ABSTRACT
Introduction
No and low alcohol (NoLo) beverages have experienced significant industry expansion and may be a useful tool in reducing harmful alcohol consumption. However, there is scant research detailing their use and acceptability in the United States (US). The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of NoLo use patterns and to describe the use and motivation for use of NoLo products.
Methods
Data were collected using Prolific to recruit a sample (n = 1464) of US adults ≥ 21 years old. Participants completed a 30‐min survey about their experiences with NoLo beverages (e.g., if they ever tried them, motivation for use), current alcohol use, psychosocial factors and sociodemographic characteristics. Analyses comprised of descriptive statistics, bivariable comparisons and multivariable logistic regression models assessing factors associated with having ever tried NoLo (dichotomised).
Results
Three‐quarters of participants reported having tried NoLo beverages. Frequently reported motivations for NoLo consumption were to decrease alcohol consumption (45.5%), abstain from drinking (37.4%) and avoid the negative effects of alcohol (36.8%). Many sociodemographic factors were associated with having tried NoLo. Notably, people who reported moderate‐ or high‐risk alcohol consumption (AUDIT‐10; AOR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.4, 3.0) and people who had tried to quit drinking alcohol (AOR = 2.7, 95% CI 1.9, 3.7) had higher odds of trying NoLo beverages.
Discussion and Conclusions
This study highlights current trends in the use and acceptability of NoLo beverages in the US, which have potential to reduce harmful alcohol use.
Keywords: alcohol harm reduction, no and low alcohol, non‐alcoholic beverages
Key Point
Among a sample of US adults (≥ 21 years old), more than three‐quarters (76.6%) of participants reported ever trying no and low alcohol (NoLo) beverages with 85.8% of those reporting past year use.
The most reported motivators for consuming NoLo beverages were to decrease alcohol consumption (45.5%), abstain from drinking (37.4%) and avoid negative effects of alcohol (36.8%).
For participants not in recovery from alcohol use disorder (AUD) or problematic alcohol use, greater annual income, being food insecure, moderate‐ or high‐risk alcohol consumption, and ever tried to quit drinking were associated with a higher odds of having ever tried NoLo beverages. Conversely, lower income, not having health insurance, and being a cisgender woman were associated with a lower odds of having ever tried NoLo beverages.
Among participants in recovery from AUD or problematic alcohol use, identifying as gay, queer or another sexual identity and having incorporated drinking counting/rationing into AUD recovery were associated with a higher odds of having ever tried NoLo beverages.
1. Introduction
In the United States (US), alcohol use, especially heavy alcohol use, remains a significant public health concern and modifiable risk factor for many health‐related outcomes [1, 2, 3, 4]. In 2024, 134.3 million people aged 12 and older consumed alcohol in the past month, 57.9 million people reported past‐month binge drinking (4+ drinks for women; 5+ for men in 2 h period [5]), and 14.5 million people reported past‐month heavy alcohol use (4+ drinks daily or 8+ drinks weekly for women; 5+ drinks daily or 15+ drinks weekly for men [5]) [6]. Despite this high prevalence of heavy alcohol consumption, alcohol use disorder (AUD) remains underdiagnosed and largely untreated in the US [7]. In 2024, 9.7% of people aged 12 and older were diagnosed with AUD in the past year [8, 9] and of those, only 7.6% received any treatment, such as medication‐assisted treatment, behavioural counselling or involvement in mutual support groups (e.g., Alcoholic Anonymous) [10, 11, 12]. While recovery models have historically emphasised abstinence from alcohol consumption, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's expanded definition of AUD recovery to include non‐heavy drinking [13] highlights complex pathways to recovery and a desire to better integrate alcohol harm reduction strategies (e.g., counting drinks, consuming lower percentage alcohol‐by‐volume [ABV] beverages) into recovery efforts [12, 14]. Given growing scientific consensus that there is no “safe” level of alcohol consumption [15], alcohol‐related health concerns [16], and significant gaps in access to and treatment for problematic alcohol use [17], innovative strategies to reduce alcohol consumption are critically needed—such as the use of no and low ABV beverages.
In the US, no and low alcohol (NoLo) beverages—that is, drinks with no alcohol or reduced ABV, such as “mocktails,” or alcohol‐free wine, beer and spirits [18]—have experienced significant consumer growth. Since 2018, US sales of NoLo beverages have increased 15%–30% annually [19], with access and options rapidly expanding [20]. NoLo beverages have the potential to be a useful reduction strategy for alcohol consumption, particularly among people who wish to reduce their alcohol intake while still successfully navigating the cultural norms of alcohol use [18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Further, while not acknowledging any safe level of alcohol consumption [26], the World Health Organization has recognised the potential utility of NoLo beverages, recommending their use as one strategy to reduce problematic alcohol use in their 2022–2030 Action Plan [27].
Although current research demonstrates a growing interest in NoLo beverages [21, 22], limited studies have identified household‐ and individual‐factors associated with their use [28, 29, 30, 31], especially in the US. Analyses of Finnish and British household data found non‐alcoholic beer was purchased more often among older adults [28] and men [28], and was more common among people of higher income [28, 29], greater education [28], and people who regularly purchased alcohol [28, 29]. Though limited, other international work has examined behaviours associated with NoLo use and the contexts in which they are consumed [30, 31]. For instance, a study among 7691 adults in Great Britain found that heavy alcohol use and current smoking status were positively associated with NoLo beverage use [30]. Results from the 2022 Global Drug Survey found NoLo beverages were most commonly consumed at home or in social settings with friends and family, and were mainly consumed to avoid becoming drunk or to stay safe while driving a vehicle [31].
Despite research demonstrating growing interest in and use of NoLo beverages globally, there are limited data examining their use among US consumers. Preliminary studies have examined the availability of lower alcoholic beers at craft breweries [32] and have described consumption of non‐alcoholic beverages, including NoLo beverages, among adults [33]. Among a sample of alcohol‐consuming US adults, approximately 62% reported ever consuming NoLo beverages, and among past‐year NoLo consumers, nearly 68% reported consuming less alcohol due to NoLo beverage use [33]. Despite this burgeoning body of literature, to date, no study has contextualised the use of NoLo beverages among a sample of US adults (≥ 21 years old) who do and do not consume alcohol. Such data are integral to understanding the overall utility of NoLo beverages and to elucidate their potential as an alcohol harm reduction strategy for people who consume alcohol. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and motivations for consuming NoLo beverage among a national sample of US adults 21 years or older, which included an oversample of adults who self‐reported being in recovery from AUD or problematic alcohol use. Further, we sought to describe sociodemographic and health behaviour correlates of NoLo beverage use.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Participants
This study used data from The C onsumption R eduction and A lcohol‐ F ree T rends (CRAFT) Study which aimed to explore NoLo beverage use and motivations for use to determine their potential as an alcohol harm reduction strategy. Participants (n = 1464) were recruited from April–May 2025 using Prolific, an online platform that facilitates timely research by connecting researchers with participants [34]. Participants were sampled using a probabilistic, quota‐based convenience sampling structure to approximate the US population by age, sex and race/ethnicity. Additionally, a subgroup (18.9%) of participants in recovery from problematic alcohol use or AUD were oversampled to provide sufficient representation (n = 278 of the 1464). Other inclusion criteria required participants to be aged 21 years or older and living the US or US territory.
Participants were screened for eligibility by Prolific research consultants. Once individuals met eligibility and sampling criteria, they were sent an invitation to join the study through Prolific's messaging system. Participants who clicked on the study link were rerouted to additional study information and provided their consent to participate. Once consented, participants proceeded to the online survey which was designed to take 20–30 min. Nine survey questions of various styles (e.g., image identifying questions, scenario questions) were designed as attention checks to ascertain data quality. Participants who failed more than two attention checks were removed from the sample and their responses replaced until the total sample size was reached. Participants received an $11 incentive through the Prolific payment system. All procedures were approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board.
2.2. Measures
The survey collected information on various sociodemographic characteristics, NoLo beverage use, alcohol recovery, alcohol consumption, other substance use and psychosocial factors.
2.2.1. NoLo Beverage Use and Motivations for Consumption
Participants were asked a series of original questions about their use of NoLo beverage and motivations for consuming them. A definition—that is, non‐alcoholic beer, wine, or spirits products that have no or low amounts of alcohol in them (0.0%–0.5%)—and example images of NoLo beverages were provided in the survey for reference. Participants were asked, “[h]ave you ever tried any low or non‐alcoholic beverages (e.g., beer, wine, spirits, or craft mocktails)?” with “yes,” “no,” “I don't know,” or “prefer not to answer” as response options. Responses were subsequently dichotomised into “yes” and “no/I don't know/prefer not to answer.” This variable serves as the main outcome for all analyses. Participants also reported which common brands of NoLo beer, wine and spirits brands they had tried. Next, participants provided the frequency (past 12 months) in which they had consumed NoLo beverages (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly), their motivations for consuming NoLo beverages (e.g., health reasons, avoid negative effects of alcohol, social drinking), as well as when (e.g., alone, with people drinking alcohol) and where (e.g., at home, restaurant) they may be more likely to consume them.
2.2.2. Alcohol Recovery
Participants who were currently in recovery from problematic alcohol use or AUD (self‐defined) were asked limited alcohol consumption questions. These included frequency of past‐year consumption (e.g., never, daily, once a month), recency of last beverage (e.g., today, within the last week), and inclusion of drink counting or rationing in their recovery (yes, no/unsure). Specific to the current study, participants in recovery were asked “[w]ould you ever use low or non‐alcoholic beer, wine, or spirits as part of your recovery?” to which they could answer “yes,” “no,” or “I don't know/unsure.”
2.2.3. Alcohol Consumption
For participants not in recovery from problematic alcohol use or AUD, we used the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT‐10) to determine potential alcohol misuse (i.e., low‐ or mild‐risk consumption; moderate‐ to high‐risk consumption) [35]. Participants were also asked how often they drank and how often they engaged in binge drinking in the past month, as well as if they had ever tried to quit drinking (yes, no).
2.2.4. Tobacco Use
Participants were asked to report how many days in the past month they used tobacco products (continuous).
2.2.5. Mental Health and Resilience
To assess mental health and resilience, we used the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety (PHQ‐4) and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). The PHQ‐4 asks four questions to ascertain the potential for developing anxiety or depression. Responses were summed and dichotomised into no or low risk and moderate to severe risk for anxiety and depression [36]. We used the BRS to determine self‐reported resilience using six questions, such as “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times.” Scores were averaged and left continuous for all analyses [37].
2.2.6. Sociodemographic Characteristics
Participants were asked to provide their age (continuous), race or ethnicity (non‐Hispanic White, non‐Hispanic Black, Latine or Hispanic, another or multiple races or ethnicities), gender identity (cisgender man, cisgender woman, another gender identity), sexual orientation (straight or heterosexual; gay, queer or another sexual identity), relationship status (single or unattached; legally binding marriage or partnership; partnered but not legally binding; other relationship status), highest level of education (high school education or less or prefer not to answer; some college or Associate's degree; 4‐year college degree or higher), current employment status (full‐time; part‐time; unemployed, student or prefer not to answer), annual income (< $20,000; $20,000 to $49,999; $50,000 to $74,999; ≥ $75,000), and housing status (stably housed, not stably housed). Participants were asked if they ever served on active duty in the military (yes, no). Food insecurity was assessed using the Hunger Vital Sign screening tool (food secure, food insecure) [38]. Lastly, participants indicated whether they had a primary care provider (yes, no) and health insurance (yes, no).
2.3. Analyses
Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) were used to characterise the sample. We report alcohol consumption separately for participants who reported being in recovery and those who did not. Further, we used descriptive statistics to characterise participants' experiences with NoLo beverages among those who tried them (n = 1121). Bivariable analyses were used to determine associations of all sociodemographic, health behaviour, and health status factors with having ever tried NoLo beverages using Chi‐squared tests, Fisher's exact test, and t‐tests (pooled and Satterthwaite), as appropriate. We used a priori knowledge and results from bivariable analyses to identify potential factors associated with NoLo use for inclusion in subsequent multivariable models. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to ascertain factors associated with having ever tried NoLo beverages, adjusted for potential confounding factors and stratified by recovery status. Identical models were used to determine associations of all factors with past year NoLo use again stratified by recovery status. We report adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all models. Statistical significance was determined using alpha level 0.05. All analyses were generated using SAS version 9.4 [39].
3. Results
3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics and Health Behaviour
Table 1 provides characteristics for the total study population and stratified by having tried NoLo beverages. Three‐quarters (76.6%) of participants reported having ever tried NoLo beverages of whom 85.8% reported consuming NoLos in the past year (Table 3). The average age of participants was 44.7 (standard deviation (SD) = 14.8). The highest proportions of participants reported being non‐Hispanic White (62.1%), heterosexual or “straight” (77.9%), in a legally binding marriage or partnership (53.1%), and a majority reported no history of active military duty (89.8%). Nearly half of participants were cisgender men (48.5%), and slightly fewer participants reported being cisgender women (46.9%). Most people reported having a 4‐year college degree or higher (70.2%), were employed full‐time (60.0%), and the highest proportion reported an annual income ≥ $75,000 (39.4%). Most participants were stably housed (88.5%) while 58.1% reported being food secure. Most people reported having health insurance (92.4%) and a primary care provider (76.6%). The mean number of days in the past month that participants used tobacco products was 4.8 days (SD = 9.8). Finally, most participants (76.0%) reported PHQ‐4 scores indicating no or low risk for anxiety or depression. The mean resiliency score was 3.4 (SD = 0.9) indicating moderate levels of resiliency.
TABLE 1.
Sociodemographic and health behaviour characteristics of study participants, CRAFT Study, 2025.
| Total | Tried NoLo a | Not tried NoLo a | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 1464 | n = 1121 | n = 338 | |||||
| Frequency | (%) | Frequency | (%) | Frequency | (%) | ||
| Sociodemographic characteristics | |||||||
| Race/ethnicity | 0.037 | ||||||
| Non‐Hispanic White | 909 | (62.1) | 693 | (61.8) | 214 | (63.3) | |
| Non‐Hispanic Black or African American | 222 | (15.2) | 185 | (16.5) | 36 | (10.7) | |
| Latine | 136 | (9.3) | 102 | (9.1) | 34 | (10.1) | |
| Another or multiple races or ethnicities | 197 | (13.5) | 141 | (12.6) | 54 | (16.0) | |
|
Gender identity |
0.002 b | ||||||
| Cisgender man | 710 | (48.5) | 567 | (50.6) | 142 | (42.0) | |
| Cisgender woman | 687 | (46.9) | 498 | (44.4) | 186 | (55.0) | |
| Another gender identity | 67 | (4.6) | 56 | (5.0) | 10 | (3.0) | |
| Sexual orientation | 0.002 | ||||||
| Heterosexual or “straight” | 1141 | (77.9) | 853 | (76.1) | 284 | (84.0) | |
| Gay, queer, or another sexual identity | 323 | (22.1) | 268 | (23.9) | 54 | (16.0) | |
| Relationship status | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Single or unattached | 284 | (19.4) | 203 | (18.1) | 81 | (24.0) | |
| Legally binding marriage or partnership | 778 | (53.1) | 627 | (55.9) | 148 | (43.8) | |
| Partnered (though not legally binding) | 233 | (15.9) | 178 | (15.9) | 54 | (16.0) | |
| Other relationship status | 169 | (11.5) | 113 | (10.1) | 55 | (16.3) | |
| Highest level of education | < 0.001 | ||||||
| High school diploma (or equivalent) or less or prefer not to answer | 128 | (8.7) | 80 | (7.1) | 48 | (14.2) | |
| Some college or Associate's Degree | 309 | (21.1) | 202 | (18.0) | 107 | (31.7) | |
| College degree (4‐year) or higher | 1027 | (70.2) | 839 | (74.8) | 183 | (54.1) | |
| Employment status | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Employed full‐time | 879 | (60.0) | 707 | (63.1) | 170 | (50.3) | |
| Employed part‐time | 349 | (23.8) | 278 | (24.8) | 68 | (20.1) | |
| Unemployed, student or receiving disability benefits | 236 | (16.1) | 136 | (12.1) | 100 | (29.5) | |
| Income | < 0.001 | ||||||
| < $ 20,000 or prefer not to answer | 185 | (12.6) | 104 | (9.3) | 80 | (23.7) | |
| $20,000–$49,999 | 365 | (24.9) | 256 | (22.8) | 107 | (31.7) | |
| $50,000–$74,999 | 337 | (23.0) | 271 | (24.2) | 65 | (19.2) | |
| ≥ $75,000 | 577 | (39.4) | 490 | (43.2) | 86 | (25.4) | |
| Housing status | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Stably housed | 1295 | (88.5) | 974 | (86.9) | 318 | (94.1) | |
| Unstably housed | 169 | (11.5) | 147 | (13.1) | 20 | (5.9) | |
| Food insecurity | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Food secure | 850 | (58.1) | 609 | (54.3) | 239 | (70.7) | |
| Food insecure | 614 | (41.9) | 512 | (45.7) | 99 | (29.3) | |
| Military service | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Yes, ever served on active duty | 149 | (10.2) | 130 | (11.6) | 17 | (5.0) | |
| No, never served on active duty or military | 1315 | (89.8) | 991 | (88.4) | 321 | (95.0) | |
| Health insurance | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Yes | 1352 | (92.4) | 1057 | (94.3) | 290 | (85.8) | |
| No | 112 | (7.7) | 64 | (5.7) | 48 | (14.2) | |
| Primary care physician | 0.005 | ||||||
| Yes | 1121 | (76.6) | 878 | (78.3) | 240 | (71.0) | |
| No | 343 | (23.4) | 243 | (21.7) | 98 | (29.0) | |
| Health behaviour | |||||||
| Frequency of alcohol drinking (past month) | < 0.001 b | ||||||
| Daily | 58 | (4.9) | 46 | (5.3) | 12 | (3.9) | |
| 3–6 times a week | 183 | (15.4) | 157 | (17.9) | 24 | (7.8) | |
| 1–2 times a week | 238 | (20.1) | 190 | (21.7) | 46 | (15.0) | |
| 1–3 times a month | 340 | (28.7) | 267 | (30.5) | 73 | (23.8) | |
| Never or prefer not to answer | 367 | (30.9) | 215 | (24.6) | 152 | (49.5) | |
| Binge drinking (past month) | < 0.001 b | ||||||
| Daily | 5 | (0.4) | 3 | (0.3) | 2 | (0.7) | |
| More than twice a week | 16 | (1.4) | 14 | (1.6) | 2 | (0.7) | |
| 1–2 times a week | 33 | (2.8) | 27 | (3.1) | 6 | (2.0) | |
| 1–3 times a month | 144 | (12.1) | 129 | (14.7) | 14 | (4.6) | |
| Never or prefer not to answer | 988 | (83.3) | 702 | (80.2) | 283 | (92.2) | |
| Risk of AUD (AUDIT‐10) | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Low risk for AUD | 824 | (69.5) | 558 | (63.8) | 236 | (85.7) | |
| Moderate or high risk for AUD | 362 | (30.5) | 317 | (36.2) | 44 | (14.3) | |
| Risk for anxiety and depression (PHQ‐4) | 0.298 | ||||||
| None or low risk for anxiety and depression | 1113 | (76.0) | 860 | (76.7) | 250 | (74.0) | |
| Moderate or severe risk for anxiety and depression | 351 | (24.0) | 261 | (23.3) | 88 | (26.0) | |
| Ever tried to quit drinking | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Yes | 786 | (53.7) | 684 | (61.0) | 100 | (29.6) | |
| No | 678 | (46.3) | 437 | (40.0) | 238 | (70.4) | |
| Mean | (Std) | Mean | (Std) | Mean | (Std) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 44.66 | (14.8) | 44.30 | (14.5) | 45.81 | (15.8) | 0.117 |
| Frequency of tobacco use (days in past month) | 4.75 | (9.8) | 4.96 | (9.8) | 4.01 | (9.8) | 0.122 |
| Resiliency (Brief Resilience Scale) | 3.43 | (0.9) | 3.46 | (0.8) | 3.36 | (1.0) | 0.080 |
Note: Pooled t‐test was used to determine mean differences for tobacco use while Satterthwaite t‐tests were used for age and Brief Resilience Scale scores between those who tried NoLo beverages.
Abbreviations: AUD, alcohol use disorder; NoLo, no and low alcohol.
Missing data for those who tried NoLo beverages for n = 5 participants.
Fisher's exact tests used to calculate p‐value.
TABLE 3.
Experiences with no and low alcohol (NoLo) beverages among participants who had tried them, CRAFT Study, 2025.
| Experiences with NoLo beverages | Tried NoLo | |
|---|---|---|
| n = 1121 | ||
| Frequency | (%) | |
| Frequency of NoLo drinks (past 12 months) | ||
| Daily | 28 | (2.5) |
| 2–6 times a week | 223 | (19.9) |
| Weekly | 134 | (12.0) |
| 1–3 times a month | 294 | (26.2) |
| Less than once a month | 283 | (25.3) |
| Never | 159 | (14.2) |
| Motivation to drink NoLo | ||
| I am trying to decrease my alcohol drinking | 510 | (45.5) |
| I am trying to abstain from drinking alcohol | 419 | (37.4) |
| I don't want the negative effects of alcohol | 413 | (36.8) |
| It is better for my health | 402 | (35.9) |
| Responsibilities | 294 | (26.2) |
| It helps me blend in socially | 256 | (22.8) |
| Designated driver | 200 | (17.8) |
| I don't drink these | 96 | (8.6) |
| I can't drink for medical reasons (other than pregnancy) | 84 | (7.5) |
| Religious reasons | 84 | (7.5) |
| Another reason | 52 | (4.6) |
| I am pregnant, trying to get pregnant, or breastfeeding | 39 | (3.5) |
| When are you most likely to drink NoLo? | ||
| Alone | 138 | (12.3) |
| Around other people drinking alcohol | 467 | (41.7) |
| Around other people drinking NoLo | 429 | (38.3) |
| I won't drink these or prefer not to answer | 87 | (7.8) |
| Where are you most likely to drink NoLo? | ||
| At my home | 308 | (27.5) |
| At other people's homes | 163 | (14.5) |
| Restaurants | 234 | (20.9) |
| Clubs | 71 | (6.3) |
| Bars | 165 | (14.7) |
| Concerts | 26 | (2.3) |
| Sporting events | 35 | (3.1) |
| Park or beach | 26 | (2.3) |
| Another place | 12 | (1.1) |
| I haven't had these in the past year | 81 | (7.2) |
| When I drink NoLo, I experience … | ||
| Less desire to drink alcohol | 443 | (39.5) |
| More desire to drink alcohol | 153 | (13.7) |
| No change in my desire to drink alcohol | 442 | (39.4) |
| I don't drink these or prefer not to answer | 83 | (7.4) |
| Because I drink NoLo, I drink … | ||
| Less alcohol than I otherwise would | 707 | (63.1) |
| More alcohol than I otherwise would | 67 | (6.0) |
| The same amount of alcohol | 242 | (21.6) |
| I don't drink these or prefer not to answer | 105 | (9.4) |
| Mean | (Std) | |
|---|---|---|
| NoLo beverages consumed on a typical drinking day | 1.52 | (1.6) |
Few participants not in recovery reported drinking alcohol daily (4.9%) in the past month, with the highest proportion (30.9%) reporting never drinking or prefer not to answer (n = 6). Most people reported no binge drinking in the past month (83.3%), though 12.1% reported binge drinking 1–3 times a month. Thirty‐one percent of participants provided answers on the AUDIT‐10 that corresponded with moderate‐ or high‐risk alcohol consumption patterns, and 53.7% reported that they had ever tried to quit drinking. For participants in recovery from AUD or problematic alcohol use, 28.8% reported their last drink was within the past week and 14.8% indicated their last drink was in the past month (Table 2). The highest proportions of participants in recovery reported drinking 2–6 days a week (27.3%) or never (26.3%) in the past year. Over half of participants practiced drink counting or rationing as part of their recovery (57.2%) and most (71.9%) reported they would use NoLo beverages in their recovery.
TABLE 2.
Alcohol consumption and related behaviour among participants reporting being currently in recovery from AUD or problematic alcohol use, CRAFT Study, 2025.
| Health behaviour among those reporting current AUD | Total | Tried NoLo a | Not tried NoLo a | Fisher's exact p‐value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 278 | n = 246 | n = 31 | |||||
| Frequency | (%) | Frequency | (%) | Frequency | (%) | ||
| When did you last drink an alcoholic beverage? | 0.004 | ||||||
| Today | 14 | (5.0) | 13 | (5.3) | 0 | (0.0) | |
| Within the last week | 80 | (28.8) | 74 | (30.1) | 6 | (19.4) | |
| Within the last month | 41 | (14.8) | 35 | (14.2) | 6 | (19.4) | |
| Within the last year | 63 | (22.7) | 61 | (24.8) | 2 | (6.5) | |
| More than a year ago | 80 | (28.8) | 63 | (25.6) | 17 | (54.8) | |
| On average, how often did you drink alcohol in the past 12 months? | 0.029 | ||||||
| Never | 73 | (26.3) | 56 | (22.8) | 17 | (54.8) | |
| Daily | 43 | (15.5) | 39 | (15.9) | 3 | (9.7) | |
| 2–6 days a week | 76 | (27.3) | 70 | (28.5) | 6 | (19.4) | |
| Once a week | 21 | (7.6) | 20 | (8.1) | 1 | (3.2) | |
| 1–3 times a month | 36 | (13.0) | 34 | (13.8) | 2 | (6.5) | |
| Less than once a month | 29 | (10.4) | 27 | (11.0) | 2 | (6.5) | |
| Do you practice drink counting or rationing as part of your recovery? | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Yes | 159 | (57.2) | 150 | (61.0) | 8 | (25.8) | |
| No or don't know | 119 | (42.8) | 96 | (39.0) | 23 | (74.2) | |
| Would you ever use low or non‐alcoholic beer, wine, or spirits as part of your recovery? | < 0.001 | ||||||
| Yes | 200 | (71.9) | 194 | (78.9) | 5 | (16.1) | |
| No or don't know | 78 | (28.1) | 52 | (21.1) | 26 | (83.9) | |
Abbreviations: AUD, alcohol use disorder; NoLo, no and low alcohol.
Missing data for those who tried NoLo beverages for n = 1 participants.
Most sociodemographic characteristics and alcohol consumption variables were statistically significantly associated with having ever tried NoLo beverages except for age, frequency of tobacco use, anxiety and depression (PHQ‐4) scores, and resilience (BRS) scores.
3.2. Experiences With NoLo
Among participants who had tried NoLo beverages (n = 1121 of whom 246 were in recovery), the highest proportions reported drinking NoLo beverages 1‐to‐3 times a month (26.2%) or less than once a month (25.3%) in the past year (Table 3). The average number of NoLo beverages consumed on a typical drinking day was 1.5 (SD = 1.6). Commonly reported motivations for drinking NoLo beverages were trying to decrease alcohol consumption (45.5%), trying to abstain from drinking (37.4%), not wanting the negative effects of alcohol (36.8%), and it being better for their health (35.9%). The highest proportions of participants reported they would most likely drink NoLo beverages around other people drinking alcohol (41.7%) and around other people drinking NoLo beverages (38.3%). Many people reported they would most likely drink NoLo beverages in their home (27.5%) or at a restaurant (20.9%). Finally, the highest proportions of participants reported experiencing less (39.5%) or no change (39.4%) in their desire to drink alcohol because of drinking NoLo beverages, while 63.1% reported drinking less alcohol when they consumed NoLo beverages. Many participants reported trying a variety of brand‐name NoLo beer products (Figure 1). Conversely, the highest proportions of participants had not tried brand‐name NoLo wine (42.3%) or spirit (50.7%) products.
FIGURE 1.
Proportion of total study population who reported trying different brands of no and low alcohol (NoLo) beer, wine and spirits, CRAFT Study, 2025.
3.3. Correlates of NoLo Use for Individuals Not in Alcohol Recovery
Results from all multivariable logistic regression models—one for participants not in recovery and one for those in recovery—are reported in Table 4. For participants not in recovery, a higher odds of having ever tried NoLo beverages was associated with reporting a higher annual income (AOR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3, ≥ 75,000 vs. $20,000–$49,999), being food insecure (AOR = 1.5; 95% CI 1.1, 2.1, vs. food secure), moderate‐ or high‐risk alcohol consumption (AOR = 2.0; 95% CI 1.4, 3.0, vs. no or low‐risk consumption), and ever tried to quit drinking (AOR = 2.7; 95% CI 1.9, 3.7, vs. not having tried to quit drinking). A lower odds of having ever tried NoLo beverages was associated with being a cisgender woman (AOR = 0.7; 95% CI 0.5, 1.0, vs. cisgender men), reporting a lower annual income (AOR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.3, 0.8, < $20,000 vs. $20,000–$49,999), and not having health insurance (AOR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.3, 0.9 vs. having health insurance). All other variables were not statistically significant.
TABLE 4.
Multivariable regression models for factors associated with ever having tried NoLo beverages, CRAFT Study, 2025.
| Ever use among participants who reported not being in recovery (n = 1182) a | Past year use among participants who reported not being in recovery (n = 1182) a | Ever use among participants who reported being in recovery (n = 277) b | Past year use among participants who reported being in recovery (n = 277) b | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | AOR | 95% Wald CI | p | Estimate | AOR | 95% Wald CI | p | Estimate | AOR | 95% Wald CI | p | Estimate | AOR | 95% Wald CI | p | |||||
| Age | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.01 | 0.460 | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.050 | 0.01 | 1.01 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 0.466 | −0.04 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.99 | 0.006 |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Non‐Hispanic White | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||
| Non‐Hispanic Black or African American | −0.02 | 0.98 | 0.62 | 1.55 | 0.938 | 0.24 | 1.27 | 0.82 | 1.99 | 0.287 | 0.49 | 1.63 | 0.42 | 6.33 | 0.481 | 0.29 | 1.33 | 0.34 | 5.20 | 0.678 |
| Latine | 0.09 | 1.10 | 0.67 | 1.80 | 0.713 | 0.02 | 1.02 | 0.64 | 1.63 | 0.937 | −0.68 | 0.51 | 0.14 | 1.90 | 0.313 | −0.96 | 0.38 | 0.10 | 1.47 | 0.160 |
| Another or multiple races or ethnicities | −0.01 | 0.99 | 0.66 | 1.48 | 0.961 | 0.08 | 1.08 | 0.73 | 1.60 | 0.687 | 0.49 | 1.63 | 0.28 | 9.40 | 0.583 | −0.67 | 0.51 | 0.11 | 2.30 | 0.382 |
| Gender identity | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cisgender man | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
| Cisgender woman | −0.33 | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.96 | 0.027 | −0.09 | 0.91 | 0.69 | 1.21 | 0.526 | ||||||||||
| Another gender identity | −0.04 | 0.96 | 0.40 | 2.30 | 0.931 | 0.07 | 1.08 | 0.46 | 2.54 | 0.864 | ||||||||||
| Sexual orientation | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Heterosexual or “straight” | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
| Gay, queer or another sexual identity | 1.89 | 6.64 | 1.99 | 22.11 | 0.002 | 2.87 | 17.60 | 4.37 | 70.92 | < 0.0001 | ||||||||||
| Income | ||||||||||||||||||||
| < $ 20,000 or prefer not to answer | −0.68 | 0.51 | 0.33 | 0.78 | 0.002 | −1.02 | 0.36 | 0.23 | 0.57 | < 0.0001 | −0.60 | 0.55 | 0.16 | 1.91 | 0.343 | −0.69 | 0.50 | 0.14 | 1.83 | 0.296 |
| $20,000–$49,999 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||
| $50,000–$74,999 | 0.37 | 1.45 | 0.97 | 2.15 | 0.067 | 0.52 | 1.68 | 1.16 | 2.44 | 0.006 | 0.87 | 2.40 | 0.63 | 9.15 | 0.201 | 0.37 | 1.44 | 0.46 | 4.55 | 0.532 |
| > $75,000 | 0.84 | 2.31 | 1.60 | 3.34 | < 0.001 | 1.28 | 3.60 | 2.53 | 5.11 | < 0.0001 | 0.49 | 1.64 | 0.56 | 4.82 | 0.369 | 1.10 | 3.01 | 1.02 | 8.86 | 0.046 |
| Food insecurity | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Food secure | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
| Food insecure | 0.40 | 1.49 | 1.07 | 2.06 | 0.018 | 0.54 | 1.72 | 1.25 | 2.36 | 0.001 | ||||||||||
| Military service | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes, ever served on active duty | −0.28 | 0.76 | 0.40 | 1.41 | 0.380 | 0.05 | 1.05 | 0.57 | 1.95 | 0.878 | ||||||||||
| No, never served on active duty or military | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
| Health insurance | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||
| No | −0.63 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 0.85 | 0.008 | −0.58 | 0.56 | 0.35 | 0.90 | 0.017 | −1.53 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 1.04 | 0.056 | −3.46 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.20 | 0.0002 |
| Risk of AUD (AUDIT‐10) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Low risk for AUD | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
| Moderate or high risk for AUD | 0.70 | 2.02 | 1.36 | 3.00 | < 0.001 | 0.94 | 2.55 | 1.77 | 3.68 | < 0.0001 | ||||||||||
| Ever tried to quit drinking | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | 0.98 | 2.67 | 1.92 | 3.72 | < 0.001 | 0.73 | 2.07 | 1.52 | 2.80 | < 0.0001 | ||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
| Practiced drink counting as part of recovery | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | 1.44 | 4.21 | 1.67 | 10.61 | 0.002 | 1.81 | 6.10 | 2.47 | 15.08 | < 0.0001 | ||||||||||
| No or don't know | Reference | Reference | ||||||||||||||||||
Abbreviations: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; AUD, alcohol use disorder; CI, confidence interval; NoLo, no and low alcohol.
The final models for participants not in recovery included age, race or ethnicity, gender identity, annual income, food insecurity, military service, health insurance status, AUDIT‐10, and having reported ever trying to quit drinking.
The models for people in recovery included age, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, annual income, health insurance status, and whether or not they would use NoLo as part of their recovery.
We repeated the regression analyses focusing only on participants who reported past year NoLo use (Table 4). Many statistically significant findings remained with similar directions of associations, though small changes in AOR magnitudes were observed. Notable differences between ever having tried NoLos and past year consumption were that older individuals had a lower odds of past year consumption (AOR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00) and the association for cisgender women was no longer statistically significant.
3.4. Correlates of NoLo Use for Individuals in Alcohol Recovery
Among participants in recovery from AUD or problematic alcohol use, a higher odds of having ever tried NoLo was associated with identifying as gay, queer, or another sexual identity (AOR = 6.6; 95% CI 2.0, 22.1 vs. “straight” or heterosexual) and practicing drink counting as part of their recovery (AOR = 4.2; 95% CI 1.7, 10.6 vs. no or “I don't know”). No other variables remained statistically significant.
Again, we repeated the regression analyses focusing only on participants in recovery who reported past year NoLo use (Table 4). Although many findings remained, notable differences were that older individuals (AOR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.93, 0.99) and people without health insurance (AOR = 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.20 vs. insured) had lower odds of past year NoLo consumption, whereas individuals with annual incomes greater than $75,000 had higher odds (AOR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.0, 8.9).
4. Discussion
This study expands on the limited research regarding the use of NoLo beverages among US adults aged 21 years and older. We found a large proportion of participants (three‐quarters of study participants) reported ever trying NoLo beverages. Our results suggest several sociodemographic and health behavioural characteristics were associated with ever having tried NoLo beverages. Finally, we found that 71.9% of people currently in recovery for AUD or problematic alcohol use would incorporate NoLo beverages into their recovery.
Consistent with previous work [33], most of our participants (76.6%) reported ever trying NoLo beverages and many of them within the past year (85.8%), though the highest proportions reported drinking them sporadically (i.e., less than once or 1–3 times in the past month). Frequently reported motivations for drinking NoLo beverages included the desire to decrease alcohol consumption, abstain from alcohol, avoid alcohol's negative effects, and perceptions that NoLo were healthier. Our findings suggest people already view NoLo beverages as a practical way to reduce alcohol consumption and generally perceive NoLo beverages as health beneficial.
Unsurprisingly, participants reported that they would be most likely to drink NoLo beverages in social situations where others were drinking either alcohol or NoLo beverages. This finding is consistent with previous work demonstrating most people consume NoLo beverages in social settings where alcohol is also consumed [31, 33]. Alcohol consumption is often driven by perceived or real social expectations and pressures [40, 41, 42] and NoLo beverages may alleviate social pressures to drink and stigma related to not drinking in social situations [18]. We also found that many people drink NoLo at home, which could be due to limited NoLo options in public drinking spaces or dissatisfaction with available options. Future research should investigate the availability of NoLo beverages in drinking spaces, including bars and restaurants. Further, many participants (63%) reported drinking less alcohol because of NoLo beverages, though nearly equal proportions reported their desire to consume alcohol would be less (39.5%) or remain unchanged (39.4%). This result is consistent with previous work, which found approximately 60% and 24% of participants, respectively, experienced no change or a decrease in their desire to drink alcohol when consuming NoLo beverages [33]. Taken together, findings suggest some participants may use NoLo beverages as a substitution strategy for alcohol, though future research is needed to determine the causal effects of NoLo beverage use on alcohol consumption.
Our initial bivariable analyses identified several sociodemographic and health behavioural characteristics associated with ever trying NoLo beverages, however fewer associations remained statistically significant in multivariable analyses. Importantly, we found cisgender women had a lower odds of ever trying NoLo beverages, which is consistent with previous analyses of Finnish household data demonstrating NoLo beverages were more often purchased by men [28]. This could be a particularly relevant finding, given recent increases in harmful drinking among women in the US [43, 44, 45], and may suggest a missed opportunity for targeted harm reduction interventions among a higher need population. However, this finding did not remain statistically significant when looking at past year NoLo consumption suggesting additional research is needed to understand nuanced use patterns over time. Our findings did illustrate a higher odds of NoLo beverage consumption among participants with higher AUDIT‐10 scores and those having ever tried to quit drinking, which may suggest that NoLo beverages are being used by those who may benefit most.
Finally, our results suggest many individuals who are in recovery from problematic alcohol use or AUD have tried NoLo beverages (88.5%) and indicate that they would incorporate them into their recovery along with other practices such as drink counting/rationing. NoLo products could serve as a replacement method to facilitate alcoholic beverage rationing and may already be used to support harm reduction approaches within alcohol recovery. However, caution should be used when incorporating NoLo beverages into recovery to help individuals maintain control of their process and avoid risk of relapse. More research is needed to fully understand the benefits and limitations of NoLo beverages in the context of recovery.
Though NoLo beverages have the potential to be a scalable strategy for reducing harmful alcohol consumption for many, the available limited research fails to fully identify benefits and harms, especially for individuals who are in alcohol recovery and treatment. Additional considerations for future research include: (i) studies designed to assess the causal impact of NoLo beverages on individuals' alcohol consumption; (ii) NoLo use and risks associated with alcohol brand exposure and normalisation of alcohol flavors among US young people (< 21 years of age); and (iii) utility and cautionary advisories for use among individuals in alcohol recovery/treatment.
Our results should be interpreted in light of study limitations. First, our study was cross‐sectional, which does not allow for any causal conclusions. Future research should investigate potential causal roles of NoLo beverages in reducing alcohol use. Next, though our sample was selected to reflect the US population by age, race/ethnicity and gender, we have high proportions of participants who are well‐educated and have health insurance; therefore, our findings may not be fully generalisable to the US population. We also oversampled participants who reported being in recovery for AUD or problematic alcohol use. While we successfully recruited many people meeting this criterion, we did not meet our recruitment target of approximately 25%. Additional research is needed to fully understand patterns of NoLo use and their acceptability, especially in the context of alcohol recovery. Third, given the limited information on NoLo beverages, our survey questions were original and will need continued refinement. Further, for the purposes of this study, we did not disaggregate “no” from “low” ABV beverages which have different industry definitions [18] and implications for alcohol consumption reduction (e.g., total alcohol avoidance) which future research may want to investigate. However, the definition we provided to our participants aligns with “non‐alcoholic” beverage classifications in the US [46]. Lastly, due to necessary limits on survey length, we may not have collected all possible factors related to NoLo consumption or possible confounders. Despite these limitations, our study is among the first to investigate the use of NoLo beverages in the US, shedding light on an important emerging health trend.
5. Conclusions
The rapid growth and consumption of NoLo beverages in the US suggest they may play an increasingly important role in contextualising future alcohol use and recovery trends. In this US‐based sample, we found approximately 77% of participants reported ever trying NoLo beverages and several key sample characteristics were statistically significantly associated with their use. Most notably, people who reported moderate‐ or high‐risk alcohol consumption and people who had tried to quit drinking alcohol had higher odds of NoLo beverage use. These findings suggest that NoLo beverages could reduce alcohol consumption among those who would benefit most and warrant future research examining their public health impact.
Author Contributions
Each author certifies that their contribution to this work meets the standards of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Funding
The Consumption Reduction and Alcohol‐Free Trends (CRAFT) study was supported by funding from the University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions Research Innovation Fund (PI: Westmoreland). D.A.W. was supported, in part, by a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism career development award (K01 AA 029047). L.H. was supported, in part, by a loan repayment program award (L30‐AA027013‐03). J.B. was supported by a NIH training grant awarded to the University of Florida (T32 AA 025877).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
Special thank you to members of our research team: Gayathri Konduri and Paige Murrill. Thank you to the research team at Prolific (Andrew Gordon, Simon Jones, Michelle Lee) and members of the Prolific community participating in our research. While the NIH provided training and career support for research team members, in part, the content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the NIH.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author, D.A.W.
References
- 1. Esser M. B., “Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost From Excessive Alcohol Use—United States, 2011–2015,” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69 (2020): 1428–1433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Bohm M. K., “Binge Drinking Among Adults, by Select Characteristics and State—United States, 2018,” MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70 (2021): 1441–1446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Rehm J., Shield K. D., and Weiderpass E., “Alcohol Consumption. A Leading Risk Factor for Cancer,” Chemico‐Biological Interactions 331 (2020): 109280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Room R., Babor T., and Rehm J., “Alcohol and Public Health,” Lancet 365, no. 9458 (2005): 519–530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , Drinking Levels and Patterns Defined (NIH, 2025), https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol‐health/overview‐alcohol‐consumption/moderate‐binge‐drinking. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality SAa, Administration MHS , Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2025). [Google Scholar]
- 7. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , Goal 4: Improve Diagnosis and Expand Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder and Alcohol‐Related Conditions (National Institute of Health, 2025), https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/about‐niaaa/strategic‐plan‐fiscal‐years‐2024‐2028/research‐goals/goal‐4‐improve‐diagnosis‐and‐expand‐treatment‐alcohol‐use‐disorder‐and‐alcohol‐related. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration , Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2023 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2024). [Google Scholar]
- 9. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in the United States: Age Groups and Demographic Characteristics (NIH, 2024), https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols‐effects‐health/alcohol‐topics/alcohol‐facts‐and‐statistics/alcohol‐use‐disorder‐aud‐united‐states‐age‐groups‐and‐demographic‐characteristics. [Google Scholar]
- 10. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , Understanding Alcohol Use Disorder (NIH, 2025), https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures‐and‐fact‐sheets/understanding‐alcohol‐use‐disorder. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Reus V. I., Fochtmann L. J., Bukstein O., et al., “The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Pharmacological Treatment of Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder,” American Journal of Psychiatry 175, no. 1 (2018): 86–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Witkiewitz K., Litten R., and Leggio L., “Advances in the Science and Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder,” Science Advances 5, no. 9 (2019): eaax4043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism , NIAAA Recovery Research Definitions (NIH, n.d.), accessed by 7 May, 2026, https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/niaaa‐recovery‐from‐alcohol‐use‐disorder/definitions. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Marlatt G. A. and Witkiewitz K., “Harm Reduction Approaches to Alcohol Use: Health Promotion, Prevention, and Treatment,” Addictive Behaviors 27, no. 6 (2002): 867–886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Griswold M. G., Fullman N., Hawley C., et al., “Alcohol Use and Burden for 195 Countries and Territories, 1990–2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016,” Lancet 392, no. 10152 (2018): 1015–1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Rehm J., G. E. Gmel, Sr. , Gmel G., et al., “The Relationship Between Different Dimensions of Alcohol Use and the Burden of Disease‐An Update,” Addiction 112, no. 6 (2017): 968–1001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Grant B. F., Goldstein R. B., Saha T. D., et al., “Epidemiology of DSM‐5 Alcohol Use Disorder: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III,” JAMA Psychiatry 72, no. 8 (2015): 757–766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Okaru A. O. and Lachenmeier D. W., “Defining no and Low (NoLo) Alcohol Products,” Nutrients 14, no. 18 (2022): 3873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. NielsenIQ , “Non‐alcoholic Beverage Trends in the US,” (2022), accessed 14 June, 2016, https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/education/2022/non‐alcoholic‐beverage‐trends‐in‐the‐us/.
- 20. Feilden E., Four in Five Bars to Increase Range of no and Low Alcohol Drinks (Drinks Business, 2022), https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2022/12/four‐in‐five‐bars‐to‐increase‐range‐of‐no‐and‐low‐alcohol‐drinks/. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Anderson P., Kokole D., and Llopis E. J., “Production, Consumption, and Potential Public Health Impact of Low‐and No‐Alcohol Products: Results of a Scoping Review,” Nutrients 13, no. 9 (2021): 3153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Waehning N. and Wells V. K., “Product, Individual and Environmental Factors Impacting the Consumption of no and Low Alcoholic Drinks: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda,” Food Quality and Preference 117 (2024): 105163. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Rehm J., Lachenmeier D. W., Llopis E. J., Imtiaz S., and Anderson P., “Evidence of Reducing Ethanol Content in Beverages to Reduce Harmful Use of Alcohol,” Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 1, no. 1 (2016): 78–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Wiener‐Bronner D., The Buzzy New Drinking Trend: Alcohol‐Free Booze (CNN Business, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/business/non‐alcoholic‐trend/index.html. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Bowles E., Low and no – The Hottest Trend in Beverages (BeverageDaily, 2024), https://www.beveragedaily.com/News/Promotional‐features/Low‐and‐no‐the‐hottest‐trend‐in‐beverages/. [Google Scholar]
- 26. No Level of Alcohol Consumption is Safe for Our Health (World Health Organization, 2023), https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04‐01‐2023‐no‐level‐of‐alcohol‐consumption‐is‐safe‐for‐our‐health. [Google Scholar]
- 27. World Health Organization , “A Public Health Perspective on Zero‐and Low‐Alcohol Beverages,” in Brief, vol. 10 (World Health Organization, 2023). [Google Scholar]
- 28. Katainen A., Uusitalo L., Saarijärvi H., et al., “Who Buys Non‐Alcoholic Beer in Finland? Sociodemographic Characteristics and Associations With Regular Beer Purchases,” International Journal of Drug Policy 113 (2023): 103962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Anderson P., O'Donnell A., Kokole D., Jané Llopis E., and Kaner E., “Is Buying and Drinking Zero and Low Alcohol Beer a Higher Socio‐Economic Phenomenon? Analysis of British Survey Data, 2015–2018 and Household Purchase Data 2015–2020,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19 (2021): 10347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Perman‐Howe P. R., Holmes J., Brown J., and Kersbergen I., “Characteristics of Consumers of Alcohol‐Free and Low‐Alcohol Drinks in Great Britain: A Cross‐Sectional Study,” Drug and Alcohol Review 43, no. 7 (2024): 1686–1697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Piatkowski T., Patel M., Puljević C., et al., “Why, Where, and With Whom? Understanding the Set and Setting Influencing the Consumption of NoLo Beverages,” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 32, no. 6 (2024): 544–556, 10.1080/09687637.2024.2376086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Myles C. C., Weil B. V., Wiley D., and Watson B., “Representations of Low (Er) Alcohol (Craft) Beer in the United States,” Nutrients 14, no. 23 (2022): 4952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Bowdring M. A., McCarthy D. M., Fairbairn C. E., and Prochaska J. J., “Non‐Alcoholic Beverage Consumption Among US Adults Who Consume Alcohol,” Addiction 119, no. 6 (2024): 1080–1089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Prolific , “Prolific,” accessed 14 June, 2026, https://www.prolific.com/academic‐researchers.
- 35. Babor T. F., Higgins‐Biddle J. C., Saunders J. B., and Monteiro M. G., The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (World Health Organization, 2001). [Google Scholar]
- 36. Kroenke K., Spitzer R. L., Williams J. B. W., and Löwe B., “An Ultra‐Brief Screening Scale for Anxiety and Depression: The PHQ–4,” Psychosomatics 50, no. 6 (2009): 613–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Smith B. W., Dalen J., Wiggins K., Tooley E., Christopher P., and Bernard J., “The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back,” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15, no. 3 (2008): 194–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Hager E. R., Quigg A. M., Black M. M., et al., “Development and Validity of a 2‐Item Screen to Identify Families at Risk for Food Insecurity,” Pediatrics 126, no. 1 (2010): e26–e32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. SAS Institute Inc , SAS/STAT 9.4 User's Guide (SAS Institute Inc., 2004). [Google Scholar]
- 40. Oostveen T., Knibbe R., and De Vries H., “Social Influences on Young Adults' Alcohol Consumption: Norms, Modeling, Pressure, Socializing, and Conformity,” Addictive Behaviors 21, no. 2 (1996): 187–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Sudhinaraset M., Wigglesworth C., and Takeuchi D. T., “Social and Cultural Contexts of Alcohol Use: Influences in a Social‐Ecological Framework,” Alcohol Research: Current Reviews 38, no. 1 (2016): 35–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Galea S., Nandi A., and Vlahov D., “The Social Epidemiology of Substance Use,” Epidemiologic Reviews 26, no. 1 (2004): 36–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Adams R. S., McKetta S. C., Jager J., Stewart M. T., and Keyes K. M., “Cohort Effects of Women's Mid‐Life Binge Drinking and Alcohol Use Disorder Symptoms in the United States: Impacts of Changes in Timing of Parenthood,” Addiction 118, no. 10 (2023): 1932–1941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Grucza R. A., Sher K. J., Kerr W. C., et al., “Trends in Adult Alcohol Use and Binge Drinking in the Early 21st‐Century United States: A Meta‐Analysis of 6 National Survey Series,” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 42, no. 10 (2018): 1939–1950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Keyes K. M., Jager J., Mal‐Sarkar T., Patrick M. E., Rutherford C., and Hasin D., “Is There a Recent Epidemic of Women's Drinking? A Critical Review of National Studies,” Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 43, no. 7 (2019): 1344–1359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. National Archives and Records Administration , Alcohol Content. Code of Federal Regulations (National Archives, 2026). [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author, D.A.W.