Media Snapshots

“Tax Reform: Studies Indicate That the Tax Burden on Wines and Sparkling Wines Should Fall to 33%, Says Alckmin”

G1 (Globo) reports:

“Vice President and Minister of Industry Geraldo Alckmin (PSB) said on Thursday (19) that studies indicate that the tax burden on wines and sparkling wines should be around 33% with the tax reform. The percentage would be lower than the current one, which is around 40.5%.”

“Alckmin made the statement during the Wine Festival, which takes place in Rio Grande do Sul. Before the event, he spoke with the grape and wine production sector, which also raised concerns about the Mercosur–European Union agreement.”

Assessment

The setting is as telling as the content of the announcement.

Brazil’s Minister of Industry attended a wine industry festival and, after meeting privately with producers, publicly indicated a lower tax rate on their products – before the Selective Tax bill has been submitted to Congress.

Ministries of industry are among the most common entry points for alcohol industry political interference, and Alckmin’s appearance at the Festa do Vinho fits a well-documented global pattern in which alcohol companies secure favourable terms by engaging sympathetic ministries to drown out public health and broader social and economic concerns about the harms caused by alcohol companies.

The content of the announcement is equally concerning. The Selective Tax is designed to apply to products considered harmful to health and the environment – a rationale that should mean higher, not lower, taxation of alcohol. Reducing the tax rate on wine from 40.5% to 33% would move in the opposite direction – diluting the public health rationale that gave the reform its initial momentum. The bill’s provision for progressive taxation based on alcohol content was one of its most promising features. A blanket reduction for wine would risk setting a precedent that other alcohol categories will seek to exploit.

For alcohol policy advocates, the priority is clear: the Selective Tax rates must be informed by public health evidence, not shaped by industry engagement at wine festivals. Brazil was recognised at the 78th World Health Assembly for it’s work on healthy taxes. That recognition will ring hollow if the resulting rates are set through direct industry engagement with the Ministry of Industry.

Alcohol policy advocates have an opportunity to underline the need for transparent, health-led decision-making on the Selective Tax rates and resist the framing of wine tax cuts as a fait accompli before the bill has even reached Congress.

“Is It the Money That Makes the Dog Dance, or the Candidate?”

Cuestión Pública reports:

“The real ‘sugar daddies’ of this scheme are two giants: Bavaria, part of the multinational holding company AB InBev, of which Alejandro Santodomingo is a member of the board of directors, and Postobón, a producer of sugary drinks and the flagship company of the Ardila Lülle Group. These companies have been the largest contributors to the electoral ecosystem during this period, with contributions of $3,137,758,520 and $2,804,395,858, respectively.”

“We already know that through donations and loans they move politics at all levels, but we set out to investigate exactly how and in what amounts. To do this, we reviewed the reports filed by candidates with the National Electoral Council from the 2010 elections to date, and those of the parties between 2016 and 2024.”

“For its part, the Santodomingo family has three of its members among the five richest people in Colombia. Their companies, among which Bavaria, Valorem, and Cine Colombia stand out, appear making contributions in all elections, for a total of $6 billion.”

Assessment

Cuestión Pública’s investigation builds on earlier reporting by La Silla Vacía that identified Bavaria as the second largest corporate donor to Colombian political parties in 2023.

What the new investigation adds is the longitudinal picture: over 13 years of election cycles, Bavaria and the broader Santodomingo Group have contributed across the political spectrum – to governing parties and opposition alike – ensuring access to lawmakers regardless of who holds power. This is a systematic investment in political influence.

Donation recipients were more likely to advance industry-friendly positions

The connection between campaign financing and legislative outcomes is the critical issue. Cuestión Pública explicitly notes that the recipients of these funds “have played a decisive role in laws that directly affect this industry.”

A peer-reviewed study published in Globalization and Health in 2025 documented how food and beverage industry incentives to Colombian policymakers – including from Bavaria – created conditions favourable to industry interests during the 2018–2020 period. The study identified 36 legislative actors whose campaigns had been financed by the food and beverage industry, and found that incentive recipients were more likely to advance alcohol industry-friendly positions.

Meanwhile, Alejandro Santodomingo’s seat on AB InBev’s global board of directors ensures that Colombia’s dominant beer company operates within the strategic framework of the world’s largest alcohol producer.

For alcohol policy advocates, this investigation provides concrete, documented evidence of the kind of political interference that the alcohol industry deploys to protect its commercial interests. Colombia lacks effective alcohol policy precisely because the companies that profit most from the status quo are financing the politicians who maintain it. Bavaria’s predatory pricing strategies, marketing practices targeting youth, and lobbying against alcohol tax reform do not happen in a political vacuum – they are sustained by the kind of financial relationships this investigation documents.

Advocates have an opportunity to use these findings to create public attention and a broader public debate about alcohol industry capture of the Colombian government and parliament and the inherent conflicts of interest. This matters for the ongoing discussions about how the country should respond to the severe burden alcohol harm is causing.

In addition, public health civil society has an opportunity to partner with wider civil society to advocate for greater transparency in the decision-making bodies and processes, including campaign finance transparency, for conflict-of-interest safeguards, and for the exclusion of alcohol industry actors from health policy processes.

“VAST Urges Government to Ban Sachet Alcohol as Nigeria’s Crackdown Sets Regional Benchmark”

MyJoyOnline reports:

“The Vision for Accelerated Sustainable Development (VAST-Ghana), a Ghanaian public health organisation, is calling on the government to follow Nigeria’s lead and outlaw the sale of alcohol in sachets and small bottles.

“VAST-Ghana warns that pocket-sized, cut-price spirits are fuelling addiction among children as young as 10.

“At the heart of the issue is price. Sachet alcohol, typically high-strength spirits of 43 per cent or more, can be bought in Ghana for as little as three cedis, roughly 27 US cents. Miniature bottles fetch around five cedis. For less than the cost of a bottle of water, a child can purchase a drink potent enough to cause liver damage.

“VAST-Ghana says alcohol is now the most commonly used substance among Ghanaian students, citing research published in BMC Public Health in May 2025, with first use recorded in children as young as 10.

“Ghana is not the first country in the region to confront the problem. Uganda banned sachet alcohol in 2019, with visible results: high-potency spirits largely disappeared from public transport hubs. Malawi followed in 2025 with a ban praised by the World Health Organisation and the University of Stirling as ‘a blueprint for public health advances in Africa.’

“Earlier this month, Mahama Ayariga, the Majority Leader in Parliament, announced that the government intends to introduce an Alcohol Control Regulations Bill. The legislation, as outlined, would restrict alcohol marketing, limit broadcast advertising, and curb sponsorships targeting young people and other vulnerable groups.”

Assessment

Sachet alcohol is one of the most harmful product formats in the African alcohol market. High-strength spirits sold in sachets and miniature bottles are designed for maximum affordability and accessibility – at 27 US cents per sachet in Ghana, they cost less than a bottle of water. The packaging is small enough to be concealed in a school uniform pocket, and widely available at transport terminals, community gatherings, and near schools. Research published in BMC Public Health found alcohol to be the most commonly used substance among Ghanaian students, with first use occurring in children as young as 10. Ghana’s alcohol market is projected to grow 13% annually, a trend that makes advocacy for public health action on alcohol all the more urgent.

VAST-Ghana’s call builds on growing regional enforcement. Uganda’s 2019 ban reduced sachet alcohol availability from 52% of establishments to just 1.4%. Malawi followed in 2025 with a ban praised by the WHO. And Nigeria’s NAFDAC has held firm despite fierce alcohol industry opposition – manufacturers warned of job losses and factory closures, the same claims deployed globally to resist effective government action. VAST-Ghana’s strategic contribution is identifying an existing legal pathway: the Food and Drugs Authority’s powers under the Public Health Act would allow a ban through administrative order, bypassing the parliamentary process the alcohol industry has historically used to delay and derail reform attempts.

For alcohol policy advocates, VAST-Ghana’s advocacy demonstrates the value of cross-border learning and cooperation in advancing alcohol policy across the region. The organisation has also called for adoption of the WHO SAFER technical package, conflict-of-interest safeguards, and finalisation of Ghana’s long-delayed National Alcohol Regulations. The announced intention to introduce an Alcohol Control Regulations Bill – covering marketing limits, broadcast advertising limits, and sponsorship curbs – is worth watching, though no legislation has been tabled yet.

“Sheinbaum Affirms That Health Campaign Against Addiction Has Been Effective, Citing Figures on Drug and Alcohol Consumption Among Adolescents”

Infobae reports:

“The national campaign Vive Saludable, Vive Feliz, focused on preventing drug use among Mexican children and adolescents, has had successful results, as confirmed by President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday at her morning press conference from the National Palace.”

“With regard to alcohol, consumption among adolescents also fell from 28% to 17.8% over the last year. ‘The ban on advertising has worked; all of this helps to reduce consumption,’ said Sheinbaum.”

“The president clarified that the government will not for now focus on a specific campaign to prevent cigarette and vaping use, as the priority will be to address methamphetamines and mental health.”

Assessment

President Sheinbaum responded to brand new findings from the ENCODAT 2025 survey. The ENCODAT 2025 (Encuesta Nacional de Consumo de Drogas, Alcohol y Tabaco) is a major national survey in Mexico designed to gather updated, representative data on the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal substances, as well as mental health indicators among the population aged 12 to 65. 

President Sheinbaum’s statement carries a notable contradiction. On the one hand, she is one of the few sitting presidents in the Americas to publicly acknowledge that limiting alcohol advertising is are effective – a precedent that alcohol policy advocates can cite in future advocacy across the region. Her statement that “the ban on advertising has worked” provides a direct, quotable endorsement of one of the WHO’s evidence-based best buys for preventing and reducing alcohol harm.

On the other hand, she drew a narrow conclusion from her own evidence. Rather than recognising advertising bans as one component of the comprehensive approach the evidence supports, she treated it as sufficient. Her government’s stated priorities for the coming period are methamphetamines and mental health – not comprehensive alcohol policy action as outlined in the SAFER alcohol policy blue print, not raising alcohol taxes, or further improving alcohol marketing regulation, or placing common-sense limits on alcohol availability. This selective framing is reinforced by her choice of data: the ENCODAT 2025 survey she cited also shows lifetime alcohol use among women rising from 67.3% to 75.4% and overall adult prevalence at 73.7%, figures she did not mention.

It is an example of a political leader cherry-picking evidence to tell a success story but not using that as prove for the potential of more and better alcohol policy action in the face of severe alcohol harms.

The policy gap is concrete. Mexico’s 2026 Economic Package raised pro-health taxes on sugary drinks and tobacco. But due to alcohol industry lobbying, alcohol taxation was again excluded by the Sheinbaum government, despite a World Bank report showing that effective alcohol taxation could reduce population-level alcohol consumption by 42% and raise alcohol tax revenue by 203%.

For alcohol policy advocates, the strategic opportunity is clear: hold the government to the logic of its own statement and evidence. Build on what is shown to work and do more to tackle alcohol harm with the urgency and seriousness that the government’s data shows is needed.

“Proposal to Raise Taxes and Restrict Advertising to Reduce Alcohol Consumption”

Uno TV reports:

“Civil society organisations proposed raising taxes and regulating advertising of alcoholic beverages as part of a strategy to curb alcohol consumption in Mexico.”

“‘There is a significant increase in lifetime consumption among women in the general population, from 67.3% to 75.4%.’ – Erik Antonio Ochoa, director of Salud Justa Mx”

“‘At least three measures are the most fundamental: raising taxes, regulating advertising, and regulating the availability of alcoholic beverages.’ – Luis Alfonso Robledo, spokesperson for the Red de Acción Sobre Alcohol”

“‘With these strategies, they reduced consumption by 50%. These are proven strategies, tools with a scientific basis that we need to start implementing in this country.’ – Luis Alfonso Robledo, spokesperson for the Red de Acción Sobre Alcohol”

Other Articles on Same Topic

• Alcohol Consumption Rises Among Mexican Women: Alarming Data From ENCODAT 2025 (Enfoque Noticias)
• WHO Supports Raising Taxes and Limiting Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages (Municipios Puebla)
• Insufficient Public Policies in the Face of Alcohol Consumption That Causes 40,000 Deaths a Year (De Reporteros)
• Alcohol Linked to Seven Types of Cancer, Warning Issued (El Universal)

Assessment

The ENCODAT 2025 (Encuesta Nacional de Consumo de Drogas, Alcohol y Tabaco) is a major national survey in Mexico designed to gather updated, representative data on the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and illegal substances, as well as mental health indicators among the population aged 12 to 65. Coordinated by the Ministry of Health, the National Commission on Mental Health and Addictions (CONASAMA), the National Institute of Psychiatry “Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz” (INPRFM), and the National Institute of Public Health (INSP), the survey aims to guide public policy, prevention, and treatment strategies.

This coordinated advocacy response is significant for several reasons:

First, the organisations grounded their demands in fresh national survey data, giving their call for action an immediacy and evidence base that is difficult for policymakers to dismiss. The ENCODAT 2025 figures – 40,000 annual alcohol-attributable deaths, 552 billion pesos in social costs (2.1% of GDP), and a sharp rise in alcohol use among women – paint a clear picture of a public health, social, and economic crisis that existing policy is failing to address.

Second, the advocacy is strategically framed around the three most cost-effective and evidence-based alcohol policy best buys the World Health Organisation recommends: raising alcohol taxation, and placing common-sense limits on alcohol marketing and availability. RASA spokesperson Alonso Robledo cited international evidence showing these measures can reduce alcohol use by up to 50%, referencing Russia’s experience, and presented specific tax rate proposals for beer, wine, and spirits that could reduce cirrhosis deaths by 39% and family violence injuries by 2% by 2040. This level of policy detail moves the advocacy beyond general calls for action into concrete legislative proposals.

Third, the coalition made a compelling fiscal argument. RASA estimated that increasing IEPS on alcohol would generate 100 billion pesos in additional revenue – significant, though as Robledo noted, still well below the 552 billion pesos in annual social costs. Salud Justa Mx director Erick Antonio Ochoa placed this in context by comparing alcohol’s social costs (552 billion pesos) with those of tobacco (190 billion pesos), underscoring that alcohol policy in Mexico receives far less attention than tobacco policy despite causing nearly three times the economic damage. The groups also flagged a concrete upcoming risk: the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Mexico will bring intensified alcohol marketing campaigns, making advertising bans particularly urgent.

For alcohol policy advocates across Latin America, this coordinated campaign offers a model for using national survey data to build a multi-organisation advocacy campaign with specific policy demands, concrete revenue projections, and clear timelines. The Movendi International advocacy guide on countering alcohol industry tax arguments, Movendi’s world map of alcohol taxation best practices, and World Bank evidence on Mexico’s alcohol taxation potential provide additional resources for supporting this advocacy.

“2026 Budget: Sin Tax Could Make Alcohol Unaffordable and Boost the Illicit Trade”

The Citizen reports:

“Sibani Mngadi, corporate relations director at Diageo South Africa, said the tax on spirits has practically doubled from R52 per bottle in 2016 to, most likely, over R100 with the presentation of the 2026 Budget Statement. This includes brandy, gin, vodka, whisky and rum.

“‘At R100 per bottle, government tax becomes the biggest component of the cost to the consumer, ranging between 55-65% of the retail selling price of mainstream spirits products. We believe there is no room for consumers to absorb further increases in the statutory component of the price,’ said Mngadi.

“He said Diageo has called for a halt on the excise tax increase for spirits products, while the excise tax policy is still under review.

“‘The large tax increases on spirits over many years have directly facilitated the exponential growth of illicit trade, which now stands at 18% of the alcohol market,’ he said.

“Spirits are, by far, the most smuggled and counterfeited category of alcohol. Illicit trade in spirits costs the government R11 billion in tax revenue every year, according to a 2025 Euromonitor study.”

“Budget 2026 | Alcohol Industry Approves of Inflation-Linked Sin Tax Increases”

IOL reports:

“Alcohol producers have welcomed the decision to limit sin tax increases to inflation, saying predictable adjustments are critical for industry stability and efforts to curb illicit trade.

“Millicent Maroga, corporate affairs director at Heineken Beverages, said inflation-linked increases promote fairness, stability, and long-term sustainability across alcohol categories.

“Maroga said keeping excise adjustments predictable helps narrow the price gap between legal and illicit products, strengthening enforcement and compliance efforts.

“Heineken also welcomed the announcement of the National Illicit Economy Disruption Programme, saying the company looks forward to partnering with the government.”

Other Articles on Same Topic

• Budget Speech 2026: Inflation-Linked Alcohol Duty Plan Cheered (The South African)
• South African Government’s Wine Duty Increase “Vital”, Says Wine South Africa (Winetitles)
• Good News About Alcohol and Cigarette Prices in South Africa (Daily Investor)
• FIRST TAKE | Budget Speech: Cigarettes, Beer Up in Line With Inflation (The South African)
• Price Hikes for Alcohol and Tobacco in South Africa Incoming (BusinessTech)
• R100 Tax Per Bottle? Spirits Industry Sounds Alarm Ahead of Budget (The South African)
• How SA’s Sugar and Alcohol Taxes Affect Your Wallet and Health (IOL)
• Here’s Why Making Alcohol More Expensive Won’t Stop People From Drinking It (The Citizen)
  

Assessment

This outcome is a direct result of the sustained lobbying campaign documented in the Movendi Media Snapshot from December 2025.

• Diageo, the world’s largest liquor producer, led the pre-budget lobbying push through its South African corporate relations director Sibani Mngadi.
• Heineken Beverages, the world’s second largest beer producer, through corporate affairs director Millicent Maroga, immediately welcomed the outcome.
• Wine South Africa and the National Liquor Traders – both alcohol industry bodies – echoed the same messaging.

That competing multinational corporations coordinated the same public response points to a shared strategic objective: keeping alcohol taxes as low as possible.

The pre-budget lobbying and interference phase followed a well-documented playbook: Diageo projected that excise tax on spirits could reach R100 per bottle and warned this would push consumers into illicit markets – citing a Euromonitor study estimating illicit alcohol at 18% of the market and costing R11 billion in lost revenue. This is the same Euromonitor-based narrative that the alcohol industry lobby group BASA deployed during the 2025 public consultation process, and that Movendi has documented as a long-standing industry tactic used globally to discourage governments from raising alcohol taxes. The fear-mongering set the terms of the public debate and gave political cover for the government to limit the alcohol tax increases to only inflation.

The post-budget alcohol industry reaction confirmed the strategy worked.

• Heineken praised the increases as promoting “fairness, stability, and long-term sustainability” and expressed interest in “partnering with the government” through the new National Illicit Economy Disruption Programme.
• Wine South Africa’s CEO Rico Basson called the inflation-linked adjustment “vital” for the sector, while the organisation added that “meaningful and lasting solutions do not lie solely in further regulatory or excise interventions” – calling instead for “collective societal responsibility.”

This framing deflects from evidence-based policy by shifting responsibility away from the product and onto individuals and society. Media coverage reinforced this, with headlines declaring “good news” about alcohol prices.

But independent evidence contradicts the alcohol industry position. The WHO has consistently identified alcohol taxation as the most effective and cost-effective alcohol policy best buys to prevent and reduce alcohol harm. Peer-reviewed research shows that higher alcohol taxes, combined with targeted enforcement, reduce both recorded and unrecorded alcohol use – and that the claimed link between tax increases and illicit trade is routinely overstated by alcohol industry actors. In South Africa specifically, analysis by the University of Cape Town’s Research Unit on the Economics of Excisable Products has shown that alcohol tax revenue has continued to increase despite repeated excise increases, contradicting the industry narrative.

For alcohol policy advocates, this budget outcome underscores the urgency of building counter-narratives before the next fiscal cycle. And it is key to hold the media accountable and to engage journalists to build capacity for accurate reporting on alcohol harm and policy topics.

The alcohol industry’s illicit trade claims dominated media coverage and policy debate. Advocates have an opportunity to use this case to expose how the alcohol industry’s lobbying arc operates – alarm, concession, celebration – and to make the evidence-based case for above-inflation excise increases and a structural reform alcohol taxation in South Africa, as part of a modern and evidence-based alcohol policy system in South Africa.

Our Advertising Regulator Is Funded by the Food and Beverage Industry. Should It Be Allowed to Block Public Health Messaging?”

Mail & Guardian / The Examination reports:

“A review of more than 700 ARB decisions by The Examination found that the board had intervened to challenge or weaken public health messaging in advertisements on multiple occasions while declining to block advertisements for products aimed at children — actions that critics contend reflect a pro-industry bias.

“The 14 members of the ARB’s two appeals committees include a judge and a senior lawyer who serve as independent parties and marketing executives and have decades of experience between them. Three appeal committee members are employed by major alcohol companies, while two have worked with national and international beverage companies in the past.

“‘We are being blocked from running a public service announcement or a public health message by a group that is then funded by the very people whose products are being impugned,’ Petronell Kruger, programme director of Heala, told The Examination.

“Parliament is considering legislation that will restrict food, tobacco and vape companies from marketing unhealthy products to children and give the department of health, not the ARB, the final authority over the issues.”

Assessment

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) is South Africa is a self-regulatory body that directly represents the interests of the alcohol industry. The Drinks Federation South Africa (DF-SA) is a “member organisation” and directly represents multinational alcohol industry giants Diageo, Heineken, Pernod Ricard, and SAB (AB InBev).

The Examination investigation reveals that the self-regulatory structure functions as a shield for commercial interests against public health action. Approximately one third of the board’s budget comes from alcohol, food and beverage companies, creating a direct financial dependence on the industries whose advertising it is mandated to police. The conflict runs deeper than funding – three of the 14 appeals committee members are employed by major alcohol companies, and two more have beverage industry backgrounds.

When Heala, a health advocacy alliance, challenged the blocking of its evidence-based public health advertisement about sugary drinks, the appeals panel included a former PepsiCo and Pioneer Foods executive who had represented the fruit juice industry in government consultations on sugar taxation. The ARB’s CEO Gail Schimmel acknowledged the “very strange funding system” but defended the inclusion of industry representatives ignoring the apparent conflicts of interest.

The pattern of ARB rulings documented by The Examination reveals industry capture of regulatory structures. The board blocked a public health advertisement by Heala warning about the harms of sugary drinks. It blocked a separate public service advertisement from the government’s own health department about sugar harm. Yet it ruled in favour of Coca-Cola’s campaign associating sugary drinks with rugby athletes, and permitted the use of Barbie on children’s sugary chocolate milk packaging. The pattern is clear: the ARB intervenes against public health messaging while giving corporate marketing of health harming products to children a pass. The board has also lobbied the government to lower the proposed age threshold for food marketing limits from 18 to 13, and claimed that advertising regulation should remain under its own authority rather than be transferred to the health department.

The alcohol industry’s direct involvement in this structure carries significant implications for alcohol policy in South Africa. With alcohol company employees sitting on the body that adjudicates advertising complaints, any effort to protect South Africans from alcohol marketing – including marketing that targets children and young people – faces an inherently conflicted self-regulatory gatekeeper. South Africa has had draft legislation to ban alcohol advertising for more than a decade, consistently blocked by industry lobbying. 

For alcohol policy advocates, the pending parliamentary legislation to give the health department authority over food and tobacco advertising sets an important precedent. If Parliament transfers regulatory authority away from industry-funded self-regulation for those product categories, the same principle should apply to alcohol advertising.

The Examination investigation into ARB conflicts of interest strengthens the case: self-regulation of health harming industry practices is no regulation. The WHO’s alcohol policy best buys include comprehensive limitations on alcohol marketing precisely because industry-led oversight consistently fails to protect people from harm.

“Time to Beer Up: UCT Researchers Demand Stronger Taxes to Tackle Alcohol Harm”

Cape Argus reports:

“With the nation facing a staggering burden of alcohol-related harm, experts argue that the National Treasury’s proposed tax reforms simply don’t cut it – especially when it comes to beer.”

“In an analysis by the university’s Research Unit on the Economics of Excisable Products (REEP), experts argue that National Treasury’s proposed alcohol tax reforms do not go far enough, particularly when it comes to beer. They recommend narrower excise tax tiers, higher uplift factors and predictable above-inflation tax increases to meaningfully reduce alcohol consumption while still boosting government revenue.”

“In the 2025/26 financial year, beer is taxed at a flat rate of R145.07 per litre of absolute alcohol. Treasury’s proposal introduces three beer tax tiers, with progressively higher excise rates for products with higher alcohol content. However, REEP researchers argue that the thresholds are poorly aligned with the market.”

“‘These thresholds are poorly aligned with AA levels in the beer market because most beers – more than 95% of market share by sales volume – have an alcohol content between 4% and 6% AA,’ said Vellios. ‘As a result, Treasury’s proposal is unlikely to incentivise meaningful reformulation or reductions in alcohol content.'”

Assessment

In November 2024, South Africa’s National Treasury published a decadal discussion paper reviewing how alcohol should be taxed over the next decade – a separate and more consequential process than the annual inflation-linked alcohol excise tax increase announced in this week’s budget (covered elsewhere in this snapshot). The political decisions about how to design the alcohol tax system and structure that will be made in this process will shape alcohol pricing policy for years to come.

REEP’s central finding is striking: the Treasury’s proposal would reduce absolute alcohol consumption by only 2%, while REEP’s alternative – using narrower tax tiers and steeper rate increases between tiers – would achieve a 16% reduction while still increasing revenue by 13%. That is an eightfold difference in public health impact for a comparable revenue outcome.

Beer dominates South Africa’s alcohol market yet is taxed at roughly half the rate applied to spirits. Among South African adults who use alcohol, 47% engage in high-risk heavy episodic use – and beer is central to that pattern.

The Treasury’s proposed three-tier system sets thresholds that miss the market reality: over 95% of beer sold falls within the 4%–6% alcohol range, meaning virtually all products would land in the same tier. The practical effect would be minimal pressure on beer producers to reformulate and lower the alcoholic strength of beer and little incentive for consumers to shift to lower-alcohol products.

REEP also called for scrapping the current system in which target tax rates are set based on industry-supplied retail price data – a structural conflict of interest that gives alcohol producers direct influence over the benchmarks used to determine their own tax rates. REEP further flagged the need for a dedicated tax category for instant beer powder (a dehydrated powder intended to be mixed with water to produce a fermented beverage similar to beer). This emerging product currently falls outside existing frameworks.

For alcohol policy advocates in South Africa, this research provides evidence to strengthen submissions during the Treasury consultation process. The key message is simple: Treasury’s alcohol tax reform is poorly designed because it risks leaving most of the public health benefits of raising alcohol taxes on the table.

Advocates can cite REEP’s modelling to make the case for a better system: narrower tiers, higher uplift factors, and the removal of industry-linked benchmarks – turning an inadequate reform into an effective one.

“Reduced Alcohol Tax for Alcoholic Beverages From Independent Small Producers”

Regeringen.se (Swedish Government) published:

“On 1 July 2025, Swedish rules on reduced tax for beer from independent small breweries were introduced. The legislative council referral now proposes, under certain conditions, reduced alcohol tax for other alcoholic beverages from independent small producers.”

“The proposed reduction would cover alcoholic beverages produced by producers whose annual production amounts to at most 100,000 litres of wine, 1.5 million litres of other fermented beverages, 25,000 litres of intermediate products, or – in the case of ethyl alcohol – 1,000 litres of pure alcohol. Producers covered by the reduction are divided into five categories based on annual production. Alcoholic beverages from producers in the lowest production category are given a tax reduction of 50 per cent. The reduction then decreases gradually by 10 percentage points per category.”

Other Articles on Same Topic

• “Ringmuren Distillery Opens in Visby This Summer” (Hela Gotland).

Assessment

The Swedish government’s proposal is the third in a sequence of measures that erode and worsen the country’s successful alcohol policy system. Taken together, this represents a fundamental shift in the country’s approach to alcohol policy.

1. In June 2025, the farm-gate sales law created for the first time a new private profit-focused retail channel outside the government alcohol retail monopoly that removes profit maximisation from off-trade alcohol retail.
2. One month later, the small brewery tax cut introduced tiered reductions of up to 50%.
3. And most recently, the center-right government with support from a right-wing extremist party proposes extending the same tax model to wine, cider, spirits, and intermediate products – with thresholds set high enough that virtually all current Swedish wine and spirits producers would qualify for reduced rates.

Each step is presented as modest and targeted – support for small entrepreneurs, a boost for tourism – but the cumulative effect is a systematic erosion of the two pillars that have made Sweden’s alcohol policy effective:

• the retail monopoly selling alcohol with a public health focus, and
• the alcohol taxation system with the same public health objective.

Revealing political framing

The political framing is revealing. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson described the proposal as “yet another step towards a freer and more business-friendly Sweden,” while the Sweden Democrats called it a measure to “strengthen Swedish beverage culture.”

This language treats alcohol as any other consumer product and reframes this government’s moves of eroding a successful system as a positive move – precisely the narrative shift that precedes deeper policy dismantling.

The government’s framing contradict and contravenes the public’s understanding of and attitudes towards Sweden’s alcohol policy system. For instance, in 2020 a study showed that the majority of the population supports the most impactful alcohol policy measures to solve the problem of alcohol harm. In Sweden, alcohol policy is perceived as a societal question in the highest degree. And alcohol use/harm is perceived as a social problem. 

But the Ringmuren distillery opening in Visby illustrates how quickly the market responds: its business model depends on combining production with on-site retail under the new farm-gate sales rules.

For alcohol policy advocates, Sweden’s trajectory is a cautionary example of incremental of a government chipping away – against the people’s will and public interest – at a functioning and proven successful alcohol policy model.

No single measure appears dramatic, but the direction is clear – and each step creates constituencies (producers, tourism operators, local governments) with a commercial interest in further actions to chip away at alcohol policy that focuses on public health and social solidarity.

The WHO has highlighted Nordic alcohol monopolies as a model for preventing and reducing alcohol harm. Sweden’s current government is dismantling that model piece by piece, and the legal risk to Systembolaget’s EU exemption – documented by Movendi Sweden and legal experts – grows with each new exception to the monopoly principle.