Explore the vast range of titles available.

Switching from higher strength to low- and no-alcohol products could result in consumers buying and drinking fewer grams of ethanol. We undertook a scoping review with systematic searches of English language publications between 1 January 2010 and 17 January 2021 using PubMed and Web of Science, covering production, consumption, and policy drivers related to low- and no-alcohol products. Seventy publications were included in our review. We found no publications comparing a life cycle assessment of health and environmental impacts between alcohol-free and regular-strength products. Three publications of low- and no-alcohol beers found only limited penetration of sales compared with higher strength beers. Two publications from only one jurisdiction (Great Britain) suggested that sales of no- and low-alcohol beers replaced rather than added to sales of higher strength beers. Eight publications indicated that taste, prior experiences, brand, health and wellbeing issues, price differentials, and overall decreases in the social stigma associated with drinking alcohol-free beverages were drivers of the purchase and consumption of low- and no-alcohol beers and wines. Three papers indicated confusion amongst consumers with respect to the labelling of low- and no-alcohol products. One paper indicated that the introduction of a minimum unit price in both Scotland and Wales favoured shifts in purchases from higher- to lower-strength beers. The evidence base for the potential beneficial health impact of low- and no-alcohol products is very limited and needs considerable expansion. At present, the evidence base could be considered inadequate to inform policy.

As many U.S. states implemented stay-at-home orders beginning in March 2020, anecdotes reported a surge in alcohol sales, raising concerns about increased alcohol use and associated ills. The surveillance report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism provides monthly U.S. alcohol sales data from a subset of states, allowing an investigation of this potential increase in alcohol use. Meanwhile, anonymized human mobility data released by companies such as SafeGraph enables an examination of the visiting behavior of people to various alcohol outlets such as bars and liquor stores. This study examines changes to alcohol sales and alcohol outlet visits during COVID-19 and their geographic differences across states. We find major increases in the sales of spirits and wine since March 2020, while the sales of beer decreased. We also find moderate increases in people’s visits to liquor stores, while their visits to bars and pubs substantially decreased. Noticing a significant correlation between alcohol sales and outlet visits, we use machine learning models to examine their relationship and find evidence in some states for likely panic buying of spirits and wine. Large geographic differences exist across states, with both major increases and decreases in alcohol sales and alcohol outlet visits.

The 2010 World Health Organization Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol recommends countries adopt evidence-based interventions. To update, summarize, and appraise the methodological rigour of systematic reviews of selected alcohol control interventions in the Strategy. We searched for systematic reviews across PUBMED, EMBase and The Cochrane Library in 2016 and updated in 2017 with no language limits. Two investigators independently in duplicate conducted screening, eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment using the ROBIS tool. We categorised interventions according to the WHO recommendations, and rated reviews as at high, low or unclear risk of bias. We applied a hierarchical approach to summarising review results. Where overlap existed we report results of high quality reviews and if none existed, by most recent date of publication. We integrated the ROBIS rating with the results to produce a benefit indication. We identified 42 systematic reviews from 5,282 records. Almost all eligible reviews were published in English, one in German and one in Portuguese. Most reviews identified only observational studies (74%; 31/42) with no studies from low or lower-middle income (LMIC) countries. Ten reviews were rated as low risk of bias. Methodological deficiencies included publication and language limits, no duplicate assessment, no assessment of study quality, and no integration of quality into result interpretation. We evaluated the following control measures as possibly beneficial: 1) community mobilization; 2) multi-component interventions in the drinking environment; 3) restricting alcohol advertising; 4) restricting on- and off-premise outlet density; 5) police patrols and ignition locks to reduce drink driving; and 6) increased price and taxation including minimum unit pricing. Robust and well-reported research synthesis is deficient in the alcohol control field despite the availability of clear methodological guidance. The lack of primary and synthesis research arising from LMIC should be prioritised globally.

The Northern Territory (NT) Government introduced a minimum unit price (MUP) of $1.30 per standard drink (10g pure alcohol) explicitly aimed at reducing the consumption of cheap wine products from October 2018. We aimed to assess the impact of the NT MUP on estimates of beverage‐specific population‐adjusted alcohol consumption using wholesale alcohol supply data. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to examine MUP effects on trends in estimated per capita alcohol consumption (PCAC) for cask wine, total wine and total alcohol, across the NT and in the Darwin/Palmerston region. Significant step decreases were found for cask wine and total wine PCAC in Darwin/Palmerston and across the Northern Territory. PCAC of cask wine decreased by 50.6% in the NT, and by 48.8% in Darwin/Palmerston compared to the prior year. PCAC for other beverages (e.g. beer) were largely unaffected by MUP. Overall, PCAC across the Territory declined, but not in Darwin/Palmerston. With minimal implementation costs, the Northern Territory Government's MUP policy successfully targeted and reduced cask wine and total wine consumption. Cask wine, in particular, almost halved in Darwin/Palmerston where the impact of the MUP was able to be determined and considering other interventions. Implementation of a minimum unit price for retail alcohol sales is a cost‐effective way to reduce the consumption of high alcohol content and high‐risk products, such as cheap cask wine.

BackgroundTaxing soft-drinks may reduce their purchase, but assessing the impact on health demands wider consideration on alternative beverage choices. Effects on alcoholic drinks are of particular concern, as many contain similar or greater amounts of sugar than soft-drinks and have additional health harms. Changes in consumption of alcoholic drinks may reinforce or negate the intended effect of price changes for soft-drinks.MethodsA partial demand model, adapted from the Almost Ideal Demand System, was applied to Kantar Worldpanel data from 31 919 households from January 2012 to December 2013, covering drink purchases for home consumption, providing ~6 million purchases aggregated into 11 groups, including three levels of soft-drink, three of other non-alcoholic drinks and five of alcoholic drinks.ResultsAn increase in the price of high-sugar drinks leads to an increase in the purchase of lager, an increase in the price of medium-sugar drinks reduces purchases of alcoholic drinks, while an increase in the price of diet/low-sugar drinks increases purchases of beer, cider and wines. Overall, the effects of price rises are greatest in the low-income group.ConclusionIncreasing the price of soft-drinks may change purchase patterns for alcohol. Increasing the price of medium-sugar drinks has the potential to have a multiplier-effect beneficial to health through reducing alcohol purchases, with the converse for increases in the price of diet-drinks. Although the reasons for such associations cannot be explained from this analysis, requiring further study, the design of fiscal interventions should now consider these wider potential outcomes.

While evidence that alcohol pricing policies reduce alcohol-related health harm is robust, and alcohol taxation increases are a WHO \"best buy\" intervention, there is a lack of research comparing the scale and distribution across society of health impacts arising from alternative tax and price policy options. The aim of this study is to test whether four common alcohol taxation and pricing strategies differ in their impact on health inequalities. An econometric epidemiological model was built with England 2014/2015 as the setting. Four pricing strategies implemented on top of the current tax were equalised to give the same 4.3% population-wide reduction in total alcohol-related mortality: current tax increase, a 13.4% all-product duty increase under the current UK system; a value-based tax, a 4.0% ad valorem tax based on product price; a strength-based tax, a volumetric tax of £0.22 per UK alcohol unit (= 8 g of ethanol); and minimum unit pricing, a minimum price threshold of £0.50 per unit, below which alcohol cannot be sold. Model inputs were calculated by combining data from representative household surveys on alcohol purchasing and consumption, administrative and healthcare data on 43 alcohol-attributable diseases, and published price elasticities and relative risk functions. Outcomes were annual per capita consumption, consumer spending, and alcohol-related deaths. Uncertainty was assessed via partial probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analysis. The pricing strategies differ as to how effects are distributed across the population, and, from a public health perspective, heavy drinkers in routine/manual occupations are a key group as they are at greatest risk of health harm from their drinking. Strength-based taxation and minimum unit pricing would have greater effects on mortality among drinkers in routine/manual occupations (particularly for heavy drinkers, where the estimated policy effects on mortality rates are as follows: current tax increase, -3.2%; value-based tax, -2.9%; strength-based tax, -6.1%; minimum unit pricing, -7.8%) and lesser impacts among drinkers in professional/managerial occupations (for heavy drinkers: current tax increase, -1.3%; value-based tax, -1.4%; strength-based tax, +0.2%; minimum unit pricing, +0.8%). Results from the PSA give slightly greater mean effects for both the routine/manual (current tax increase, -3.6% [95% uncertainty interval (UI) -6.1%, -0.6%]; value-based tax, -3.3% [UI -5.1%, -1.7%]; strength-based tax, -7.5% [UI -13.7%, -3.9%]; minimum unit pricing, -10.3% [UI -10.3%, -7.0%]) and professional/managerial occupation groups (current tax increase, -1.8% [UI -4.7%, +1.6%]; value-based tax, -1.9% [UI -3.6%, +0.4%]; strength-based tax, -0.8% [UI -6.9%, +4.0%]; minimum unit pricing, -0.7% [UI -5.6%, +3.6%]). Impacts of price changes on moderate drinkers were small regardless of income or socioeconomic group. Analysis of uncertainty shows that the relative effectiveness of the four policies is fairly stable, although uncertainty in the absolute scale of effects exists. Volumetric taxation and minimum unit pricing consistently outperform increasing the current tax or adding an ad valorem tax in terms of reducing mortality among the heaviest drinkers and reducing alcohol-related health inequalities (e.g., in the routine/manual occupation group, volumetric taxation reduces deaths more than increasing the current tax in 26 out of 30 probabilistic runs, minimum unit pricing reduces deaths more than volumetric tax in 21 out of 30 runs, and minimum unit pricing reduces deaths more than increasing the current tax in 30 out of 30 runs). Study limitations include reducing model complexity by not considering a largely ineffective ban on below-tax alcohol sales, special duty rates covering only small shares of the market, and the impact of tax fraud or retailer non-compliance with minimum unit prices. Our model estimates that, compared to tax increases under the current system or introducing taxation based on product value, alcohol-content-based taxation or minimum unit pricing would lead to larger reductions in health inequalities across income groups. We also estimate that alcohol-content-based taxation and minimum unit pricing would have the largest impact on harmful drinking, with minimal effects on those drinking in moderation.

This paper reviews the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol, in the areas of education and information, the health sector, community action, driving while under the influence of alcohol (drink-driving), availability, marketing, pricing, harm reduction, and illegally and informally produced alcohol. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that policies regulating the environment in which alcohol is marketed (particularly its price and availability) are effective in reducing alcohol-related harm. Enforced legislative measures to reduce drink-driving and individually directed interventions to already at-risk drinkers are also effective. However, school-based education does not reduce alcohol-related harm, although public information and education-type programmes have a role in providing information and in increasing attention and acceptance of alcohol on political and public agendas. Making alcohol more expensive and less available, and banning alcohol advertising, are highly cost-effective strategies to reduce harm. In settings with high amounts of unrecorded production and consumption, increasing the proportion of alcohol that is taxed could be a more effective pricing policy than a simple increase in tax.

Background The WHO highlight alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes as one of the most effective policies for preventing and reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases. This umbrella review aimed to identify and summarise evidence from systematic reviews that report the relationship between price and demand or price and disease/death for alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs. Given the recent recognition as gambling as a public health problem, we also included gambling. Methods The protocol for this umbrella review was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42023447429). Seven electronic databases were searched between 2000–2023. Eligible systematic reviews were those published in any country, including adults or children, and which quantitatively examined the relationship between alcohol, tobacco, gambling, unhealthy food, or SSB price/tax and demand (sales/consumption) or disease/death. Two researchers undertook screening, eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. Results We identified 50 reviews from 5,185 records, of which 31 reported on unhealthy food or SSBs, nine reported on tobacco, nine on alcohol, and one on multiple outcomes (alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs). We did not identify any reviews on gambling. Higher prices were consistently associated with lower demand, notwithstanding variation in the size of effect across commodities or populations. Reductions in demand were large enough to be considered meaningful for policy. Conclusions Increases in the price of alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs are consistently associated with decreases in demand. Moreover, increasing taxes can be expected to increase tax revenue. There may be potential in joining up approaches to taxation across the harm-causing commodities.

Abstract Private imports of alcoholic beverages—often referred to as cross-border trade—have long raised concerns in Sweden and other Nordic countries due to their potential impact on national alcohol policies and public health. A key concern is that this trade increases total alcohol consumption and related harms. This study examines the relationship between private alcohol imports and domestic sales in Sweden, with a focus on how cross-border trade influences total alcohol consumption. Using regional and beverage-specific time series data from 2002 to 2023, we applied SARIMA modelling to self-reported import estimates from the Monitor project to assess substitution effects on domestic alcohol sales. Private imports significantly displace domestic alcohol purchases, particularly in southern Sweden across all beverages, though the substitution is partial. For Sweden as a whole, analyses indicate that a 1-litre increase in imports is associated with a 0.456-litre decrease in domestic sales. In central Sweden, only spirits imports show a significant effect (1-litre increase in spirits imports yields a 0.175-litre decrease in domestic sprits sales), while no significant associations are observed in the north. The findings suggest that cross-border trade contributes to higher overall alcohol consumption, especially in border regions. Regional variation underscores the need for differentiated alcohol policy responses. Private imports undermine the effectiveness of domestic alcohol control measures. However, since domestic sales do not influence import levels, policy efforts such as increased excise taxation may reduce total consumption without triggering substantial compensatory imports.

Several countries are considering a minimum price policy for alcohol, but concerns exist about the potential effects on drinkers with low incomes. We aimed to assess the effect of a £0·45 minimum unit price (1 unit is 8 g/10 mL ethanol) in England across the income and socioeconomic distributions. We used the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model (SAPM) version 2.6, a causal, deterministic, epidemiological model, to assess effects of a minimum unit price policy. SAPM accounts for alcohol purchasing and consumption preferences for population subgroups including income and socioeconomic groups. Purchasing preferences are regarded as the types and volumes of alcohol beverages, prices paid, and the balance between on-trade (eg, bars) and off-trade (eg, shops). We estimated price elasticities from 9 years of survey data and did sensitivity analyses with alternative elasticities. We assessed effects of the policy on moderate, hazardous, and harmful drinkers, split into three socioeconomic groups (living in routine or manual households, intermediate households, and managerial or professional households). We examined policy effects on alcohol consumption, spending, rates of alcohol-related health harm, and opportunity costs associated with that harm. Rates of harm and costs were estimated for a 10 year period after policy implementation. We adjusted baseline rates of mortality and morbidity to account for differential risk between socioeconomic groups. Overall, a minimum unit price of £0·45 led to an immediate reduction in consumption of 1·6% (−11·7 units per drinker per year) in our model. Moderate drinkers were least affected in terms of consumption (−3·8 units per drinker per year for the lowest income quintile vs 0·8 units increase for the highest income quintile) and spending (increase in spending of £0·04 vs £1·86 per year). The greatest behavioural changes occurred in harmful drinkers (change in consumption of −3·7% or −138·2 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £4·01), especially in the lowest income quintile (−7·6% or −299·8 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £34·63) compared with the highest income quintile (−1·0% or −34·3 units, with an increase in spending of £16·35). Estimated health benefits from the policy were also unequally distributed. Individuals in the lowest socioeconomic group (living in routine or manual worker households and comprising 41·7% of the sample population) would accrue 81·8% of reductions in premature deaths and 87·1% of gains in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Irrespective of income, moderate drinkers were little affected by a minimum unit price of £0·45 in our model, with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers. Because harmful drinkers on low incomes purchase more alcohol at less than the minimum unit price threshold compared with other groups, they would be affected most by this policy. Large reductions in consumption in this group would however coincide with substantial health gains in terms of morbidity and mortality related to reduced alcohol consumption. UK Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council (grant G1000043).