20% of UK Adults Now Drink Alcohol-Free Beverages, but Public Health Gains Remain Unclear

Alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks are gaining traction in the United Kingdom and other high-income countries, with 20% of UK adults now consuming these beverages at least occasionally. This trend reflects a global shift toward healthier lifestyles and more moderate drinking habits. Supermarkets and social venues have increased their offerings of these products, often marketing them as safer alternatives to traditional alcoholic beverages. However, a new analysis published in the BMJ raises concerns about the public health impact of this shift, warning that without stronger regulation and a focus on genuine substitution, these drinks could undermine established alcohol control measures and widen health inequalities.

The BMJ analysis reviewed current research and policy evidence on the health effects of alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks. The authors found that while these products can reduce alcohol-related harm when they replace higher-strength drinks, the overall impact remains limited. The evidence suggests that only a modest number of people are making this substitution, and the benefits may not be significant enough to improve public health at the population level.

Alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks, often called “no and low alcohol” or “nolo” drinks, are designed to mimic the taste of beer, wine, or spirits but contain little or no ethanol. In the UK, products labeled as “low alcohol” must not exceed 1.2% alcohol by volume (ABV). These differ from reduced-strength alcoholic beverages, which still contain enough alcohol to cause intoxication and long-term health risks. The rise in nolo drink sales is driven by improved production methods, wellness trends, and consumer interest in flexible drinking options. Despite their growing popularity, nolo drinks still represent a small fraction of total alcohol sales.

One key concern is that these products are often priced similarly to regular alcoholic beverages. This pricing structure may limit access for lower-income groups, who already face higher rates of alcohol-related harm. Without targeted policies to address affordability and availability, there is a risk that alcohol-free drinks could exacerbate existing health disparities rather than reduce them.

Marketing practices also present challenges. Alcohol companies frequently use shared branding between their alcoholic and non-alcoholic products to maintain visibility in markets where advertising restrictions apply. This surrogate marketing allows brands to reach audiences through sponsorships of sporting events or family-friendly venues where traditional alcohol advertising would be banned. Such strategies may expose children and adolescents to alcohol brands at an early age, potentially normalizing drinking behaviors before they reach legal age.

There are additional concerns about how these products might affect people in recovery from alcohol dependence or those trying to abstain during pregnancy or adolescence. While evidence is limited, some experts worry that exposure to familiar branding or packaging could trigger cravings or undermine efforts to avoid alcohol.

The role of the alcohol industry in promoting nolo drinks as a solution to alcohol-related harm is another area of scrutiny. By positioning themselves as partners in public health initiatives, companies may seek to deflect attention from more effective interventions such as pricing controls, advertising bans, or restrictions on high-strength alcohol sales. The World Health Organization has cautioned against using substitution strategies as a way to circumvent existing regulations or expand marketing to new audiences.

Policy responses vary widely across countries. Some governments have extended advertising restrictions to include non-alcoholic products with shared branding, while others allow continued sponsorships under regulatory loopholes. Labeling practices also differ; terms like “light” or “reduced alcohol” can mislead consumers about actual content and risks.

The BMJ authors recommend a precautionary approach that prioritizes public health over commercial interests. They call for clear regulatory definitions distinguishing alcohol-free drinks from reduced-strength alcoholic beverages and soft drinks. Policies should promote genuine substitution away from high-strength alcohol by making nolo options more visible and affordable in licensed venues while protecting spaces like gyms and workplaces from brand encroachment.

Marketing restrictions should apply equally to all products sharing branding with alcoholic beverages. Transparent policymaking is needed to prevent industry influence from shaping regulations in ways that favor commercial interests over public health outcomes.

While no- and low-alcohol drinks offer potential benefits if they replace higher-strength options, current evidence does not guarantee substantial harm reduction at the population level. The future impact of these products will depend on how governments regulate their marketing, pricing, and availability—and whether policies are designed with public health as the primary goal rather than industry growth.