Fifty Cases, One Playbook: Movendi International Exposes Latest Worldwide Alcohol Industry Interference

Brand New Insights Into the Scale and Reach of Alcohol Industry Interference

Across continents and political systems, alcohol industry interference is accelerating in scale, sophistication, and impact. Movendi International’s new global mapping of 50 recent cases reveals a coordinated strategy by Big Alcohol to delay, dilute, or derail evidence-based alcohol policy and to pollute public understanding of alcohol harm.

The findings are alarming. Whether governments attempt to raise alcohol taxes, improve alcohol marketing standards, regulate harmful product formats, introduce cancer warning labels, or enhance oversight and monitoring, the alcohol industry responds with predictable, orchestrated tactics. The alcohol industry even opposes measures to protect the health and rights of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Some of the most pervasive tactics include fabricated and exaggerated job-loss claims, illicit trade fear mongering, political donations, front group campaigns, suppression of and deception about scientific evidence, manipulation of health information, and even long-term agreements with government institutions and civil society organisations.

The pattern that emerges is unmistakable: alcohol industry interference is systemic, global, and targeted precisely at the policies that the World Health Organization identifies as the most cost-effective and high-impact to prevent harm, reduce costs, and advance health and social justice.

This mapping demonstrates that Big Alcohol’s political influence is now a global governance challenge undermining health, human rights, and decision-making in the public interest.

Global Overview: 50 Cases of Alcohol Industry Interference

To make this global pattern visible, Movendi International has compiled 50 concrete cases of alcohol industry political interference from 2025 and 2024, each summarised in a short, descriptive label. These cases span Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the European Union, France, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Mexico (USA), New Zealand, Nigeria, the Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, Viet Nam, and several global or multilateral arenas, including the United Nations.

To illustrate the table and detailed case descriptions, Movendi International distilled all 50 cases into a world map graphic with concise summaries that expose the core tactic or interference pattern in each case. This allows readers to see, at a glance, how the same interference strategies are deployed in very different countries and political contexts around the world.

What emerges is a visual representation of the scale and extent of alcohol industry interference and the truth that Big Alcohol deploys the same strategies everywhere.

Each case is categorised with a concise descriptor that captures its core pattern of interference, such as:

1: “Tax increase opposition” (9 jurisdictions)
2: “Anti-indexation lobbying”
3: “Opposition to alcohol pricing and marketing regulation” (Scotland)
4: Opposition to advertising ban (South Africa)
5: Opposition to sachet ban (Nigeria)
6: Advertising ban circumvention (France)
7: Marketing law sabotage (Costa Rica)
8: “Alcohol mega stor push” (Australia)
9: “Cancer label delay” (Ireland)
10: “Attack on National Alcohol Policy” (Kenya)
11: “Killing the alcohol bill” (Uganda)
12: “Corporate capture of policy” (6 jurisdictions)
13: “Illicit trade scare” (6 jurisdictions)
“Opposition to advertising ban”
- “Marketing law sabotage”
- “Advertising ban circumvention”

14: “Corporate capture of science” (Brazil, USA)
15: “Industry report reframes harm” (Mexico, Philippines, Uganda)
16: “Self-regulation and ‘responsibility’ campaign” (South Africa)
17: “Road safety co-optation” (Colombia, South Africa)
18: “Opposition to environmental standards” (Kenya)
19: “Monitoring system attack” (Brazil)
20: “Lobbying spending and political donations” (Colombia, USA)
21: “Moderate” consumption alliance (Mexico)
22: “Parliamentary beer front” (Brazil)
23: “Wine subsidy protection” (EU)
24: “Misleading ‘low-alcohol’ classification” (EU)
25: Global political interference
- United Nations: “Corporate capture of policy”
- “Fueling misinformation”
- “Opposition to social norm changes”
- “Zero Alcohol Products as Trojan horse”

These 50 cases show several clear patterns, such as: the same core tactics (alcohol taxation obstruction, illicit trade scare, misinformation, front groups, CSR/road safety, cultural framing) recur in low-, middle-, and high-income settings. The playbook is global, with local adaptations.

Case Number	Country	Case	Case Example Link
1	Australia	Alcohol megastore push	Source
2	Brazil	Tax increase opposition	Source
3	Brazil	Monitoring system attack	Source
4	Brazil	Parliamentary beer front	Source
5	Brazil	lllicit trade scare	Source
6	Brazil	Corporate capture of research	Source
7	Canada	Anti-indexation lobbying	Source
8	Colombia	Tax increase opposition	Source
9	Colombia	Road safety co-optation	Source
10	Colombia	Illicit trade scare	Source
11	Colombia	Political donor influence	Source
12	Costa Rica	Marketing law sabotage	Source
13	European Union (EU)	Wine subsidy protection	Source
14	European Union (EU)	Misleading “low-alcohol” classification	Source
15	France	Advertising ban circumvention	Source
17	Ireland	Cancer label delay	Source
18	Kenya	Tax increase opposition	Source
19	Kenya	lllicit trade scare	Source
20	Kenya	Attack on National Alcohol Policy	Source
21	Kenya	Opposition to environmental standards	Source
22	Mexico	Tax increase opposition	Source
23	Mexico	lllicit trade scare	Source
24	Mexico	“Moderate” consumption alliance	Source
25	Mexico	Industry report reframes harm	Source
26	Netherlands	Corporate capture of policy	Source
27	New Mexico (USA)	Tax increase opposition	Source
28	New Zealand	Corporate capture of policy	Source
29	Nigeria	Opposition to sachet ban	Source
30	Philippines	Industry report reframes harm	Source
31	Scotland	Opposition to alcohol pricing and marketing regulation	Source
32	South Africa	Tax increase opposition	Source
33	South Africa	lllicit trade scare	Source
34	South Africa	Opposition to advertising ban	Source
35	South Africa	Self-regulation and “responsibility” campaign	Source
36	South Africa	Road safety co-optation	Source
37	Uganda	Killing the alcohol bill	Source
38	Uganda	Tax increase opposition	Source
39	Uganda	lllicit trade scare	Source
40	Uganda	Corporate capture of ministry of foreign affairs	Source
41	Uganda	Industry report reframes harm	Source
42	United Kingdom	Corporate capture of policy	Source
43	United Kingdom	Tax increase opposition	Source
44	USA	Corporate capture of science	Source
45	USA	Lobbying spending	Source
46	Viet Nam	Tax increase opposition	Source
47	Global (United Nations)	Corporate capture of policy	Source
48	Global	Fueling misinformation	Source
49	Global	Opposition to social norm changes	Source
50	Global	Zero Alcohol Products as trojan horse	Source

Global Patterns and Insights from the 50 Cases

Analysis of the 50 cases reveals a unified global playbook. Despite diverse contexts, actors, and institutions, the same alcohol industry tactics and narratives appear repeatedly, particularly around alcohol taxation, the other best buys, and control of information.

1. Taxation and Pricing: “Tax Increase Opposition” as the Primary Target

The single largest cluster of cases concerns efforts to derail, delay, or dilute alcohol taxation and pricing measures. “Tax increase opposition” appears across 11 jurisdictions: Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Mexico, New Mexico (USA), South Africa, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Viet Nam, while Canada provides a closely related example through “anti-indexation lobbying” against automatic inflation adjustments of alcohol excise taxes.

These cases share several recurring elements:

Economic fear-mongering: exaggerated claims about job losses and economic damage, and warnings that taxes will hurt “ordinary consumers.”
Price scare tactics: misleading statements about how much prices will rise; for instance, in Uganda, industry claimed beer prices could rise by up to 40%, whereas the actual price increase of the alcohol tax reform would be around 4%.
Framing taxes as ineffective or regressive: dismissing alcohol taxes as “sin taxes” with little impact on use, or as unfair to lower-income groups, even when reforms are designed to be progressive and to target higher-strength alcoholic products the most.

Taken together, these “tax increase opposition” cases reveal that whenever governments move to use alcohol taxation as a health and development promotion tool, the alcohol industry lobby machine mobilises aggressively to resist, often combining economic scare narratives with other tactics such as illicit trade claims.

Pattern: wherever governments attempt to index, increase, or structure alcohol taxes for health and revenue benefits, alcohol industry interference escalates, often combining scare tactics about prices, jobs, and illicit trade.

2. Weaponising Illicit Trade: The “Illicit Trade Scare” Play

Another prominent pattern is the use of “illicit trade scare” tactics. Such cases appear in six countries of the data set: Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Mexico, South Africa, and Uganda. These are all countries that implement the RESET Alcohol Initiative and/ or the SAFER initiative.

In these contexts, alcohol industry actors deploy fear mongering about illicit trade as a central claim against effective taxation or enforcement measures.

Common features include:

Commissioned reports (often by market research firms such as Euromonitor) claiming that illicit or “fake” alcohol represents a large and growing share of the market, without transparent methodology and ways to validate the data and claims.
Public campaigns warning that alcohol tax increases would drive consumers into the illicit market and undermine public health.
Attempts to position the alcohol industry as a key partner in tackling illicit trade, thereby justifying its involvement in policy design and enforcement discussions.

These cases show that the illicit trade narrative is not an isolated concern or a neutral data point; it is a strategic tool to resist alcohol tax reforms and other regulatory measures, shift blame away from industry practices, and gain influence in policy debates.

Pattern: illicit trade is systematically instrumentalised to shift blame away from commercial practices and to resist effective regulation and taxation.

3. Corporate Capture of Policy and Institutions

Several cases are explicitly characterised as “corporate capture of policy,” highlighting how the alcohol industry gains preferential access, insights and an iron grip of formal decision-making processes:

In the Netherlands and New Zealand, alcohol industry lobbyists are documented as shaping key policy frameworks and national agreements, limiting the scope of alcohol policy initiatives and keeping proven measures such as taxation and marketing standards off the table.
In the United Kingdom, the 10-Year Health Plan and alcohol licensing standards have been heavily influenced by alcohol industry lobbying, contributing to the abandonment or dilution of evidence-based policy approaches in the public interest.
In Uganda, a “corporate capture of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” case documents a five-year agreement between a major multinational-owned brewery and the ministry, institutionalising promotion of alcohol through embassies and jeopardising the country’s evidence-based stance in global health diplomacy processes.
At the global level, the “corporate capture of policy” case at the United Nations describes how the alcohol industry, through front organisations, has interfered in the UN NCDs and Mental Health process, attacking WHO-recommended “best buys” and the scientific consensus that there is no safe level of alcohol use for cancer risk and other health and social alcohol harms.

These cases reveal that alcohol industry interference is not confined to lobbying from the outside. In many contexts, alcohol companies gain privileged, sustained access to policymaking institutions and processes, shaping agendas, diluting proposals, derailing initiatives, and blocking effective measures from within.

Pattern: political capture ranges from direct campaign finance and donor status to long-term institutional agreements that embed alcohol promotion into state functions and foreign policy.

4. Protecting Marketing, Sponsorship, and Visibility

A separate cluster of cases concerns resistance to bans of alcohol advertising, sponsorship, and promotion:

France’s “advertising ban circumvention” case illustrates how alcohol industry giant AB InBev used an Olympic Games sponsorship to bypass the national alcohol advertising ban and secure high-visibility promotion.
In South Africa, “opposition to advertising ban” describes the industry’s attack on the Liquor Amendment Bill, which would outlaw alcohol advertising, sponsorship, and promotion across media and events, supported by allied organisations and misleading narratives.
In Scotland, “opposition to alcohol pricing and marketing regulation” highlights how whisky and beer producers have used political leverage to resist minimum unit pricing and improved alcohol marketing standards.

These cases demonstrate that wherever governments seek to protect people, particularly children and youth, from pervasive alcohol marketing, Big Alcohol mobilises forcefully to defend its ability to shape brand recognition, perpetuate harmful social norms, and reinforce alcohol as a desirable even essential product.

Pattern: alcohol marketing standards and initiatives to improve those are attacked both directly (lobbying against bans and regulation) and indirectly (using sponsorships, sports events, and “responsibility” messaging to keep brands visible and normalise alcohol use).

5. Self-Regulation and “Responsibility”: A Substitute for Real Policy

The “self-regulation and ‘responsibility’ campaign” case in South Africa exemplifies another consistent tactic: offering voluntary measures and behaviour-focused messaging as alternatives to evidence-based statutory regulation.

Big Alcohol combines such campaigns and narratives with additional tactics, such as:

“Opposition to social norm changes” at the global level, where companies launch campaigns to compete with or counter initiatives such as Dry January or Sober October.
“Moderate consumption alliance” in Mexico, where industry-linked platforms present themselves as neutral promoters of “moderation” while defending commercial interests.

These cases show a strategic pattern: promoting individual “responsibility”, “moderation”, and self-regulation while the alcohol industry is dependent on heavy and high-risk alcohol consumption for major parts of their profits to divert attention from structural drivers of harm and to pre-empt or dilute effective public policy.

Pattern: voluntary measures and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are repeatedly offered as substitutes for evidence-based regulation, allowing continued marketing and brand building.

6. Controlling Knowledge and Narratives: “Industry Report Reframes Harm” and “Fueling Misinformation”

Multiple cases fall under titles such as “industry report reframes harm” and “fueling misinformation”:

In Mexico, the Philippines, and Uganda, alcohol industry-linked reports downplay the urgency of alcohol harm, misrepresent trends, or frame the issue in ways that distract from rising harm among young people and the need for accelerated and urgent alcohol policy action.
Globally, studies document how the alcohol industry fuels misinformation and provides biased health information, including through industry-funded education programmes in universities and schools.

Related cases include “corporate capture of science” in the United States, where industry pressure and political donations have interfered with independent research on alcohol and cancer and debates around the U.S. dietary guidelines.

These examples show that Big Alcohol does not only lobby against specific laws; it systematically shapes the knowledge environment, influencing what is considered credible evidence and how the public perceives alcohol risks, harms, and the need for population-level policy action.

Pattern: interference is not only at the legislative level; it extends into the knowledge ecosystem, compromising what counts as “evidence” in policy debates; there is a consistent attempt to dilute, delay, or reframe health information, deceive about alcohol policy effects, and keep people in the dark about the risks and harms inherent in the products and practices of alcohol companies; the alcohol industry consistently attempts to insert pro-industry content into education, awareness, and even policy initiatives.

7. Availability and Product Regulation: From Sachet Bans to Megastores

Several cases address the physical availability of alcohol and the regulation of high-risk products.

In Nigeria, “opposition to sachet ban” illustrates coordinated campaigns to keep extremely cheap and harmful alcohol formats on the market, using exaggerated claims about job losses and economic fallout.
In Australia, the “alcohol megastore push” demonstrates efforts to place large outlets in the centre of vulnerable Aboriginal communities despite clear evidence of harm.
In the United Kingdom, expanding evidence of “regulatory capture in alcohol licensing” shows how government proposals to dilute licensing standards were shaped in close consultation with alcohol industry lobbyists, undermining democratic oversight and local protections. This interference demonstrates that the industry targets not only major national policies but also the everyday regulatory mechanisms that shape alcohol availability in communities. Together, these cases show how industry actors resist any reform – even when they are safety-related – that would improve oversight, reduce availability, or curb harmful commercial practices.

These cases reinforce the picture that placing common sense limits on alcohol availability, especially those affecting the cheapest and riskiest products, are key targets of alcohol interference – even when such policy initiatives seek to protect the health and rights of the most vulnerable people and communities, such as children and youth in Nigeria and Aboriginal communities in Australia.

Pattern: the alcohol industry fights measures that would reduce wide availability of the cheapest, most high-risk products or limit outlet density, especially when they affect marginalised communities.

8. Undermining Oversight, Monitoring, and Environmental Protections

Several cases show how the alcohol industry routinely obstructs oversight systems that would strengthen transparency, accountability, and public protection.

In Kenya, “opposition to environmental standards” illustrates resistance to basic bottle-recycling regulations, demonstrating how even environmental measures are contested when they affect packaging, logistics, or production costs.
In Brazil, “opposition to monitoring system” reveals alcohol industry efforts to block the reinstatement of a state-run production and tax oversight mechanism – despite its potential for improving traceability and responding to crises such as methanol contamination.

Instead of supporting effective oversight, tracking and tracing, and environmental protections, companies promoted self-regulation that would reduce scrutiny and limit enforcement capacity.

These cases highlight a consistent pattern: alcohol industry actors resist any regulatory mechanism – environmental, fiscal, or safety-related – that increases oversight of their operations. This interference shows that protecting public health requires robust and fit-for-purpose monitoring and governance systems, which the industry views as strategic threats to its commercial interests.

Pattern: wherever monitoring and oversight systems threaten tax compliance or expose product risks, the alcohol industry lobbies to replace state control with self-regulation; environmental and sustainability language is used selectively, not consistently.

9. Global and Multilevel: The Same Playbook Across All Arenas

Finally, the mapping shows that alcohol industry interference takes place at every level of governance:

Local and subnational (for example, New Mexico’s “tax increase opposition” case).
National (numerous cases of tax opposition, policy capture, and advertising ban resistance across countries in Africa, the Americas, Europe, and the Western Pacific).
Regional (European Union wine subsidy protection and “misleading ‘low-alcohol’ classification”).
Global (United Nations “corporate capture of policy” and global cases of “fueling misinformation,” “opposition to social norm changes,” and “Zero Alcohol Products as Trojan horse”).

Across these different levels, the same core categories recur: tax increase opposition, illicit trade scare, corporate capture of policy and science, reframing harm, and resistance to social norm change. This confirms that the alcohol industry operates as a transnational political actor with a coherent global strategy.

The pattern is clear: Big Alcohol does not act only where law is made; it also targets agenda-setting spaces (UN, EU, OECD-type debates) and the knowledge ecosystem to pre-empt evidence-based, high-impact alcohol policies down the line.

The Path Forward: Safeguards, Integrity, Transparency, Accountability

The global mapping of 50 cases in just the past two years highlights that alcohol industry interference is not a marginal issue. It is the most central barrier to implementing the most effective, evidence-based alcohol policies and to achieving global health and development targets.

To protect public interest decision-making, several steps are critical:

Robust conflict-of-interest safeguards in all alcohol-related policy processes, at national, regional, and global levels.
Mandatory transparency of lobbying and political finance, including comprehensive registers of meetings, political donations, and alcohol industry involvement in policy development (when this cannot be avoided).
Independent monitoring by civil society and academia to document interference, expose misinformation, and support accountable governance.
Clear rules separating public health policy from industry-led partnerships, especially in areas like public health, women’s rights, road safety, education, and social norm-change campaigns.
Protection of scientific integrity through rules that limit industry influence over research agenda setting, funding, and dissemination.

These measures are essential to help governments close the implementation gap between alcohol policy commitments and action.

A Global Binding Treaty to Curb Transnational Interference

However, the evidence from these 50 cases also shows that national efforts alone are important but need cross-border and international support. The same multinational alcohol corporations, trade associations, and front groups operate across borders, deploying identical tactics in different jurisdictions. This pattern mirrors the experience with the tobacco industry and underlines the need for a global binding treaty on alcohol, comparable in ambition to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

Such a global alcohol treaty could:

Establish binding standards to protect public policy from alcohol industry interference, including clear conflict-of-interest provisions.
Limit and define appropriate engagement with alcohol industry actors, if it cannot be avoided.
Strengthen transparency requirements around lobbying, political donations, and participation in international forums.
Provide legal back-up and solidarity for countries facing intense lobbying when adopting effective alcohol policies, especially taxation, advertising bans, and common sense limits on availability.
Support global coordination in countering corporate misinformation and ensuring that international guidance and agreements are free from commercial influence.

Given the scale and coherence of the interference patterns documented in this mapping, a global treaty is clearly a necessary tool to safeguard national alcohol policy initiatives from powerful multinational lobby machines.

Confronting Interference to Advance Health, Rights, and Policy Progress

The 50 cases compiled and analysed by Movendi International offer compelling evidence that alcohol industry interference is widespread, coordinated, and systematically aimed at diluting, delaying, and derailing the most effective alcohol policy solutions. From “tax increase opposition” and “illicit trade scare” tactics, to “corporate capture of policy,” “industry report reframes harm,” and “fueling misinformation,” the same strategies appear in country after country, across all regions and levels of governance.

This novel analysis also documents alcohol industry opposition to the SAFER and RESET initiatives that seek to support governments and civil society in improving alcohol policies to achieve health and development progress.

As governments strive to deliver on the WHO Global Alcohol Action Plan, the SDGs, and commitments to prevent non-communicable diseases and promote mental health, this global pattern of interference explains why progress remains slow despite overwhelming evidence about what works. Effective solutions exist; implementation is what is Big Alcohol is systematically obstructing.

Recognising and exposing alcohol industry interference is therefore not a side issue but a central task in advancing public health, human rights, and social justice. By strengthening safeguards, increasing transparency and accountability, and supporting independent monitoring, governments, civil society, and academia can begin to reclaim policy space from commercial interests.

Alcohol harm is preventable. Millions of lives, livelihoods, and futures could be improved through evidence-based alcohol policies. What stands in the way is now clearer than ever: a ruthless global industry using a unified playbook to protect profits at the expense of people’s health and well-being. Confronting this interference is a prerequisite for meaningful progress towards a healthier, more equitable, and more just world.

Annex: Detailed Country Case Library of Alcohol Industry Interference

Brazil

Opposition to alcohol tax increase

Creating the parliamentary beer front
Attack on annual inflation adjustment of alcohol tax
Pollution of the discourse with industry-commissioned data
False claims on pricing

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/a-landmark-victory-for-public-health-brazils-tax-reform-targets-alcohol-and-other-harmful-products/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/media-snapshot/alcohol-industry-attempts-to-spark-beer-price-debate-in-brazil/

Canada

Alcohol lobby hijacks public policy debate

Opposition to annual alcohol tax inflation adjustment (framed as “undemocratic”)

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/canadas-alcohol-lobby-hijacks-public-debate/

European Union

Subsidy for wine industry

People are increasingly rejecting wine consumption leading to excess production and unsold products
European Commission grants subsidy to faltering wine industry

Link: https://movendi.ngo/blog/2025/04/07/a-subsidy-that-shocks-exposing-the-eus-wine-paradox/

Kenya

Alcohol industry fights environmental legislation

Opposition to legislation that would regulate glass bottle recycling to protect the environment

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/alcohol-industry-in-kenya-hypocrisy-exposed-as-abak-fights-environmental-legislation/

Mexico

Increasing lobbying pressures

Buying influence: Billion dollar “investment”

Big Alcohol In Disguise: How Mexico’s New “Moderate Consumption” Alliance Follows Big Alcohol’s Playbook

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/constellation-brands-buys-influence-in-mexico-with-billion-dollar-investment/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/news-stories/big-alcohol-in-disguise-how-mexicos-new-moderate-consumption-alliance-follows-big-alcohols-playbook/

New Zealand

Corporate capture of alcohol policy

Interference against FASD preventionHalting development of low-risk alcohol use guidelinesOpposition to alcohol levyNew Zealand Government Goes Through With Pro-Big Alcohol Law ChangesWhy It’s Time to Exclude Big Alcohol From Public Policy Making

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/big-alcohol-captures-health-policy-in-new-zealand-internal-files-show-corporate-access-pressure-and-policy-dilution/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/news-stories/new-zealand-government-documents-reveal-shocking-alcohol-industry-interference/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/news-stories/new-zealand-why-its-time-to-exclude-big-alcohol-from-public-policy-making/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/policy-updates/2025/09/03/new-zealand-government-goes-through-with-pro-big-alcohol-law-changes/

Nigeria

Opposition to sachet ban

coordinated interference campaign from the alcohol industry. The opposition is not organic. It is manufactured, organised, and strategically amplified by actors with direct commercial interests in keeping cheap alcohol widely accessibleclaim that 5.5 million jobs are at risk if sachet alcohol is withdrawn is wildly exaggerated – and notably they have provided no methodology or explanation for how they arrived at that number

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/alcohol-industry-uses-inflated-job-claims-and-fake-civil-society-to-derail-nigerias-sachet-ban/

Scotland

Opposition to alcohol pricing and marketing regulation

Revelations About Big Alcohol Lobbying Spark Community Concerns in Scotland

Whisky and beer producers have used their political leverage to oppose measures like minimum unit pricing (MUP) and more comprehensive alcohol marketing rules

Link: https://movendi.ngo/policy-updates/2024/10/09/revelations-about-big-alcohol-lobbying-spark-community-concerns-in-scotland/

Uganda

Big Alcohol’s Campaign to Block Uganda’s Life-Saving Tax Initiative

Fearmongering beer prices could rise by up to 40% if the government’s tax reforms
A 500ml bottle of beer currently selling at UGX 3,500 would rise by about UGX 125, leading to a 3.6% price increase – not 40%.

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/exposing-the-lies-big-alcohols-campaign-to-block-ugandas-life-saving-tax-initiative/

United Kingdom

10-Year Health Plan Is Gift to Big Alcohol, Fails Needs of British People

Master Manipulators: Exposing Big Alcohol Lobbying in Scottish and British Parliaments
Alcohol Policy Evaluation Hearings in both the Scottish and British Parliaments, alcohol industry participation drew widespread criticism and scrutiny
UK government has quietly abandoned key alcohol policy measures like minimum unit pricing and advertising restrictions – under pressure from alcohol industry lobbyists

Link: https://movendi.ngo/policy-updates/2025/07/07/britain-10-year-health-plan-is-gift-to-big-alcohol-fails-needs-of-british-people/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/policy-updates/2024/03/18/master-manipulators-exposing-big-alcohol-lobbying-in-scottish-and-british-parliaments/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/news-stories/alcohol-industry-lobbying-leads-to-uk-government-rejection-of-evidence-based-alcohol-policy/

USA

Lobbyig spending pays off

The alcohol industry spent $541 million on lobbying in period between 1998 and 2020 in U.S.
Alcohol industry spending on lobbying was the lowest in 1998, and has steadily increased over time
60% of the top 25 alcohol companies in the U.S. engage in lobbying, together they accounted for 90% of total spending on lobbying by the alcohol industry

Link: https://movendi.ngo/science-digest/novel-insights-into-big-alcohols-lobbying-footprint-in-the-united-states/

USA

Attack on science to undermine dietary guidelines

U.S. Congress members push to halt a federal health study on alcohol’s harmful effects
White House and Industry Allies Suppress Landmark Study on Alcohol and Cancerfight over 2025 Dietary Guidelines and health risks of “benefits” of alcohol

Link: https://movendi.ngo/policy-updates/2024/10/18/exposed-some-u-s-congress-members-interfere-against-independent-alcohol-research/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/news-stories/white-house-and-industry-allies-suppress-landmark-study-on-alcohol-and-cancer/

Viet Nam

Attempt to delay alcohol tax increase

Delay and deceive tactics

Link: https://movendi.ngo/policy-updates/2025/04/29/vietnam-alcohol-excise-tax-increase-risks-getting-delayed-until-2027/

United Nations

Interference against NCDs and Mental Health Political Declaration addressing alcohol as risk factor

Attack on best buys
Attack on “no safe level”
Big Alcohol’s Deception at the UN: How the IARD Hijacked a Global Health Forum to Spread Lies

Link: https://bigalcohol.exposed/profit-before-health-big-alcohols-grip-on-the-u-n-ncd-process/

Link: https://movendi.ngo/blog/2025/05/15/big-alcohols-deception-at-the-un-how-the-iard-hijacked-a-global-health-forum-to-spread-lies/

Worldwide

Alcohol industry as vector of misinformation

Link: https://movendi.ngo/science-digest/new-study-exposes-big-alcohols-pollution-pathway-from-fueling-misinformation-to-harm/