The WHO's war on moderate drinking: how the 'tobacco playbook' threatens consumer choice and common sense
Investors are right to fear that alcohol is having its “tobacco moment”, following escalating warnings from the World Health Organization about its risks.
The WHO’s declaration "there is no safe amount [of alcohol] that does not affect health" represents a dangerous departure from evidence-based public health policy. This absolutist position, published in Lancet Public Health, marks the beginning of what appears to be a coordinated assault on moderate alcohol consumption using tactics borrowed directly from anti-tobacco campaigns.
The WHO's stance ignores decades of nuanced research showing moderate alcohol consumption can have a negligible impact on the lifestyle of many adults. While acknowledging that alcohol carries risks, particularly at higher consumption levels, the organisation's binary approach fails to recognise the critical distinction between moderate use and abuse.
More importantly, the WHO's heavy-handed approach ignores the reality that consumer behaviour is already shifting organically toward moderation. Recent data from The Portman Group shows that over a third of UK drinkers (38%) now consume low and no-alcohol products semi-regularly, up from 35% in 2023 and 29% in 2022. Among younger adults aged 25-34, nearly half (46%) consider themselves occasional or regular consumers of alcohol alternatives, demonstrating that responsible choice, not regulatory coercion, is driving healthier drinking patterns.
The trend is particularly pronounced among the youngest adults, with 40% of 18–24-year-olds drinking low/no-alcohol products semi-regularly, while 39% of this age group abstains from alcohol entirely. This generation is already the "most sober age group overall," achieving through personal choice what regulators are trying to mandate through restrictions.
The WHO claims that "half of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the WHO European Region are caused by 'light' and 'moderate' alcohol consumption", but this statistic obscures crucial context. When examining population-level data, even small relative risks can appear significant when multiplied across millions of people. However, for individual consumers making personal choices, the absolute risk from moderate consumption remains remarkably low.
The tobacco playbook tells us exactly what comes next.
What we're witnessing is the systematic deployment of the same regulatory strategy that transformed tobacco from a widely accepted consumer product to a heavily restricted substance. The parallels are unmistakable and concerning. Just as tobacco companies were recast from legitimate businesses to public health villains, we now see alcohol producers being portrayed as purveyors of a toxic, psychoactive, and dependence-producing substance. The WHO explicitly places alcohol in "the highest risk group, which also includes asbestos, radiation and tobacco.
The WHO is calling for "cancer-related health information messages on labels of alcoholic beverages, following the example of tobacco products." This mirrors exactly how tobacco regulation began - with mandatory health warnings that gradually expanded and became more graphic over time. By declaring no safe level exists, regulators create justification for unlimited intervention. This echoes tobacco policy, where the concept of "light" or "safer" cigarettes was eliminated to remove any notion that moderate use could be acceptable.
The tobacco playbook tells us exactly what comes next.
The regulatory tsunami following the tobacco playbook will impose catastrophic costs on alcohol companies, fundamentally restructuring an industry that employs millions worldwide. Recent analysis from Brand Finance's 2024 Alcoholic Drinks report provides stark evidence of the scale of wealth at risk.
Unprecedented Brand Values Under Threat
Their data the enormous financial stakes involved. Top alcohol companies control massive brand values that would be directly threatened by marketing restrictions: Moutai leads at $50.1 billion, Wuliangye at $25.9 billion, Corona Extra at $10.4 billion, and Heineken at $9.0 billion. The spirits sector alone represents $149.8 billion in total brand value across the top 50 brands.
When we examine what happened to tobacco companies under similar restrictions, the parallel losses are sobering. Brand Finance's 2021 marketing restrictions analysis showed that alcohol companies like AB InBev, Diageo, Heineken, and Pernod Ricard faced 100% revenue exposure to marketing restrictions, with potential brand contribution losses exceeding $267 billion across just nine major companies.
The Tobacco Template for Financial Ruin
These projections aren't theoretical, they're based on the proven tobacco regulatory model. Marketing restrictions and plain packaging requirements devastate companies' ability to differentiate their products, with brand values collapsing under regulatory pressure. The 2021 analysis showed brand contribution falling from $553 billion to just $286 billion across analysed companies.
Applying this template to today's alcohol market using 2024 valuations, the destruction would be even more severe. Corona Extra's $10.4 billion brand value, Heineken's $9.0 billion, and Budweiser's $7.4 billion would all face similar percentage losses seen in tobacco regulation scenarios.
Compliance and Regulatory Costs
Beyond brand value destruction, companies will face massive expenditures to comply with evolving regulations. Warning label requirements alone could cost the industry hundreds of millions annually, as seen in tobacco where companies spend enormous sums on packaging redesigns, legal compliance, and regulatory submissions. Plain packaging mandates will eliminate billions in brand equity built over decades, forcing companies to write off valuable intellectual property.
Marketing and Advertising Restrictions
The elimination of advertising and sponsorship opportunities will devastate marketing budgets while simultaneously reducing companies' ability to compete and introduce new products. Sports sponsorships, worth billions globally, will disappear overnight. Digital marketing, increasingly crucial for reaching consumers, will face severe restrictions, forcing companies to abandon entire communication channels.
Product Development Paralysis
Restrictions on product design and appeal will stifle innovation, preventing companies from developing new offerings that meet consumer preferences. Research and development investments will become stranded assets as regulatory constraints make product differentiation nearly impossible.
Taxation Escalation
Punitive tax increases, following tobacco's trajectory, will dramatically reduce profit margins while shrinking market demand. Companies will face the dual burden of higher operational costs and reduced sales volumes, creating an unsustainable business environment for many operators.
Legal and Litigation Exposure
The WHO's carcinogen classification creates massive litigation risks. Companies will face mounting legal costs defending against class-action lawsuits, potentially reaching the billions seen in tobacco settlements. Legal reserves and insurance costs will drain resources from productive business activities.
Market Consolidation and Business Failures
Smaller craft producers and regional companies will be unable to absorb these regulatory costs, leading to widespread business failures and market consolidation. This will reduce consumer choice while concentrating market power among only the largest multinational corporations capable of bearing compliance burdens.
This regulatory approach fundamentally undermines individual autonomy and consumer choice. Adults should have the right to make informed decisions about moderate alcohol consumption without paternalistic government intervention.
The WHO's position treats all consumers as incapable of responsible decision-making.
Beyond individual liberty, the economic devastation will ripple throughout entire supply chains: grape growers, barley farmers, and agricultural suppliers facing reduced demand; glass manufacturers, packaging companies, and logistics providers losing major customers; hospitality venues struggling with restricted product offerings and reduced margins; tourism regions dependent on wine and spirits industries facing economic decline; and distributors and retailers confronting shrinking product categories and profit pools.
Rather than adopting the prohibitionist mentality disguised as public health policy, regulators should focus on evidence-based approaches that distinguish between moderate consumption and problematic use. The market is already demonstrating that consumer education and choice work effectively.
The Portman Group data reveals that nearly a quarter (24%) of alcohol drinkers have reduced their intake specifically because of low and no-alcohol alternatives, with health concerns cited by 29% as a key motivating factor. This organic shift toward moderation proves that informed consumers make responsible choices when given quality alternatives – without heavy-handed regulatory intervention.
Industry innovation in low and no-alcohol products is creating the very outcomes health authorities claim to want: reduced alcohol consumption, particularly among younger demographics. However, the WHO's rigid approach threatens to undermine this progress by treating all alcohol products as equally dangerous, potentially stifling the development of reduced-alcohol alternatives that are successfully moderating consumption patterns. Effective policy should include supporting continued innovation in low and no-alcohol alternatives; encouraging industry efforts to increase choice and availability of moderation products; providing clear regulatory frameworks that facilitate rather than hinder market-driven solutions; focusing interventions on genuinely harmful drinking patterns rather than moderate consumption; and respecting the demonstrated ability of consumers, particularly younger generations, to make informed choices.
The WHO's "no safe limit" approach to alcohol represents ideology masquerading as science. By uncritically adopting the tobacco playbook, health authorities risk undermining their own credibility while restricting the legitimate choices of millions of responsible adults.
We must resist this regulatory overreach before it eliminates consumer choice, destroys industry innovation, and treats every adult like a child incapable of making personal decisions. The path from "no safe level" to prohibition is shorter than many realise – and once we start down that road, turning back becomes extraordinarily difficult.
The stakes are higher than just your evening glass of wine. This is about preserving adult autonomy in an increasingly paternalistic regulatory environment that seeks to manage every aspect of our personal lives under the guise of protecting our health.
-
Public opinion moves fast. Follow us on LinkedIn to keep up.
