ArticleDrug and alcohol review2026
Regulation of Alcohol-Free and Low-Alcohol Drinks: Learning From a Comparative Analysis of Eight Countries.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Isolation of Kombucha Microorganisms for Application in Perilla Beverage Fermentation.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGovernance 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsRegulatory 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. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsGovernance of No/Lo drinks is fragmented and inconsistent, with definitions and regulatory thresholds varying both across countries and between policy areas within countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.