Alcohol ad restrictions dropped after industry lobbying, FOI reveals

Freedom of information documents show that alcohol marketing restrictions were removed from the UK Government’s 10 Year Health Plan shortly before publication. Letters from major drinks companies and trade bodies warned ministers that tighter advertising rules would harm growth and investment.

When the UK Government published its 10 Year Health Plan for England last July, proposed restrictions on alcohol marketing did not appear in the final document, despite reports shortly beforehand suggesting they would be included.

As per a new report by the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS), the policy was apparently removed after a concentrated effort by alcohol producers, pub operators and trade bodies to influence ministers and senior officials in the final days before publication.

The IAS report is based on correspondence obtained through freedom of information requests submitted to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and HM Treasury (HMT).

Proposed measures included a 9pm watershed

According to IAS, the government had been considering a range of marketing restrictions, including a 9pm watershed for television advertising.

Alcohol marketing, as described in the IAS report, includes television and online advertising, social media promotions and sponsorship of sport and cultural events.

The report argues that the evidence base for marketing restrictions is well established, stating that marketing increases alcohol consumption and contributes to alcohol harm, including among children and young people.

IAS also points to international precedents, writing that countries including France, Ireland and Norway already restrict alcohol marketing.

Brewers and trade bodies warned of economic damage

FOI documents cited by IAS suggest that drinks businesses acted quickly to oppose the proposed measures, focusing their efforts on the DHSC and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting.

In a letter quoted by IAS, brewer and pub operator Greene King told Streeting that the restrictions would have a “crippling impact” on the sector.

Heineken also wrote to Streeting, warning that the plans would “impede growth and investment” and cause “widespread disruption” across the industry.

The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) also wrote to the DHSC, with IAS reporting that the BBPA and Heineken stated in their correspondence: “We support efforts to improve public health and tackle inequalities.”

Budweiser urged the Chancellor to intervene

The IAS report suggests that the lobbying effort extended beyond the DHSC, with alcohol companies approaching other departments in an attempt to apply pressure from across Whitehall.

In one letter cited by IAS, Budweiser appealed directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stating: “As Chancellor, we urge that you make immediate representations to the Department of Health and ensure that these restrictions are not enforced.”

IAS says its analysis indicates that companies and trade bodies encouraged DBT, DCMS and HMT to raise concerns with DHSC on the industry’s behalf.

Heineken pointed to zero alcohol product placement in soaps

Among the more unusual details in the FOI material is Heineken’s reference to a partnership with ITV involving Heineken 0.0 product placement in Coronation Street and Emmerdale.

In a letter to the DHSC quoted by IAS, Heineken argued that the campaign carried a public message around moderation and alternative choices, stating: “Through product placement and in-script references to ‘pints of zero’, the collaboration has helped normalise alcohol-free choices in everyday settings.”

IAS observes that the branding for Heineken 0.0 is similar to the branding used for its full-strength beers.

IAS claims campaign was coordinated across the sector

The IAS report describes the lobbying as a “concerted” effort, suggesting that the timing of letters, joint correspondence and similar arguments points to coordination between alcohol companies and representative groups.

According to IAS, the correspondence included claims that self-regulation works, that advertising does not increase consumption and that the economic consequences of restrictions would be severe.

IAS also states that some freedom of information requests were refused and that further documents are being withheld.

Public health evidence

The IAS report frames the episode as an example of alcohol industry influence over health policy, a phenomenon it says is recognised by institutions including the World Health Organisation and Public Health England.

It argues that marketing restrictions are recommended by the WHO as a so-called ‘best buy’ policy and says they are supported by a 2025 evidence review from Public Health Scotland.

The report concludes with recommendations including revisiting the proposed marketing restrictions, issuing a new national alcohol strategy and introducing stronger principles for managing conflicts of interest in policymaking.

When the prime-time ban was first proposed, the BBPA said, “With over 80% consuming alcohol within government guidelines, any proposed measures must focus on helping the minority who drink at harmful levels.”

Related news

AI raises the bar for alcohol advertising standards

Alcohol advertising laws strengthened in India

Constellation Brands spends US$155 million on Modelo advertising