Alcohol addiction is far more than a behavioural problem. In fact, it fundamentally alters the brain at a molecular level. Recent research reveals how chronic alcohol gene expression changes rewire gene activity in critical brain regions. Consequently, these alcohol addiction brain changes offer crucial insights into why recovery is so difficult.

The Science Behind Alcohol Addiction Brain Changes

Researchers at Miguel Hernández University of Elche and the Spanish National Research Council led a groundbreaking study. They examined post-mortem brain tissue from individuals who consumed alcohol chronically for an average of 35 years. The findings reveal major alterations in gene expression. Specifically, these changes occur within brain regions that control reward, impulse control, and decision-making.

The research focused on the endocannabinoid system. This neurobiological network regulates fundamental brain functions. These include pleasure, mood, memory, and stress response. Moreover, this system plays a crucial role in motivation and addictive behaviours. Therefore, it is central to understanding how alcohol addiction brain changes develop over time.

How Chronic Alcohol Gene Expression Affects Key Brain Regions

The study examined two vital components of the brain’s reward system.

The prefrontal cortex governs judgement, planning, and impulse control. These are essential functions for making healthy decisions about alcohol consumption.

The nucleus accumbens processes reward understanding and habit formation. However, it becomes dysregulated through prolonged alcohol exposure.

Major Gene Expression Changes Discovered

Researchers compared brain tissue from individuals without alcohol use disorder to those with chronic alcohol consumption. The results showed dramatic imbalances.

CB1 Receptor Gene: Expression increased by 125% in the prefrontal cortex. Similarly, it rose by 78% in the nucleus accumbens. This receptor is closely linked to reinforcement of addictive behaviours and relapse risk. Consequently, it helps explain why alcohol addiction brain changes make recovery so challenging.

CB2 Receptor Gene: Expression fell by approximately 50% in both regions. CB2 has neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory functions. Therefore, its reduction suggests a weakening of the brain’s natural defences against alcohol-induced damage.

GPR55 Receptor: Expression rose by 19% in the prefrontal cortex. Conversely, it dropped by 51% in the nucleus accumbens. This marks the first evidence of this receptor’s involvement in human alcohol use disorder.

FAAH Enzyme: This enzyme degrades important brain chemicals. It decreased in the prefrontal cortex but increased by 24% in the nucleus accumbens. These changes potentially disrupt signalling linked to anxiety and craving.

Understanding the Long-Term Impact

These molecular changes help explain a troubling statistic. Alcohol use disorder remains one of the leading causes of disease and death worldwide. The chronic alcohol gene expression alterations affect the very brain circuits responsible for self-control and decision-making. As a result, they create a biological barrier to recovery.

Professor Jorge Manzanares led the study as senior author. He emphasises the importance of understanding what changes in the brain after decades of alcohol consumption. This knowledge is essential for recognising the true impact of long-term alcohol use on brain health.

The Importance of Prevention

Understanding how alcohol addiction brain changes occur at the genetic level is vital. Indeed, it underscores the critical importance of prevention. Once these molecular alterations take hold after years of consumption, the brain’s reward systems are fundamentally compromised. Additionally, decision-making systems suffer the same fate.

The research examined tissue from individuals who had consumed alcohol chronically for an average of 35 years. This revealed that chronic alcohol gene expression changes accumulate over decades. Importantly, this highlights that alcohol’s effects on the brain are not temporary. Instead, they represent lasting biological changes. Furthermore, these changes affect an individual’s capacity for judgement and self-regulation.

By understanding these mechanisms, we can better appreciate why avoiding chronic alcohol consumption matters. It protects brain health. Moreover, it preserves the normal functioning of systems that govern our choices and behaviours.

(Source: WRD NEWS)

During COVID-19 lockdowns, Australian governments made a catastrophic decision. They “eased” liquor licensing laws as supposed temporary economic relief. The alcohol industry seized the opportunity and never let go.

Online alcohol sales exploded 400% between 2012 and 2022. The industry now turns over $2 billion annually. Every Australian carries a bottle shop in their pocket. Buy-now buttons sit alongside targeted ads. Alcohol home delivery arrives within hours—sometimes within minutes.

New research from the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, The University of Queensland, and The George Institute for Global Health confirms what prevention advocates have been warning about: Australians at highest risk of alcohol harm are being deliberately targeted through home alcohol delivery platforms. The alcohol industry and the Australian Hoteliers Association know this. They profit from it. They do nothing to stop it.

High-risk drinkers consume approximately 80% of all alcohol products sold in Australia. They are not collateral damage. They are the business model.

COVID Protections Weaponised for Profit

Governments introduced “contactless delivery” to control COVID-19 transmission. A public health measure. The alcohol industry converted it into a permanent harm delivery system.

Delivery services now piggyback on bricks-and-mortar liquor licences. Platforms engage independent contractors with their own ABNs. Three separate entities now operate under one licence that was never designed for this arrangement: the retailer, the delivery platform, and the driver.

The sale occurs in an unlicensed space—someone’s home. None of the protections that exist in physical venues apply. The regulatory framework has collapsed entirely.

The Numbers Don’t Lie About Online Alcohol Delivery

A national survey of over 2,000 Australians reveals the scale of the problem. More than a third of people who consumed alcohol in the past year had it delivered to their homes. Of those deliveries, 39% arrived within two hours.

For Australians likely experiencing alcohol dependency, the targeting intensifies. Fifty-five per cent were sold alcohol for rapid delivery, compared to 24% of low-risk drinkers. This is not accidental. This is algorithmic precision.

Four people with lived experience of alcohol use shared their testimonies with Cancer Council WA and the Alcohol and Other Drug Consumer & Community Coalition. Their identities are protected through anonymised initials. Their words expose the reality.

One person, referred to as C, was direct: “It’s a dangerous thing, and my view is, it should not be allowed. With my history around alcohol and other drugs—a feature such as home delivery—I can’t stand behind, or support this type of service in my community.”

The Trap: How Alcohol Home Delivery Keeps People Drinking

R, now in recovery, described what home alcohol delivery enabled: “I found it wonderful when I was a practising alcoholic. I didn’t have to leave the house and be sober enough to go to the bottle shop. I could wake up still intoxicated and just order alcohol for the day online. When I was close to running out, I would just order more. I would pay extra for a shorter delivery window.”

R continued: “I was able to remain intoxicated for a few days in a row. So, now that I do not consume alcohol, I think it is dangerous and keeps the person in a state of active addiction if they are addicted. It’s just too easy to access. With online ordering, you get deals making it more tempting to order large quantities. Also, once you use the online ordering, you get advertisements coming into your email inbox, making it too tempting.”

The cycle is deliberate. First purchase adds you to the marketing database. Promotional emails flood your inbox. Bulk discounts encourage larger orders. Shorter delivery windows enable continuous intoxication without leaving home.

Another respondent, J, survived heroin and methamphetamine addiction. Alcohol nearly killed them: “I have been up the heroin highway and through meth mountain, but alcohol was the thing that crushed me—if I had the ability at that time to use online home delivery—I would be dead.”

T identified how online alcohol sales bypass existing safeguards: “It provides easier access to alcohol for people who would otherwise be refused service at a liquor store or pub.”

Advertising Collapsed Into Sales

One-third of people who had alcohol home delivery clicked through directly from an online advertisement. For those likely experiencing alcohol dependency, this jumped to 51%.

Buy-now buttons. Shop-now links. Push notifications demanding immediate purchase. The separation between advertising and sales has been eliminated. With it went any space for protective decision-making.

Food delivery platforms—UberEats, Menulog, Deliveroo—now function as alcohol distribution channels. Twenty-five per cent of participants had alcohol delivered through these apps. Fifty-three per cent saw alcohol advertisements whilst browsing for meals. For people at high risk of alcohol dependency, 39% saw these advertisements often or always.

Sixty-eight per cent of people using food delivery apps expressed concern about alcohol advertising being targeted at them on these platforms.

The Body Count

This is not theoretical harm. People are dying.

In the Australian Capital Territory:

• Alcohol-induced deaths sit at their highest level in 10 years
• One person dies every five days due to alcohol
• Thirty-two people are hospitalised every week

These deaths occurred whilst online alcohol sales expanded alongside the national trend.

People with lived experience describe poverty, domestic violence, injury, alcohol poisoning, and suicidal ideation as direct consequences of online alcohol home delivery.

J captured the psychological dimension: “You can’t have a feeling without a thought when you see alcohol everywhere. It makes it harder to change your thoughts and feelings. It makes it harder for people who are struggling.”

C described watching “people order alcohol until they die.”

Responsible Service of Alcohol Does Not Exist Online

T, another person with lived experience, asked the obvious question: “If liquor stores, bottle shops and bars require staff to have RSA qualifications to serve alcohol then it should not be able to be ordered online where there is no such regulation to protect people from the detrimental effects of alcohol.”

In licensed premises, staff refuse service to intoxicated patrons. They monitor consumption. They face penalties for serving minors. Online sales have none of these protections.

The Alcohol & Drug Foundation reviewed delivery compliance. The results confirm complete regulatory failure:

• 28% of delivery drivers failed to check identity
• One in 10 drivers reported no protection from penalisation when refusing delivery
• One in 10 drivers were penalised by employers for refusing delivery
• Drivers face abuse and intimidation from intoxicated customers

The loopholes are being exploited systematically. Customers order alcohol for delivery to office buildings, beaches, and other public spaces—circumventing even minimal home delivery requirements. Gift purchases provide another workaround. Contactless delivery means no face-to-face verification whatsoever.

They Called Us Extremists. We Were Right.

For decades, prevention advocates were dismissed as wowsers—temperance fanatics out of touch with Australian culture. The alcohol industry weaponised that label. So did their political allies.

Turns out WOWSER means something: We Only Want Social Evils Rectified.

When groups pushed back against unfettered alcohol availability creeping through Australian communities, they were marginalised. Called extreme for suggesting that perhaps not everyone needs to drink. Ridiculed for pointing out that alcohol is still the most troublesome drug in our culture.

The industry playbook hasn’t changed. Label prevention advocacy as extremist. Dismiss evidence-based policy as wowserism. Keep profiting from harm whilst claiming any regulation threatens “personal freedom.”

But communities of practice formed anyway. Groups like Cancer Council and the Foundation for Alcohol Research & Education built the evidence base. The National Alliance for Action on Alcohol—now Alcohol Change Australia—created coalitions. Submissions to government on secondary supply laws, outdoor advertising, FASD, warning labels. Years of work.

Now the latest crisis: online alcohol marketing and home delivery. This is creating harms reminiscent of Australia’s worst past alcohol cultural manifestations. The difference? This time the evidence is overwhelming. The community support is undeniable. The death toll is measurable.

The so-called extremists were right all along.

Australians Demand Action on Alcohol Home Delivery

Community support for stronger protections is overwhelming:

• 84% support independent ID checks when orders are delivered
• 83% support independent ID checks when ordering alcohol online
• 82% support protecting children’s data from being used for alcohol marketing
• 80% support health warnings on online retail websites
• 78% support health warnings on online alcohol advertisements
• 78% support prohibiting push notifications prompting alcohol purchase
• 77% support preventing companies from using personal data to target people with alcohol marketing
• 74% support alcohol not being left unattended during delivery
• 74% support buy-now-pay-later platforms not being used to purchase alcohol
• 68% have concerns about alcohol advertising targeted at them on food delivery apps
• 67% support removing buy-now buttons and direct sales links from alcohol advertisements
• 62% support alcohol deliveries not being permitted before 10am and after 10pm

Opposition ranges between 4% and 7%. The community has spoken unambiguously.

Around three-quarters of Australians support preventing digital platforms from exposing children to alcohol advertisements and data-mined targeted advertising. Almost the same proportion support government action to reduce community exposure to alcohol promotion.

The alcohol industry and the Australian Hoteliers Association ignore this. They prioritise profit.

What Must Happen Now

The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education identified evidence-based policy priorities:

• Two-hour safety pause between order and delivery to prevent impulsive consumption
• Delivery hours restricted to 10am–10pm to reduce risks of family violence and suicide
• Effective digital age verification for online alcohol sales
• Mandatory ID checks on delivery to prevent supply to children and intoxicated people
• Strict limits on data-driven push marketing
• Protection for delivery staff with specific training and liability on companies for non-compliance

The Federal Government and the South Australian Royal Commission into domestic, family and sexual violence both recommended restrictions on home alcohol delivery as essential measures for preventing gender-based violence.

Victoria introduced a Remote Sellers Packaged Liquor Licence for online alcohol sales but lacks staff for approvals and compliance enforcement. Other states introduced minor changes. Queensland and the ACT held consultations. None of it keeps pace with the unregulated chaos.

Reviews show compliance failing catastrophically. Regulations mean nothing without enforcement.

No More Excuses

The alcohol industry and the Australian Hoteliers Association built a digital infrastructure designed to maximise sales to vulnerable people. They hide behind “consumer choice” and “personal responsibility.”

Delivering unlimited alcohol to someone experiencing addiction is not responsible. Targeting push notifications at people likely experiencing alcohol dependency is not defensible. Removing every protective barrier between advertising and consumption is not acceptable.

R stated the reality plainly: “From my experience alone, I can see that it’s far too easy and dangerous to access alcohol online in copious large amounts and drink yourself to death. I know this sounds dramatic, but it’s the reality.”

C demanded action: “Community protections are extremely important—far more accountable harm minimisation strategies need to be implemented by government with stringent regulations that are reviewed regularly. The systems in place need voices like mine and others with lived experience to advocate in relation to these topics.”

Australian governments must act. Implement the two-hour safety pause. Restrict delivery hours. Ban data-driven targeting. Create real accountability for companies profiting from community harm.

The alcohol industry and the Australian Hoteliers Association must stop pretending ignorance. The evidence is overwhelming. The community demands change. How many more Australians must die before meaningful action occurs?

Additional Resource: A brief history of alcohol consumption in Australia

(Source: WRD News)

When asked about their drinking habits, most people who consume alcohol above recommended levels have a strikingly similar response: “I’m not like those people.” This psychological phenomenon, known as othering amongst drinkers, has emerged as a significant obstacle in addressing alcohol harm across the UK and beyond.

Recent research examining 18 studies involving hundreds of participants reveals a troubling pattern. People drinking at risky levels consistently distance themselves from what they perceive as “real” problem drinkers. This happens even when their own consumption puts them at considerable health risk.

Understanding Othering Amongst Drinkers and Problem Recognition

Othering is the practice of constructing a problem “other,” someone fundamentally different from ourselves. In the context of alcohol, it means drawing sharp boundaries between one’s own “responsible” drinking and the problematic drinking of others.

This isn’t simply denial. Moreover, it’s a sophisticated set of strategies people use to maintain a positive self-image. Meanwhile, they continue potentially harmful behaviours. The research shows that othering amongst drinkers operates through several interconnected themes. Furthermore, each theme reinforces the belief that “I’m in control, not like them.” 

(Complete article WRD News)

As World Cancer Day 2026 approaches on 4 February, emerging evidence reveals a concerning truth that many Australians remain unaware of: there is no safe level of alcohol consumption when it comes to cancer risk. Whilst public health campaigns have long focused on the immediate dangers of excessive drinking-accidents, injuries, and impaired judgement-the long-term carcinogenic effects of alcohol demand equal attention.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen, placing it in the same category as tobacco and asbestos. This classification is not arbitrary. Scientific evidence demonstrates that alcohol consumption is causally linked to seven types of cancer, including oesophageal, liver, colorectal, and breast cancers. Globally, alcohol consumption is associated with 740,000 new cancer cases annually.

The Myth of Moderate Drinking

Many people believe that light to moderate drinking poses minimal health risks. However, research conducted across the European Union challenges this assumption. In 2017 alone, light to moderate alcohol consumption-defined as fewer than 20 grams of pure alcohol daily-was associated with nearly 23,000 new cancer cases. This accounted for 13.3% of all alcohol-attributable cancers in the EU.

Particularly alarming is the finding that more than one-third of these cancer cases occurred in individuals consuming what would be considered light levels-fewer than 10 grams of alcohol per day. This is equivalent to less than one standard drink. Almost half of the cancer cases in this category were female breast cancers, highlighting a specific vulnerability that demands attention.

The Australian Context

Australia’s relationship with alcohol is well-documented. Australians aged 15 years and over consumed 10.6 litres of alcohol per capita in 2016, substantially higher than the global average of 6.4 litres. More concerning is that over one-third of Australians in this age group reported heavy episodic drinking within a 30-day period.

A comprehensive Australian study published in the British Journal of Cancer following 226,162 participants aged 45 years and over revealed stark findings about alcohol and cancer risk. Over a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 17,332 cancers were diagnosed amongst participants. The research demonstrated that increasing levels of alcohol intake were associated with increased risk across multiple cancer types.

The study found that the risk of alcohol-related cancers increased by 10% with every additional seven drinks consumed per week. By age 85, the absolute risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer reached 17.3% in men and 25.0% in women who consumed more than 14 drinks weekly, compared to 12.9% in men and 19.6% in women consuming less than one drink per week.

Why Alcohol Causes Cancer

Understanding the mechanisms behind alcohol’s carcinogenic effects helps illuminate why no safe threshold exists. When consumed, alcohol is metabolised into acetaldehyde, a toxic compound that damages DNA and prevents cells from repairing this damage. Alcohol also acts as a solvent, helping harmful chemicals enter cells more easily, and produces reactive oxygen species that can damage DNA, proteins, and lipids through oxidation.

Furthermore, alcohol consumption impairs the body’s ability to break down and absorb nutrients associated with cancer risk reduction, including vitamins A, C, D, E, and folate. In women, alcohol increases oestrogen levels in the blood, a hormone linked to breast cancer risk.

The evidence is unequivocal: no studies have demonstrated that potential protective effects for cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes reduce cancer risk for individual consumers. As such, no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancer prevention can be established.

The Pattern Matters Too

Emerging research suggests that not only the quantity but also the pattern of alcohol consumption may influence cancer risk. Australian research identified a marginally significant finding regarding breast cancer: women who concentrated their weekly alcohol intake into fewer days faced higher risk than those who spread the same amount across more days of the week.

This pattern, often referred to as binge drinking or heavy episodic drinking, may create acute exposures that impact body tissues differently than chronic, regular consumption. Whilst more research is needed to fully understand these relationships, the preliminary findings suggest that both quantity and drinking patterns warrant consideration in cancer prevention strategies.

Younger Populations at Greater Risk

The burden of alcohol-related harm falls disproportionately on younger people. According to WHO estimates, 13.5% of all deaths amongst individuals aged 20-39 years are attributed to alcohol. This statistic becomes particularly concerning when considering the cumulative nature of cancer risk-exposure during young adulthood contributes to the accumulation of cancer risk throughout life.

Disadvantaged and vulnerable populations experience even higher rates of alcohol-related death and hospitalisation, highlighting the social inequities embedded in alcohol-related harm.

Rethinking Public Health Approaches

Traditional alcohol harm reduction strategies in Australia have predominantly focused on short-term risks: accidents, injuries, and impaired decision-making. Mass media campaigns, education programmes, responsible service policies, lockout laws, and random breath testing primarily target immediate dangers, often aimed at younger demographics.

However, the long-term carcinogenic effects of alcohol affect Australians across all age groups. Research indicates that more than half of risky drinkers aged 50 years and over do not perceive their drinking levels as harmful, instead identifying as light, occasional, or social drinkers. This perception gap represents a critical challenge for public health communication.

Evaluation of social marketing strategies has shown mixed results, particularly amongst younger populations. However, campaigns that focus specifically on cancer risk rather than injury or short-term harm have demonstrated promising outcomes. The 2010 Alcohol and Cancer campaign in Australia evaluated comparatively well amongst adults aged 18-64 years, suggesting that cancer-focused messaging resonates with audiences.

World Cancer Day 2026 as a Catalyst for Change

World Cancer Day 2026 presents an opportunity to shift public discourse around alcohol consumption. Rather than focusing exclusively on the immediate consequences of heavy drinking, health advocates can use this occasion to educate communities about the long-term cancer risks associated with any level of alcohol intake.

Evidence-based communication is essential. People deserve objective information about the risks of cancer and other health conditions associated with alcohol consumption. This includes acknowledging that whilst some studies suggest light alcohol consumption might offer small protective effects for certain cardiovascular conditions in middle-aged and older adults, these potential benefits do not extend to cancer risk.

The scientific consensus is clear: no particular threshold exists at which the carcinogenic effects of alcohol begin to manifest in the human body. This makes cancer prevention messaging distinct from other health communications that might emphasise moderation or safe limits.

Moving Forward: Policy and Personal Choices

Australian alcohol consumption guidelines are under review, presenting an opportunity to incorporate the latest evidence on cancer risk. Based on current research, future guidelines should clearly communicate that:

1. Any alcohol consumption carries some cancer risk
2. Risk increases with the amount consumed
3. Drinking patterns, particularly heavy episodic consumption, may independently increase risk for certain cancers
4. No level of consumption is definitively safe regarding cancer prevention

Beyond guidelines, several policy interventions warrant consideration. Adding cancer risk information to alcoholic beverage labelling would provide point-of-sale education. Targeted programmes that reach older adults-who may not see themselves in traditional harm reduction campaigns-could address the perception gap amongst this demographic.

Creating more informative national health guidelines for chronic disease prevention would support informed decision-making. Increasing general awareness of the alcohol-cancer relationship across all age groups may help de-normalise risky consumption patterns throughout the life course, yielding wider-ranging population health benefits.

The Personal Dimension

For individuals, understanding the alcohol-cancer link enables informed choices. Some may decide to eliminate alcohol consumption entirely, whilst others may choose to reduce intake significantly. What matters is that these decisions are based on accurate, complete information rather than misconceptions about safe or healthy drinking levels.

It’s worth noting that alcohol consumption exists within broader lifestyle contexts. Physical activity, diet, tobacco use, sun exposure, and other factors all influence cancer risk. However, alcohol represents a modifiable risk factor-one over which individuals can exercise direct control.

World Cancer Day 2026 offers a moment for reflection, not judgement. Many people enjoy alcohol as part of social traditions, cultural practices, or personal relaxation. The goal is not to shame or stigmatise, but to ensure that everyone understands the trade-offs involved in their choices.

Conclusion

World Cancer Day 2026 arrives at a pivotal moment for public health communication about alcohol and cancer risk. The evidence base has never been stronger or more comprehensive. From large-scale epidemiological studies to mechanistic research explaining how alcohol damages cells, the scientific community has built an overwhelming case that alcohol consumption at any level increases cancer risk.

The challenge now lies in translating this evidence into meaningful public awareness and behaviour change. This requires moving beyond traditional harm reduction frameworks that emphasise immediate dangers towards comprehensive approaches that acknowledge long-term carcinogenic effects.

As we mark World Cancer Day 2026, the message is neither alarmist nor prohibitionist-it is simply factual. Alcohol is a Group 1 carcinogen. No safe consumption level exists for cancer prevention. The more one drinks, the greater the risk. These truths should inform personal choices, clinical guidance, and public policy alike.

The 740,000 new cancer cases globally associated with alcohol consumption each year represent more than statistics-they represent individuals, families, and communities affected by preventable disease. World Cancer Day 2026 presents an opportunity to reduce those numbers through education, awareness, and evidence-based prevention strategies.

Understanding the alcohol-cancer connection is not about eliminating joy or social connection from life. It’s about ensuring that when people choose to drink, they do so with full knowledge of the risks involved. That transparency, grounded in rigorous science and communicated with clarity, represents the foundation of effective cancer prevention.

(Source: WRD News)

When alcohol sales started dropping in 2025, the industry didn’t adapt—it doubled down. A new global investigation reveals how multinational alcohol corporations responded to declining consumption and growing cancer awareness not by reforming their practices, but by intensifying their efforts to block health policy, saturate digital spaces, and shift blame away from their products.

The Big Alcohol Exposed Report 2025, released by Movendi International, documents over 1,300 cases of industry interference across the globe. Based on systematic monitoring and 77 peer-reviewed studies, the findings paint a clear picture: when commercial pressure mounts, alcohol industry interference escalates.

The Crisis Behind the Interference

Throughout 2025, the alcohol industry faced mounting challenges. Sales stagnated in major markets. Investor confidence wobbled. Corporate leadership churned. Meanwhile, public awareness of alcohol’s link to cancer continued to spread, and younger generations increasingly turned away from drinking.

Rather than addressing these shifts, the industry ramped up political interference. As Kristina Šperková, President of Movendi International, explains: “When profits come under threat, Big Alcohol invests more in blocking health policy, sowing doubt about scientific evidence, and polluting the public debate.”

The report analysed more than 1,300 documented cases of industry conduct, revealing a coordinated global system designed to protect one thing: the affordability, availability, and attractiveness of alcohol products.

Three Tactics That Defined 2025

The investigation identified three interconnected strategies that dominated alcohol industry interference throughout the year.

Illicit Trade Scaremongering

Whenever governments proposed tax increases or stronger regulations, industry groups circulated alarming claims about black markets and criminal activity. These narratives redirected attention away from alcohol harm and slowed decision-making, despite consistent evidence that well-designed taxes actually reduce harm whilst strengthening public revenues. The tactic worked: fear-based messaging created political anxiety that stalled evidence-based reforms.

Digital Saturation

Alcohol promotion didn’t just expand in 2025—it embedded itself into the infrastructure of daily life. Multinational corporations pushed branding into streaming platforms, social media ecosystems, influencer networks, sponsorship deals, and ultra-fast delivery services. This wasn’t traditional advertising. It was alcohol marketing woven into the same digital systems people use to socialise, relax, and organise their lives. Consequently, exposure intensified, particularly for young people, who encountered personalised alcohol content across multiple touchpoints.

Responsibility Theatre

Across markets, alcohol companies promoted “moderation,” education, and personal choice whilst simultaneously investing billions in marketing and opposing warning labels. These responsibility narratives served a dual purpose: they shifted attention away from commercial drivers of harm, and they positioned alcohol corporations as credible voices in health discussions. The message was clear—the problem isn’t the product or how we sell it, it’s how you consume it.

These three strategies reinforced each other. Illicit-trade claims generated political paralysis, digital promotion expanded reach, and responsibility messaging eroded both risk perception and accountability.

Big Alcohol Interference as a System, Not Accidents

The report analyses these practices through what it calls the “Dubious Five” framework: deception, manipulation, political interference, promotion, and sabotage. This approach reveals that 2025’s events weren’t isolated incidents—they represented an integrated system of commercial interference.

Deception blurred scientific evidence around cancer risk. Manipulation cultivated legitimacy through corporate social responsibility campaigns and wellness branding. Political interference targeted decision-makers through lobbying and procedural delays. Promotion saturated cultural and digital environments. Sabotage exploited regulatory gaps and shifted social and environmental costs onto communities.

“What the 2025 evidence shows is a coherent system of influence operating across markets and institutions,” says Pierre Andersson, the report’s author. “These practices shape how alcohol harm is understood, which policies are considered feasible, and whose interests are prioritised.”

What 77 Studies Tell Us

The report includes a state-of-the-science review examining 77 peer-reviewed studies from 2024 and 2025. The research converges on several key points.

First, alcohol corporations function as political actors. Studies consistently show companies and their front groups actively shaping policy agendas, information environments, and governance processes to protect market power.

Second, promotion and political interference dominate industry activity. Digital marketing systems, sponsorship arrangements, influencer partnerships, and brand extensions have saturated everyday environments, whilst lobbying and procedural tactics delayed health policy initiatives across multiple countries.

Third, deception remains central to strategy. Misinformation, selective evidence presentation, and “responsibility” framing distorted public understanding of alcohol harm, undermined cancer risk communication, and eroded support for effective population-level solutions.

Vulnerability Disguised as Strength

Here’s what advocates and policymakers need to understand: escalating big alcohol interference reflects a declining business model, not industry dominance. The aggression documented in 2025 signals vulnerability.

As consumption patterns shift and public awareness grows, the industry’s response reveals desperation. Furthermore, this creates an opportunity. When interference intensifies, it often means effective policy is within reach.

The report identifies several key actions for those working to advance evidence-based policy.

Recognise that industry influence begins long before legislation is drafted—through agenda-setting, strategic framing, attacks on evidence, and polluted public discourse. Therefore, robust conflict-of-interest safeguards are essential, not optional.

Prioritise structural solutions that deliver results. Alcohol taxation, limits on availability, and comprehensive protections against marketing remain the most effective, publicly supported, and achievable policy measures. These aren’t theoretical—they work.

Treat monitoring as a public health intervention. Systematic documentation of industry practices exposes patterns, counters misinformation, and equips decision-makers to act in the public interest.

A Defining Moment

The report concludes that 2025 represents a critical juncture. Declining consumption, shifting norms, and growing scrutiny place sustained pressure on multinational alcohol corporations. In response, industry actors intensified interference to protect profits.

Yet evidence-based solutions are well established. Taxation, availability limits, comprehensive marketing protections, and conflict-of-interest safeguards deliver measurable benefits for health, equity, and public finances. Moreover, public support for these measures remains broad and often exceeds the political assumptions shaped by industry influence.

The findings call on governments, international institutions, and media to safeguard policymaking from vested commercial interests. As the report states: “Big Alcohol is in crisis. Public policy leadership now determines whether that crisis entrenches harm or accelerates progress toward healthier and more equitable societies.”

The industry’s playbook is now documented. The question is whether decision-makers will use that knowledge to act in the public interest, or allow commercial interference to continue shaping policy against the evidence.

The choice has never been clearer.

(Source:  WRD News)