# Regulation of Alcohol‐Free and Low‐Alcohol Drinks: Learning From a Comparative Analysis of Eight Countries

## TL;DR

This paper compares how eight countries regulate alcohol-free and low-alcohol drinks, finding significant inconsistencies in definitions and policies.

## Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of legal and self-regulatory frameworks for No/Lo drinks across diverse countries.

## Key findings

- Regulatory thresholds for alcohol content in No/Lo drinks vary widely across and within countries.
- Definitions of No/Lo products are uncommon and inconsistent.
- New self-regulatory guidance has been developed in Australia, the Netherlands, and the UK.

## Abstract

Governance of alcohol‐free and low‐alcohol (No/Lo) drinks has the potential to influence their public health impact. However, regulation remains poorly understood. This study aimed to identify, summarise and compare formal legal frameworks, non‐binding government guidance and recognised self‐regulatory frameworks for the labelling, taxation, licensing and condition of sale and marketing of No/Lo drinks across a diverse set of countries.

We conducted a desk‐based analysis, supplemented by expert input. Eight case study countries (Australia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Thailand, the United Kingdom [UK] and the United States of America) were selected for their diversity in geography, alcohol consumption and policy environments. Targeted searches identified documents for determining how No/Lo products were regulated in relation to their labelling, taxation, licensing and conditions of sale and marketing. Data were extracted, tabulated and reviewed for accuracy.

Regulatory thresholds (%ABV) that determine when drinks fall under alcohol legislation vary widely both across and within countries and definitions of No/Lo products are uncommon. For example, drinks can be labelled as alcohol‐free at ≤ 0.05% alcohol by volume (ABV) in the UK, but ≤ 1.15% ABV in parts of Australia. Sales of drinks below defined thresholds generally do not require a premises licence. Marketing restrictions were generally shaped by those for standard alcoholic drinks, although new self‐regulatory guidance has been developed in Australia, the Netherlands and the UK.

Governance of No/Lo drinks is fragmented and inconsistent, with definitions and regulatory thresholds varying both across countries and between policy areas within countries.