Guest Blog by Emil Juslin, Director of Advocacy at IOGT-NTO
Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, and the following BECA report in the European Parliament were initially groundbreaking initiatives on European alcohol policy. For the first time, a clear encompassing mandate had been given to prioritise health policy and to adopt EU legislation to prevent alcohol consumption as a key cancer risk factor.
However, the ambitious measures initially proposed were systematically weakened by the alcohol industry’s lobbying efforts. This influence, exercised through well-connected advocacy groups and strategic framing, significantly altered the plan’s outcomes, turning a potential milestone for public health into a diluted compromise.
In the thesis Addressing Health Hazards or Promoting Commercial Interests? I explore the history of EU alcohol policy and try to explain why an ambitious initial plan like the BECA report in the end became a watered-down document.
Why Is The EU So Far Behind in Evidence-Based Alcohol Policy?
To fully understand how EU alcohol policy is shaped, it is important to understand the history. The EU, since its foundation, has always been an organisation centred around trade and commercial interests. While the EU now aims to be an all-encompassing organisation, its history does affect its ability to do so. Many structures, policy processes and policy evaluations are built based on how to ensure increased trade and sales. Similarly, most established metrics for policy success are primarily commercial.
This has made policy progress in fields that have other values difficult. Especially in policy areas where the profit interest of the industry is in opposition to the public good (some examples are Tobacco, alcohol and environmental questions).
The Alcohol Industry’s Well-Oiled Lobbying Machine
Due to these foundations, the alcohol industry operates a highly organized lobbying network within the EU, leveraging its economic and cultural clout. The industry both has a wide network of actors working in their favour, such as larger trade organisations. It also often has a strong support in the agricultural branches of the EU, such as the Directorate-General for Agriculture in the EU Commission. This gives the industry strong opportunity to shape policy, as well as to mobilise allies when policy that does not align with their interests appear.
While the channels of the industry are many, I think two are especially interesting to discuss since these were especially relevant in undermining the BECA report in the European Parliament – the European Parliament Beer Club and the Intergroup on Wine, Spirits, and Quality Foodstuff. These informal groups provide industry actors with direct access to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), shaping legislative debates and decision-making.
- European Parliament Beer Club: Ostensibly a networking platform, the Beer Club fosters close ties between MEPs and representatives from the brewing industry. Its events often emphasize beer’s cultural and economic significance, creating a narrative that aligns with the industry’s interests.
- Intergroup on Wine, Spirits, and Foodstuff: This group actively promotes wine and spirits as integral to European heritage and agriculture. Its framing positions the alcohol industry as a key contributor to rural development and cultural preservation, deflecting attention from how alcohol consumption causes harm.
These groups serve as conduits for industry actors to engage with policymakers, ensuring their priorities are heard and integrated into policy discussions.
The strategies of alcohol industry to weaken the EU Beating Cancer Plan and the BECA report in the European Parliament
The Cancer Plan became a unique moment in the history of EU health policymaking. It is, in many ways, the first time the alcohol industry was seriously challenged in the EU sphere. Therefore, it offers important insight into how the industry tries to influence policy to defend its profit interest.
Strategic Framing: Shifting the Narrative from health to commercial profit
One of the most common tools in the alcohol industry’s lobbying arsenal is to try and control the narrative. This was done in several different ways, for example:
- Undermining the societal impact of alcohol consumption: Framing alcohol-related harm as an issue of “harmful consumption” rather than total consumption, the industry shifts the focus to individual behaviour rather than systemic regulation. This narrative undermines population-level interventions, such as stricter labelling and taxation, which are proven to reduce alcohol-related harm.
- Shifting the focus from health: Another common strategy observed was to try and shift the focus towards the economic and cultural impact of wine. This was done so frequently that one parliamentarian expressed “I am amazed to see members of the house here promoting the winegrowing industry when we are actually discussing cancer prevention here today” during the debate of the cancer plan in the parliament.
- Pushing policy decisions to favourable arenas: Another strategy the industry often used, and that appeared in cancer plan discussions as well, was to try and shift policy discussions to arenas that favour them. In the EU context, this often means attempts to push alcohol policy to agricultural committees and working groups where the support for the industry is stronger.
However, this can also be seen at a larger scale. The alcohol industry often opposed the Irish health warning labels with arguments that “Ireland should await the EU progress and not go forward themselves”. I would say this is a similar strategy since the industry are aware that their opportunity to stop, or weaken, legislation is stronger in the EU than in Ireland due its history of favouring commercial interest first. Therefore, attempts are made to push a policy item to the more favourable arena/political organisation.
- Diluting Health Warnings: The industry’s lobbying efforts transformed the initial proposal for mandatory health warnings into a flawed call for “responsible and moderate drinking” messaging. This is a common strategy from the industry to avoid clear warnings on how alcohol affects health.
- Opposing the ‘No Safe Level’ Claim: Industry groups aggressively challenged the WHO-backed assertion that no level of alcohol consumption is safe for cancer prevention. They dismissed this scientific consensus as “ideological” and instead emphasized industry-backed studies suggesting potential health benefits of moderate drinking. This strategy sowed doubt among policymakers and weakened public health messaging.
Tactical Interventions in Policy Development
However, the alcohol industry’s influence extended beyond narrative framing to direct interventions during the policy-making process:
- Influencing the BECA Report: The BECA (Beating Cancer) Committee of the European Parliament initially aligned with public health advocates, supporting proven measures to reduce alcohol-related harm, such as health warnings and tighter restrictions on alcohol marketing. However, industry lobbying resulted in significant amendments:
- The phrase “no safe level of alcohol consumption” with the phrase “the safest alcohol consumption is none”. A small change, but that indicates a false claim that there are other safe levels.
- Health warnings were reframed as “responsible drinking” information.
- Proposals for a ban on alcohol sponsorship in sports were watered down to target only events predominantly attended by minors. An intervention that has been proven to be both difficult to implement and ineffective.
These changes were achieved through lobbying of Members of the European Parliament (MEP:S), mainly through the two informal groups mentioned earlier. Leading MEP: s from both groups were the parliamentarians who tabled the amendments for the vote.
- Stalling Agricultural Promotion Reforms: The cancer plan proposed a review of the EU’s agricultural promotion programs, which heavily subsidize wine and other alcoholic products. Industry groups, particularly those representing wine producers in France and Italy, argued that removing alcohol from these programs would harm rural economies and erode cultural heritage. This review has since stalled and remains incomplete.
- Delaying Labelling Requirements: Proposals to mandate clear, on-package ingredient and nutritional labelling for alcoholic beverages faced pushback, with the industry advocating for digital labelling alternatives. While public consultations have occurred, implementation has been delayed.
A Network of Influence: Beyond Industry Groups
The alcohol industry’s success in undermining the cancer plan also stemmed from its ability to mobilize allied stakeholders:
- Member States: Wine-producing countries like France, Italy, and Spain acted as key allies for the industry, using their influence to resist public health measures on alcohol. This has also been observed at other times, for instance when Italy openly opposed Ireland’s introduction of health warnings on alcohol, citing potential disruptions to the single market.
- Allied Trade Associations: Broader agricultural and trade organizations joined the industry coalition, reinforcing their arguments.
Lessons Learned: Combating Alcohol Industry Influence in the EU
The alcohol industry’s lobbying during the cancer plan demonstrates how entrenched commercial interests can derail public health initiatives. To prevent future missed opportunities, the EU must address systemic vulnerabilities that allow industry groups to dominate health policy:
- Exclude The Alcohol Industry from Health Policymaking: The most important lesson is that the industry must be excluded from public health policy altogether. The tobacco industry would not be allowed to discuss health taxes on tobacco, similarly the alcohol industry should be seen with the same scrutiny.
- Strengthen Public Health Advocacy: Public health coalitions need greater institutional and financial support to compete with well-funded industry campaigns.
- Prioritize Evidence-Based Policy: EU institutions must resist attempts by the industry to undermine scientific consensus, ensuring health policies are informed by robust evidence rather than industry narratives.
Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan was a rare opportunity to align EU alcohol policy with public health priorities. Instead, it became a case study in how powerful lobbying networks can dilute transformative initiatives. If the EU is to protect its citizens from preventable harm, it must recalibrate its approach to ensure that health, not profits, guides its policies.
