Alcohol Industry Lobbying Leads UK Government to Drop Marketing Restrictions From Health Plan

Alcohol marketing restrictions were removed from the UK Government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England shortly before its publication last July, according to documents obtained through freedom of information requests. The Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS) released a report this week detailing how proposed measures, including a 9pm watershed for television advertising, were dropped after lobbying from major drinks companies, pub operators and trade bodies.

The IAS report is based on correspondence between industry representatives and government officials in the final days before the plan was published. Letters obtained from 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) show that companies warned ministers that tighter advertising rules would harm economic growth and investment.

One letter from brewer and pub operator Greene King to Health Secretary Wes Streeting described the proposed restrictions as having 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) echoed these concerns in its own letter to DHSC, while also stating support for efforts to improve public health.

Budweiser took its concerns directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urging him to intervene with DHSC to prevent the restrictions from being enforced. The IAS report suggests that alcohol companies encouraged multiple government departments to raise concerns with DHSC on their behalf, indicating a coordinated lobbying effort.

Heineken highlighted its partnership with ITV involving Heineken 0.0 product placement in popular soap operas Coronation Street and Emmerdale. In its letter, Heineken argued that this campaign promoted moderation and normalized alcohol-free choices. However, IAS noted that the branding for Heineken 0.0 closely resembles that of its full-strength beers.

The IAS report describes the lobbying as a “concerted” effort, pointing to joint correspondence, similar arguments across letters, and timing as evidence of coordination between companies and trade groups. The correspondence included claims that self-regulation is effective, advertising does not increase consumption, and economic consequences of restrictions would be severe.

Some freedom of information requests were refused or only partially fulfilled, according to IAS. The organization says further documents are being withheld by government departments.

The IAS frames this episode as an example of alcohol industry influence over health policy. It cites recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Public Health Scotland supporting marketing restrictions as effective public health measures. The report concludes with calls for revisiting marketing restrictions, issuing a new national alcohol strategy, and introducing stronger principles for managing conflicts of interest in policymaking.

When the prime-time advertising ban was first proposed, the BBPA responded by emphasizing that over 80% of people consume alcohol within government guidelines and argued that any new measures should focus on those who drink at harmful levels. The removal of marketing restrictions from the final health plan has renewed debate about how much influence industry groups have over public health policy in England.