Skip to main content
NCBI home page
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 7.
Published in final edited form as: N Engl J Med. 2025 May 1;392(17):1752–1759. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2413289

The IARC Perspective on the Effects of Alcohol Policies on Reducing Alcoholic Beverage Consumption

Susan M Gapstur 1, Daniela Mariosa 1, Luciana Neamtiu 1, Suzanne T Nethan 1, Jürgen Rehm 2, Taisia Huckle 3, David H Jernigan 4, Elizabeth A O’Connor 5, Mindaugas Štelemėkas 6, Peter Allebeck 7, Sawitri Assanangkornchai 8, Nicholas Carah 9, Surasak Chaiyasong 10, Samantha Cukier 11, The Son Dao 12, Rijo M John 13, Richard Matzopoulos 14,15, Petra S Meier 16, Paula O’Brien 17, Guillermo Paraje 18, Robin Room 19, Claire Wilkinson 20, Norman D Maldonado 21, Tim Stockwell 22, Maria Neufeld 23, Dag Rekve 24, Béatrice Lauby-Secretan 1
PMCID: PMC12331238  NIHMSID: NIHMS2059844  PMID: 40305721

INTRODUCTION

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified alcoholic beverages as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on sufficient evidence of causality for seven types of cancer (oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colorectum, female breast).1 Globally, an estimated 741,300 (4.1%) new cancer cases in 2020 were attributable to alcohol consumption.2 In addition to cancer, alcohol consumption is a risk factor for numerous other health conditions.

The IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Program developed a two-part volume (20A and 20B) on the primary prevention of alcohol-related cancers (Figure 1).5

Figure 1. Schema for the development of IARC Handbooks Volumes 20A and 20B.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

This figure is updated from IARC Handbooks Volume 20A.5 Panel A shows the two-step evaluative framework from which, for scientific reasons, the level of evidence that an intervention prevents cancer is established by way of an intermediate outcome, as described in the IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Preamble for Primary Prevention.4 In this framework, the intermediate outcome is defined as a change in exposure (decrease in exposure to an established cancer risk factor or increase in exposure to a cancer-preventive factor). In Step 1, the effect of a specified intervention on the intermediate outcome is evaluated. In Step 2, the effect of the intermediate outcome on cancer incidence in humans is evaluated. If it has not yet been established in authoritative sources that the intermediate outcome reduces cancer incidence in humans, Step 2 is conducted before Step 1. Panel B shows the development of IARC Handbooks Volumes 20A and 20B. Because the evidence that reduction or cessation of alcohol consumption reduces cancer incidence in humans had not been evaluated before, such evidence was reviewed and evaluated first.5 Then, the evidence that selected population-level alcohol policy interventions reduce alcohol consumption was reviewed and evaluated (IARC Handbooks Volume 20B, in preparation).

There is sufficient evidence that, compared with continuing consumption, reduction or cessation of alcoholic beverage consumption reduces risk of oral and esophageal cancers, and sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that cessation of alcohol consumption reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis (volume 20A).5,6

For Volume 20B, a Working Group reviewed and qualitatively evaluated the strength of the evidence on the potential for select alcohol policy interventions to reduce alcohol consumption (Figure). The interventions evaluated were selected because their implementation aims to reduce consumption at the national or subnational level, which has been shown to effectively reduce alcohol-attributable harms.7 In addition, the evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare-based interventions to reduce alcohol consumption is summarized but not evaluated, because they target individuals and their potential population-level effects on consumption are not usually measured. However, a robust body of evidence supports the use of screening, brief interventions,8 and longer-term psychosocial therapies,9 which may be combined with pharmacotherapy,10 to increase abstinence rates and improve other outcomes among individuals with alcohol use disorders. The key findings for Volume 20B are summarized herein.

GENERAL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Only published studies with empirical data on selected alcohol policy interventions in relation to change in alcohol consumption – defined here as the sum of at least the three major alcoholic beverage types (i.e., beer, wine, and spirits) or each of those three types separately – were included (Table 1). The studies described below are those that provide the strongest evidence and/or geographical diversity. Unless otherwise specified, change in alcohol consumption refers to a change (or average difference) over time due to a restrictive or permissive alcohol policy intervention in (1) total or recorded average annual per capita consumption or sales in population-level studies, or (2) self-reported daily consumption in individual-level studies. In studies where the outcome in a regression model was expressed as the logarithm of alcohol consumption, the Working Group calculated the estimated percentage change due to the intervention.11

Table 1.

Assessment of the Strength of the Evidence of Selected Alcohol Policies in Relation to Alcoholic Beverage Consumption

Alcohol Policy Number and Type of Studies Strength of the Evidence*
Tax and Price Policies
 Excise and sales tax 4 Studies with population-level data
2 Studies with individual-level data
1 Study with both population-level and individual-level data		 Sufficient
 Minimum pricing 4 Studies with population-level data
6 Studies with individual-level data		 Sufficient
 Bans on discounts 1 Study with population-level data
2 Studies with individual-level data		 Inadequate
Availability Policies
 Outlet density (n=6†) 8 Studies with population-level data (6 used proxy outcomes‡)
1 Study with individual-level data		 Sufficient
 Days or hours of sale (n=4†) Days of sale
2 Studies with population-level data
4 Studies with individual-level data
Hours of sale
4 Studies with population-level data
1 Study with individual-level data		 Sufficient
 Minimum purchase or drinking age (n=10†) 5 Studies with population-level data
9 Studies with individual-level data		 Sufficient
 Total bans on sales 7 Studies with population-level data§ (5 used proxy outcomes‡)
2 Studies with individual-level dataǁ 		Sufficient
Marketing Policies
 Strong alcohol marketing bans 4 Studies with population-level data Sufficient
Coordinated Multiple Alcohol Policy Interventions Government monopolies
10 Studies with population-level data
2 Studies with individual-level data
1 Study with both population-level and individual-level data
Other coordinated multiple alcohol policy interventions
7 Studies with population-level data
3 Studies with individual-level data		 Sufficient
Open in a new tab
*

According to the criteria described in the IARC Handbooks Preamble for Primary Prevention,4 “sufficient evidence” indicates that a causal preventive association between the intervention and alcohol consumption (i.e., the intermediate outcome) in humans has been established; “limited evidence” indicates that a causal preventive association between the intervention and alcohol consumption in humans is plausible; and “inadequate evidence” indicates that the current body of evidence does not enable a conclusion to be drawn about the presence or absence of a preventive association between the intervention and alcohol consumption in humans.

†

n indicates the number of studies that assessed a permissive policy change (i.e., increased outlet density, increased days or hours of sales, decreased minimum purchase and drinking age).

‡

Proxy outcomes for alcohol consumption included deaths (or mortality rates) from alcohol poisoning, liver cirrhosis, or injury; incidence rates of (or a proximity index to) violent crime or assault; rates of trauma hospital admission, and total alcohol-related hospital admission or mortality rates.

§

In one study, alcohol consumption was estimated using liver cirrhosis or alcoholism mortality rates, first hospital admission for alcoholic psychosis per capita, and drunk arrest rates.

ǁ

In one study, alcohol consumption was reported at the time of the survey and recalled before the intervention.

All 13 studies assessed the weakening or dissolution of a government alcohol monopoly.

Exceptionally, for alcohol policy interventions with a paucity of studies with alcohol consumption outcomes, studies using proxy outcomes for alcohol consumption (e.g., liver cirrhosis mortality) were included if an association with alcohol consumption was previously established.

Several general methodological issues were considered when assessing study quality. These issues include control for important confounding factors (e.g., income), inclusion of appropriate control groups or jurisdictions, and in individual-level studies, evaluation of differential sampling, non-response, or reporting of alcohol consumption.

TAX AND PRICE POLICIES

Taxes, minimum pricing, and bans or other restrictions on price promotions or quantity discounts are recommended interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm.3 Studies were included if the policy intervention was on the tax or price of at least one major alcoholic beverage type (i.e., beer, wine, or spirits). For tax specific policies, only studies that controlled for income or its proxies were included to ensure that the effect of the tax on consumption reflects the true net effect by accounting for affordability of alcohol.

Alcohol taxes in relation to alcohol consumption were assessed in seven studies. Increases in alcohol taxes were consistently associated with reductions in alcohol consumption or sales. The magnitude of the effect varied by context and by tax policy. In one of the most informative studies, a 2009 excise tax increase (21% for beer and 90% each for wine and spirits) in Illinois, USA, led to a greater decrease in monthly total ethanol purchases between the 24 months before and the 24 months after the tax increase compared with other USA states (−6.4%; P<0.05 among heavy-drinking households, and −5.0%; P<0.05 among higher-income households).12 Similarly, a 2011 alcoholic beverage sales 50% tax increase in Maryland, USA, led to a reduction in monthly per capita alcohol sales (−3.78%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.82% to −2.74%).13 The effect of the 2008–2009 Australian 70% excise tax increase on ready-to-drink beverages was assessed using annual individual-level data from 2002 through 2018;14 in a difference-in-difference model, by 2018, an 8.89% (P<0.001) reduction in average daily number of drinks consumed was observed. These results are supported by definitive evidence that an increase in taxation is passed through to prices and the ensuing increase in alcohol prices reduces alcohol consumption.15 The Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that increases in alcohol taxes that increase prices lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

Minimum pricing policies — which include a minimum unit price (floor price for a fixed volume of alcohol) or a minimum price (floor price for a finished product) — in relation to alcohol consumption have been assessed in 10 studies conducted in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK). Most studies assessed the May 2018 implementation of a minimum price of 50 pence per UK unit of alcohol in Scotland, UK; in the most recent, well-controlled population-level study, a net reduction (−3%; 95% CI, −4.2 to −1.8%) in total per adult alcohol sales was noted after 3 years of implementation.16 In an individual-level study of the same intervention, a 7.6% (P<0.05) decrease in grams of ethanol per adult per household purchased weekly was observed after 8 months of implementation.17 Overall, a reduction in alcohol consumption was consistently observed in studies that used different designs, analytical approaches, and sociodemographically defined groups. Therefore, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that minimum pricing leads to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

Bans on alcohol discounts in relation to alcohol consumption were assessed in three studies, all of which assessed the same 2011 partial ban on multibuy discount of off-premises alcohol in Scotland, UK. In a study with population-level data, the ban led to a decrease (−1.7%; 95% CI, −3.1% to −0.3%) in off-premises per capita alcohol sales volume.18 In one study with individual-level data, an 8.6% (P<0.001) increase in weekly alcohol purchases was observed in the year after the ban,19 whereas in another study, which used overlapping data but different methods, no difference was observed between pre- and post-ban weekly alcohol purchases.20 Because of these inconsistencies, the Working Group concluded that there is inadequate evidence that bans on discounts of alcoholic beverages lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

AVAILABILITY POLICIES

When alcoholic beverages are readily available, consumption increases.7 Studies that assessed availability policies that regulate alcohol outlet density, days or hours of sale, minimum purchase or drinking age, or prohibit alcohol sales in relation to alcohol consumption or proxy outcomes were included.

Policies regulating alcohol outlet density in relation to alcohol consumption or proxy outcomes were assessed in nine studies; restrictive policies were assessed in three of these studies. For example, restricting retail sales of alcohol in one community was associated with an approximately 2-fold greater reduction (P not reported) in violent crimes after (2003–2007) compared with before (1997–2002) the intervention relative to comparison communities.21 In a study with population-level data (2007–2015) in England, UK, the strictest local alcohol licensing policies were associated with 5% lower (P<0.05) annual alcohol-related hospital admissions compared with no licensing policy.22 In most studies of policy changes that increased outlet density, increases in alcohol consumption, assault rates, alcohol-related deaths, or alcohol-related hospital admission rates were observed. Because high-quality studies showed an inverse association between restrictions on density and alcohol consumption or proxy outcomes, and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that restrictions on density of alcohol outlets lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

Six studies assessed alcohol policies regulating days of sale and five studies assessed policies regulating hours of sale in relation to alcohol consumption. All but one study were in high-income countries. In the only controlled trial, which was conducted from February 2000 to June 2001 in selected regions in Sweden, permitting alcohol sales on Saturdays in addition to weekdays increased average monthly per capita ethanol sales by 3.7% (P<0.001).23 In the largest individual-level study (using 2000–2019 annual surveys), state-level off-premises Sunday alcohol sales bans in the USA were associated with decreased alcohol consumption among women (−0.09 g ethanol per day; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.08) and men (−0.04 g ethanol per day; 95% CI, −0.05 to −0.03).24 In a study with population-level data from Australia (1901–2006), earlier closing of on-premises outlets was associated with lower consumption (−2.9 liters of ethanol per capita per year, 95% CI, −3.4 to −2.4).25 Overall, in all studies, changes or average differences over time in hours or days of sale were associated with consumption in the expected direction; several high-quality studies were included, and all studies included a control group or controlled for confounding factors. Therefore, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that restrictions on days or hours of sale lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

Minimum legal purchase or drinking age policies in relation to alcohol consumption were assessed in 10 studies in the USA and four studies in Europe or Canada. In most studies that assessed increases in minimum purchase or drinking age, reductions in alcohol consumption were observed. For example, in one study with population-level data (1961–2008) from five European countries, a 1-year increase in the minimum purchase age was associated with a decrease (−9.8%; 90% CI, −15.4% to −4.2%) in alcohol consumption.26 Similarly, the 1982 minimum purchase age increase from 18 to 19 years in New York, USA, was associated with a 21% (P<0.01) decrease in the prevalence of alcohol consumption among 18-year-old individuals.27 In most studies of decreases in minimum purchase or drinking age, observed associations with alcohol consumption were in the expected direction. Because the direction of the effects was consistent with the policy changes in most studies, the effect was observed on the specific age group targeted by the policy, and potential confounding by other alcohol availability policies was ruled out in the strongest studies, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that increases in the minimum legal alcohol purchase or drinking age leads to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

Total bans on alcohol sales in relation to alcohol consumption or proxy outcomes were assessed in nine studies. In one study, the 1920–1935 USA National Prohibition of alcohol led to an initial 70% decrease in alcohol consumption, which eventually plateaued at a 30% to 40% decrease relative to pre-Prohibition levels.28 In a study in India, among men, the 2015 alcohol sales ban in one state resulted in a decrease in the weekly prevalence of alcohol consumption from 15.0% in 2015–2016 to 7.8% in 2020–2021, but not in neighboring states without a ban (adjusted difference in the change in prevalence, −7.1 percentage points; 95% CI, −9.6 to −4.6).29 In all other studies, a ban on sales also was associated with substantially lower alcohol consumption, prevalence of hazardous drinking, alcohol-related mortality, injury-induced mortality, and trauma admission rates. Because consistently large effects were observed in all studies across a range of settings, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that bans on alcohol sales lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

MARKETING BANS

Exposure to and/or engagement with alcohol marketing generally increases alcohol consumption, and among youth, a causal association has been established.7 Approaches for regulating alcohol marketing range from no restrictions to industry self- or co-regulation, to partial restrictions, to comprehensive bans on all forms of alcohol marketing in all media types and for all alcoholic beverage types.30

We did not identify any informative studies that assessed comprehensive alcohol marketing bans in relation to alcohol consumption. However, we found four informative population-level studies of strong bans – defined here as bans on alcohol marketing in at least one major media type (i.e., print, broadcast, or outdoor) for all alcoholic beverage types. In a study in Norway (1960–2006), the 1975 ban on marketing in all media types for all beverages with an alcohol content >2.5% was associated with a 7.1% (P=0.002) reduction in alcohol consumption.31 In two studies, based on data from 20 (1970–1995) and 17 (1975–2000) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, average differences in alcohol consumption over time were compared between countries with and countries without strong bans.32,33 In one of these studies, a 1-unit increase in a “total alcohol advertising bans” score was associated with 8.6% (P<0.10) lower alcohol consumption.32 In the other study, bans on advertising in broadcast media for all alcoholic beverages except weak beer (~2.5% or less) were associated with 3.8% (P<0.05) lower alcohol consumption.33 The 14-month (September 1971–October 1972) strong alcohol marketing ban in one Canadian province resulted in no difference in alcohol consumption during the ban years (1971–1972) compared with the pre-ban years (1962–1970) (z=0.31, P>0.05), whereas consumption increased during the same time period in a comparable province without a ban (z=1.87, P<0.03).34 Because of the consistency of the evidence, the strength of the associations, and the fact that confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that strong bans on alcohol marketing lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

COORDINATED MULTIPLE ALCOHOL POLICY INTERVENTIONS

Coordinated multiple alcohol policy interventions are defined here as government alcohol monopolies or a set of interventions enacted and implemented as part of a national action plan to reduce alcohol-related harm.

Government alcohol monopolies are integrated into national structures that can impose high alcohol taxes, restrict or ban promotional pricing strategies, limit availability, and restrict or ban marketing.7 In recent decades, few government alcohol monopolies have been established. The weakening or dissolution of a government alcohol monopoly in relation to alcohol consumption was assessed in 13 studies. In a study with population-level data from Poland (1961–2008), dissolution of the government alcohol monopoly in 1990 was associated with a 9% (P<0.10) increase in alcohol consumption.35 In a study with individual-level data, the 2012 Washington, USA privatization of liquor stores was associated with a 26% (P<0.05) increase in off-premises monthly alcohol purchases per household.36 In most other studies, de-monopolization of retail sales of one or all alcoholic beverage types was associated with higher alcohol consumption or higher prevalence of heavy drinking.

Studies of other coordinated multiple alcohol policy interventions that were implemented as part of national action plans in Thailand, Russia, Estonia, and Lithuania suggest a beneficial effect of multiple interventions on reducing alcohol consumption or the rate of increase in consumption.7,37

Because the evidence from population-level and individual-level studies was consistent and confounding by income and other factors could be ruled out with reasonable confidence, the Working Group concluded that there is sufficient evidence that government monopolies or other coordinated multiple alcohol policy interventions lead to a reduction in alcoholic beverage consumption.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Alcoholic beverages are established human carcinogens1 and, compared with continuing consumption, reduction or cessation of alcoholic beverage consumption reduces oral cancer and esophageal cancer risk.5,6 Based on the evidence reviewed, the Working Group concluded that the following alcohol policy interventions lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption: interventions that increase taxes, minimum prices, minimum alcohol purchase or drinking age; interventions that reduce alcohol outlet density and days or hours of sale; strong alcohol marketing bans; total bans on sales; and government monopolies or other coordinated multiple alcohol policy interventions.

Several issues relevant to the evaluations must be considered. First, the studies of alcohol availability interventions and marketing bans are almost entirely based on data collected before the expansion of digital marketing and online purchasing, and their relevance to related interventions in the current digital era may have limits. Second, most studies were conducted in high-income countries, and the effectiveness of some interventions may differ in other settings. Third, the evaluations focused on the effectiveness of alcohol policy interventions; examining their potential unintended consequences might inform feasibility in specific contexts but should not detract from the proven public health benefits. Finally, to be more effective, any policy must be enacted, implemented, and enforced, which requires the involvement of many different governmental and non-governmental sectors.

In conclusion, a substantial body of evidence exists on the effects of alcohol policies in reducing alcohol-related harm.38 Our findings add to the available evidence on the potential for alcohol policy interventions to reduce the alcohol-attributable cancer burden.39 Furthermore, they support the recommended actions stated in the most recent WHO Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022–2030,40 which includes the “SAFER” initiative*, and emphasize high impact strategies and interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm worldwide.

Acknowledgements:

Harriet Rumgay, Ph.D., Lolita Alfred, Ph.D, Dzmitry Krupchanka, Ph.D, Benn McGrady, Ph.D., Jeremias Paul, M.S., Elisabet Ruiz Cairó, Ph.D., Michal Stoklosa, Ph.D., Tara Neville, M.Sc., Carina Ferreira-Borges, Ph.D., and Chonlathan Visaruthvong, Ph.D., provided scientific assistance revising existing text and tables, creating or adapting figures, and/or checking content for accuracy, and/or participated in subgroup and plenary meetings for IARC Handbooks Volume 20B.

Funding

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of their affiliated institutions.

Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization.

This publication has been produced with the financial support of the European Union (EU), the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NU58DP007177), and the American Cancer Society (contract # 92768 and # 99372). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU.

Footnotes

Before and during their participation, all Working Group members were required to provide Declarations of Interest. Upon review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, none of the interests declared by the Working Group members was considered to represent a potential or significant conflict of interest with respect to their activity for the work.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

*

Footnote

SAFER is an acronym for methods to reduce alcohol-related harm:

S-- Strengthen restrictions on alcohol availability A-- Advance and enforce drunk driving counter measures

F-- Facilitate access to screening, brief interventions and treatment

E-- Enforce bans or comprehensive restrictions on alcohol advertising, sponsorship, and promotion

R-- Raise prices on alcohol through excise taxes and pricing policies

References

  • 1.Personal habits and indoor combustions. Vol 100E of IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2012. (https://publications.iarc.fr/122). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rumgay H, Shield K, Charvat H, et al. Global burden of cancer in 2020 attributable to alcohol consumption: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:1071–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organization. Global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. 2010. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241599931). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Preamble for primary prevention. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, October 2019. (https://handbooks.iarc.fr/documents-handbooks/hb-preamble-primary-prevention.pdf). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Reduction or cessation of alcoholic beverage consumption. Vol 20A of IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2024. (https://publications.iarc.who.int/638). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gapstur SM, Bouvard V, Nethan ST, et al. The IARC Perspective on Alcohol Reduction or Cessation and Cancer Risk. N Engl J Med 2023;389:2486–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Babor TF, Casswell S, Graham K, et al. Alcohol: No ordinary commodity - research and public policy. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2023 [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beyer FR, Kenny RPW, Johnson E, et al. Practitioner and digitally delivered interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in people not seeking alcohol treatment: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Addiction 2023;118:17–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Magill M, Ray L, Kiluk B, et al. A meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral therapy for alcohol or other drug use disorders: Treatment efficacy by contrast condition. J Consult Clin Psychol 2019;87:1093–105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McPheeters M, O’Connor EA, Riley S, et al. Pharmacotherapy for Alcohol Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA 2023;330:1653–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pardoe I Applied regression modelling. 3rd ed. Hoboken (NJ), USA: Wiley, 2021 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Saffer H, Gehrsitz M, Grossman M. The effects of alcohol excise tax increases by drinking level and by income level. Cambridge MA, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022. Date. (NBER Working Paper Series. Working Paper 30097. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30097) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Esser MB, Waters H, Smart M, Jernigan DH. Impact of Maryland’s 2011 alcohol sales tax increase on alcoholic beverage sales. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2016;42:404–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Alexeev S, Weatherburn D. The Australian ready-to-drink beverages tax missed its target age group. Int J Drug Policy 2021;95:103399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Guindon GE, Zhao K, Fatima T, et al. Prices, taxes and alcohol use: a systematic umbrella review. Addiction 2022;117:3004–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Giles L, Mackay D, Richardson E, Lewsey J, Robinson M, Beeston C. Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) on alcohol sales after 3 years of implementation in Scotland: A controlled interrupted time-series study. Addiction 2024;119:1378–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.O’Donnell A, Anderson P, Jané-Llopis E, Manthey J, Kaner E, Rehm J. Immediate impact of minimum unit pricing on alcohol purchases in Scotland: controlled interrupted time series analysis for 2015–18. BMJ 2019;366:l5274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Robinson M, Geue C, Lewsey J, et al. Evaluating the impact of the alcohol act on off-trade alcohol sales: a natural experiment in Scotland. Addiction 2014;109:2035–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bokhari FAS, Dobson PW, Morciano M, Suhrcke M. Banning volume discounts to curb excessive consumption: a cautionary tale. European Economic Review 2023;156:104480. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nakamura R, Suhrcke M, Pechey R, Morciano M, Roland M, Marteau TM. Impact on alcohol purchasing of a ban on multi-buy promotions: a quasi-experimental evaluation comparing Scotland with England and Wales. Addiction 2014;109:558–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhang X, Hatcher B, Clarkson L, et al. Changes in density of on-premises alcohol outlets and impact on violent crime, Atlanta, Georgia, 1997–2007. Prev Chronic Dis 2015;12:E84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.de Vocht F, Heron J, Angus C, et al. Measurable effects of local alcohol licensing policies on population health in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 2016;70:231–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Norström T, Skog O-J. Saturday opening of alcohol retail shops in Sweden: an experiment in two phases. Addiction 2005;100:767–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kilian C, Lemp JM, Kerr WC, et al. Not everyone benefits equally from sunday alcohol sales bans: socioeconomic differences in alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable mortality. Int J Ment Health Addict 2024:1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dunt DR, Jiang H, Room R. Early closing of hotels: Impacts on alcohol consumption, drunkenness, liver disease and injury mortality. Drug Alcohol Rev 2024;43:491–500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Baccini M, Carreras G. Analyzing and comparing the association between control policy measures and alcohol consumption in Europe. Subst Use Misuse 2014;49:1684–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Williams TP, Lillis RP. Long-term changes in reported alcohol purchasing and consumption following an increase in New York State’s purchase age to 19. B J Addict 1988;83:209–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Miron JA, Zwiebel J. Alcohol consumption during prohibition. Am Econ Rev 1991;81:242–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chakrabarti S, Christopher A, Scott S, Kishore A, Nguyen PH. Effects of a large-scale alcohol ban on population-level alcohol intake, weight, blood pressure, blood glucose, and domestic violence in India: a quasi-experimental population-based study. Lancet Reg Health Southeast Asia 2024;26:100427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Esser MB, Jernigan DH. Policy Approaches for Regulating Alcohol Marketing in a Global Context: A Public Health Perspective. Annu Rev Public Health 2018;39:385–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rossow I The alcohol advertising ban in Norway: Effects on recorded alcohol sales. Drug Alcohol Rev 2021;40:1392–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Saffer H, Dave D. Alcohol consumption and alcohol advertising bans. Applied Economics 2002;34:1325–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Nelson JP. Alcohol advertising bans, consumption and control policies in seventeen OECD countries, 1975–2000. Applied Economics 2010;42:803–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Smart RG, Cutler RE. The alcohol advertising ban in British Columbia: problems and effects on beverage consumption. Br J Addict 1976;71:13–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Swiątkiewicz G, Wieczorek L, Allamani A. What influences changes in alcoholic beverage consumption over time? Poland in the light of the European Union Amphora study. Subst Use Misuse 2014;49:1601–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Barnett SBL, Coe NB, Harris JR, Basu A. Washington’s privatization of liquor: effects on household alcohol purchases from Initiative 1183. Addiction 2020;115:681–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health. 2018. (https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/en/). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.World Health Organization. Global status report on alcohol and health and treatment of substance use disorders. 2024. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240096745). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rovira P, Kilian C, Neufeld M, et al. Fewer Cancer Cases in 4 Countries of the WHO European Region in 2018 through Increased Alcohol Excise Taxation: A Modelling Study. Eur Addict Res 2021;27:189–97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.World Health Organization. Global action plan 2022–2030. 2024. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240090101). [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES