Heavy marketing has created a buzz around alcohol-free beer diverting vital public attention from surging rates of alcohol harm. The stakes are too high to let commercial hype eclipse evidence-based action.
Alcohol deaths were up 33% on pre-pandemic levels in 2022 in the UK, for example. This astonished a BBC Radio 4 news anchor in May, so it is fair to assume the general public is probably less aware still of this dire situation. The US post-pandemic alcohol death surge is similar, at 31%, yet media coverage is sparse and the political response faltering. The WHO warned in summer “there has been little or no progress” in reducing alcohol consumption and harms in Europe.
As the death toll mounts the public is reminded, almost daily, of the success of alcohol-free beer. An alcohol-free beer garden at Munich’s Oktoberfest, for example, gained worldwide coverage, as if it were a sign humanity was turning the page on alcohol. And everything from the Olympics to Formula 1 promotes alcohol brands in alcohol-free clothing. The unspoken implication is that this is a sign of spontaneous progress.
The rise of alcohol free beer story satisfies our fascination for novelties and craving for miraculous solutions. What’s not to like about a story about, say, a tiny island of non-drinkers in a giant sea of drinking at a Munich beer festival. Is this not a sure sign a quiet moderation revolution is afoot? “The problem is taking care of itself,” we can be tempted to think, “One less thing to worry about.”
But, then again, this positive impression is highly questionable. There is also the very real possibility that the alcohol-free Oktoberfest beer garden is a gimmick to pre-empt criticism and generate positive coverage. In this, it was a triumph, regardless of its popularity. And, more broadly, there is no firm evidence that alcohol-free beer makes any meaningful difference to alcohol consumption or alcohol harm. We can be thankful some research is due in the next six months or so to quantify the effect, if there is any.
Nevertheless the media’s tireless trumpeting of alcohol-free beer, often from alcohol industry organisations. It is now “common sense” for non-specialists to see alcohol free beer as part of the solution to alcohol harm. In many cases we are falling for Potemkin villages constructed to show the market has the alcohol problem in hand. This is artful public relations triumphing over rational scientific and journalistic enquiry.
Alcohol-free beer has grown to quench a sizable share of the collective thirst in Europe. In France, Germany and Hungary alcohol-free beer is about 8% of the volume of beer in general. This is clearly progress, right? Well, again, maybe, maybe not. We do not know if alcohol-free beer replaces regular beer or if it is in reality chipping into soft drink sales. We might reasonably ask ourselves if alcohol producers would spend vast sums that cannibalise the sales of their core product?
On an individual level there are more questions. The taste, look and smell of alcohol free beer can prompt some people to crave an alcoholic drink. And alcohol-free beer ads expose audiences including children and people trying to avoid alcohol drinking triggers. Alcohol free spinoffs duck advertising rules which would prohibit advertising the main alcoholic brand. And the imagery of alcohol free beer drinking means sparkling stock photos of attractive people in alcohol drinking situations are still fine.
Alcohol free beer also keeps drinking at the centre of the story. But people who try to avoid alcohol often find alternative activities far easier than attending alcohol drinking occasions sober. Why do we not see more coverage of the benefits of activities which have nothing to do with imbibing liquids, alcoholic or otherwise?
Meanwhile alcohol interests enter alcohol free spaces, like schools, with self-serving “education” initiatives. And when there is an initiative like Men’s Sheds, mostly for middle-aged and older men to do some DIY, alcohol interests rocks up with some “education”. Tragically it is exactly this demographic who die most often from alcohol related causes.
Alcohol free beer is not all bad, of course. A lot of people like the taste of alcohol-free beer and it is not loaded with calories. And it can help us feel at ease avoiding alcohol at alcohol-dominated social occasions. Holding something that looks like a beer can flag we are ready to be sociable and placebo effects can be helpful to us. And there are some dedicated alcohol-free-only brands that might reduce triggering.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a new category of non-alcoholic drinks. But no alcohol-free beverage is automatically a remedy for large scale alcohol health problems. Our working assumption should be that the effect is minimal until proven otherwise. And the focus of media and policymakers should be on policies which are known to work, like those on price, availability and marketing.
We might also usefully look at promoting activities which do not revolve around drinking liquids of any type, like making things in sheds, for example. We can usefully facilitate these activities and protect them from alcohol marketing. This involves finding new ways to fund alcohol free spaces beyond selling drinks. Alcohol free drinks bars have struggled to survive, but alcohol free spaces offering games and other activities appear to have done rather better.
Hoping alcohol-free beer is reducing alcohol problems without evidence risks costing more lives. The stakes are too high to let uncertainty delay the implementation of evidence-based action to reduce record levels of harm. ■
