Decision Marketing February 19, 2026
The alcoholic drinks industry has been accused of making misleading claims and exaggerating the economic threats of further advertising restrictions, with a new report showing the plans were removed from the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan just days before publication over fears they would “cripple” the sector.
According to a new report by the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS), which supported new restrictions, the policy was removed after a huge lobbying campaign by alcohol producers, pub operators and trade bodies.
The IAS report is based on correspondence obtained through FOI requests submitted to the Department of Health & Social Care, the Department for Business & Trade, the Department for Culture, Media & Sport and HM Treasury.
It reveals that ministers had been considering a range of marketing restrictions, including a 9pm watershed for TV ads. It is estimated booze brands spend more than £6bn a year on advertising and sponsorship.
The Advertising Association has long argued that the UK has some of the strictest regulations on booze ads. The Advertising Code already states that alcohol ads must not be directed at people under 18 or contain anything that is likely to appeal to them by reflecting youth culture, and individuals that feature in alcohol ads must be 25 years of age or over, and look it.
There are also controls around the placement of alcohol ads and they are currently banned from appearing in and around programmes targeted at audiences below the age of 18 and programmes likely to appeal particularly to this age group.
Even so, the drinks businesses acted swiftly to fight the proposed measures, focusing their efforts on Health Secretary Wes Streeting, with brewer and pub operator Greene King warning the minister that the restrictions would have a “crippling impact” on the sector.
Heineken also wrote to Streeting, warning that the plans would “impede growth and investment” and cause “widespread disruption”, although the British Beer & Pub Association added: “We support efforts to improve public health and tackle inequalities.”
Meanwhile, Budweiser appealed directly to Chancellor Rachel Reeves, stating: “As Chancellor, we urge that you make immediate representations to the Department of Health and ensure that these restrictions are not enforced.”
Heineken even referenced its partnership with ITV involving Heineken 0.0 product placement in Coronation Street and Emmerdale, pointing out how the initiative carries a public message around moderation and alternative choices, stating: “Through product placement and in-script references to ‘pints of zero’, the collaboration has helped normalise alcohol-free choices in everyday settings.”
However, the IAS argues that the evidence base for marketing restrictions is well established, stating that marketing increases alcohol consumption and contributes to alcohol harm, including among children and young people. IAS also points to international precedents, highlighting that countries including France, Ireland and Norway already restrict alcohol marketing.
The report concludes with recommendations including revisiting the proposed marketing restrictions, issuing a new national alcohol strategy and introducing stronger principles for managing conflicts of interest in policymaking.
In response to the findings, the Association of Directors of Public Health, claims the report highlights the “dark tactics” employed and how the alcohol industry relied on misleading claims, exaggerated economic threats, and repeated assertions that the industry should be consulted on health policy, despite a clear conflict of interest.
ADPH vice-president Alice Wiseman said: “This is a textbook example of why the alcohol industry should have no role in shaping health policy. Their business model depends on increasing consumption, while public health depends on reducing it.
“Allowing companies that profit from harm to influence NHS policy undermines prevention, weakens public trust, and costs lives. The parallels with tobacco are impossible to ignore.”