DfT and we are also pleased to see the investment by the sector in campaigns to discourage drink driving as well as Drinkaware’s work. Equally there has been huge innovation in developing high quality no alcohol alternatives that support designated drivers in their choice not to drink while still enjoying a night out. Our recent study commissioned by YouGov found that the most popular reason for consumers to try low and no alcohol is ‘being able to drive home from social events’ which should continue to help people stay within the limits in the future.”

Source: Portman Group Research, January 2022, Consumer Views on Low and No Alcohol products 2021

One in three UK drinkers now regularly choose low or no alcohol products

UK drinkers increasingly choose low and no alcohol products all year round and not just for Dry January, the fourth annual online study YouGov commissioned by the Portman Group has found.

Almost one in three (32%) UK drinkers now ‘semi-regularly’* consume low and no alcohol products compared to one in four (25%) in 2020. Furthermore, a fifth (20%) of those who have tried low and no alcohol say they are more likely to drink these products now compared to a year ago, almost double the number saying this in last year’s survey (11%).

Despite COVID-19 restrictions, the most popular reason for consumers who have tried low and no alcohol to drink these products continues to be ‘being able to drive home from social events’ (chosen by 33% of respondents). Reducing the possibility of health concerns or current medical reasons were also cited by 22% of consumers**. The other main reason is to socialise without drinking excessively with 20% of respondents, whilst 12% explicitly stated they currently alternated low and no products with regular strength alcohol to moderate their overall consumption.

Furthermore, the survey shows that over a quarter (26%) of those who have tried low and no alcohol say that their subsequent weekly alcohol has decreased since they first tried it. These results indicate that low and no alcohol could be an effective tool for people looking to moderate drinking, often whilst at home with COVID-19 remaining an ongoing concern.

It should be noted that alcohol drinkers are the main buyers of non-alcoholic products using them as alternatives to alcohol. Well over half (58%) of non-drinkers have never even tried a low/no product and just 14% are semi-regular* consumers.

Across the UK there were increases in the number of low and no consumers. Welsh drinkers top the chart as most likely to be semi-regular* low/no drinkers, with a large jump to a third (36%) of respondents compared to less than a quarter (22%) in 2020. English consumers come in at 32% up from 25%. 29% of Scottish consumers are semi-regular* drinkers, up from 27%.

In response to the figures, Matt Lambert, CEO of the Portman Group – the alcohol social responsibility body and marketing regulator said: “As these positive findings show, there has been a big increase in drinking low and no during the pandemic, indicating that many UK drinkers have looked to moderate their alcohol consumption by swapping with non-alcoholic options. These figures show the fruits of large industry innovation and investment into the sector over the past decade to provide consumers with an array of lower alcohol options.”

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. The 2021 survey was conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Portman Group. Fieldwork was undertaken on 9th-10th December 2021 and involved a total sample size of 2,079 adults. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

In the 2020 survey, the total sample size was 2100 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 14th – 15th December 2020.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults (aged 18+).

ENDS

* Use of the term ‘semi-regular drinkers’ refers to those who either ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ drink low and no alcohol products.

** This includes those looking to reduce the possibility of short-term physical health problems (e.g. hangovers) (12%); reduce the possibility of long-term physical health problems (e.g. alcoholic liver disease) (11%), and those citing ‘illness / medical reasons’ (8%).

Northern Ireland is not included in these findings due to the sample size being too small.

UK Government changes how it tracks alcohol health trends as drinking rates fall

The Portman Group welcomes the UK Government’s announcement that it has implemented an update to its use of alcohol-attributable fractions (AAFs). If you haven’t heard of them before, an AAF denotes the proportion of disease cases which are estimated to have been caused by alcohol. The change in the calculation impacts how alcohol-related mortality and hospital admissions in England are calculated. This change has been made as the result of persistent falls in the levels of drinking across the population as the latest evidence suggest that the majority of AAFs are smaller than previously thought. Down by ¼

This led PHE to conclude that “currently published rates are too high and if LAPE [Local Alcohol Profiles for England] were to continue producing statistics using the older AAFs then this inaccuracy would continue and indeed worsen over time.”

PHE said updating its methodology to account for declining alcohol consumption across the population, as well as harmful drinking patterns such as binge drinking, would result in current estimates of alcohol-related deaths and admissions being lowered by around a quarter.

The Portman Group feels that it is important that PHE makes clear that it is changing its methodology to account for positive behaviour change amongst the general population, whilst also recognising the harm that alcohol misuse can cause to individuals remains unchanged.

Implementing the new methodology in the latest Local Alcohol Profiles for England has meant that:

• Estimated alcohol-related deaths across England for 2018 have been lowered by around 5,700. This equates to around 23% of deaths previously estimated and lowered the death rate per 100,000 for 2018 from 46.5 to 35.8.
• Estimated hospital admissions for alcohol-related conditions (narrow) for 2018 have been lowered by around 83,000. This equates to around 23% of admissions previously estimated and lowered the rate per 100,000 for 2018 from 664 to 512.
• Estimated hospital admissions for alcohol-related conditions (broad) for 2018 have been lowered by around 320,000. This equates to around 25% of admissions previously estimated and lowered the rate per 100,000 for 2018 from 2,367 to 1,766.
• However, whilst the rates have been lowered, it is important to note that the direction of the trend in rates since 2016 for mortality and admissions remains unchanged, showing the relative stasis in mortality and increase in admissions evident before the revision, which continue in the latest statistics released for 2019.

As an evidence-based body, we support the change which is based on new data. It will present a more accurate picture and will take into account over a decade of progress of tackling many areas of alcohol-related harm, though recognise the consecutive increase in alcohol-related admissions in recent years shows there is much more to do.

We also welcome that the update to methodology will be backdated to 2016, to allow for a more accurate long-term view of trends.

We believe this update is especially important as it will allow policymakers to make better informed decisions and help to more effectively target policies towards those drinking at the heaviest and most harmful rates.

Taking this forward

The Government will apply this updated methodology to wider estimates of alcohol-related harm based on these calculations (i.e., previous PHE estimates on the economic cost of alcohol misuse).

Public Health England collaborates with colleagues across the UK and we hope will encourage public health authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to also update their own estimates of alcohol-related harm, taking account of declining trends in harm across the whole of the UK.

Overall, this consultation has been welcome chance for the Government to take ownership of over a decade of progress in tackling alcohol misuse, as the UK increasingly becomes a nation of moderate drinkers.

Read more

Office for Health Improvement and Disparities blog explains the new estimates on deaths and hospital admissions caused by alcohol – here.

Previous blog write up on our consultation response April 2021 – here.

Consultation response in full April 2021 – here.