Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41742759›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2026

Regulation of Alcohol-Free and Low-Alcohol Drinks: Learning From a Comparative Analysis of Eight Countries.

Robyn Burton, Kathryn Angus, Amber Morgan, Rebecca Howell, Nathan Critchlow, Inge Kersbergen, John Holmes, Molly A Bowdring, Mia Miller, Orratai Waleewong and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Robyn BurtonInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1684-5238
Kathryn AngusInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Amber MorganInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Rebecca HowellInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Nathan CritchlowInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9145-8874
Inge KersbergenDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8799-8963
John HolmesSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9283-2151
Molly A BowdringStanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5115-274X
Mia MillerNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0755-8624
Orratai WaleewongInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-6596-6901
Aleksi HalmeNational Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health, Helsinki, Finland.
Carmen VoogtTrimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Niamh FitzgeraldInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3643-8165

Funding

Non-alcoholic beverages: A foundational assessment of their potential utility in reducing alcohol useK99AA031716 · NIAAA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BOWDRING, MOLLY · 2024 to 2025
$357k
National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR135310NIAAA NIH HHS 1K99AA031716NIAAA NIH HHS K99 AA031716
6 · The paper itself

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

Alcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesGovernment RegulationAustraliaCommerceFinlandGermanyHumansMarketingNetherlandsNorwayProduct LabelingTaxesThailandUnited KingdomUnited Statesalcohol‐freelow‐strength alcoholNoLonon‐alcoholicregulationzero alcohol

Identifiers

PMID41742759
PMCPMC12936648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.