Abstract
Background
Alcohol packaging can be used to communicate product-related information, health messages and health warnings to consumers. We examined awareness and recall of such information and messaging among adolescents in the United Kingdom.
Method
A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 11–19 year olds in the United Kingdom (n = 3399), with participants asked if they had seen any information, health messages or warnings on alcohol packaging in the past month (Yes/No) and, if so, what they recalled. We also assessed higher-risk drinking among current drinkers (≥5 Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption) and susceptibility to consume among never-drinkers.
Results
One-third (32%) of participants had seen information, health messages or warnings on alcohol packaging. Chi-Square tests showed awareness was greater for current drinkers than non-drinkers (46% vs. 19%; P < 0.001), higher-risk drinkers than lower-risk drinkers (55% vs. 39%; P < 0.001), and susceptible never-drinkers than non-susceptible never-drinkers (21% vs. 16%; P = 0.01). Ten messages were recalled, with drinking responsibly (18%) and not drinking during pregnancy (13%) most recalled.
Conclusion
Most young drinkers, including almost half of higher-risk drinkers, did not recall seeing any information, health messages or warnings on alcohol packaging in the past month, suggesting that current labelling is failing to reach this key audience.
Keywords: alcohol labelling, alcohol packaging, health messages, health warnings, social marketing, young people
Introduction
In Europe, the proportion of young people aged 15–24 years old who are current drinkers, and the proportion that have engaged in heavy episodic drinking, is greater than in all other global regions.1 Although alcohol consumption among young people in the United Kingdom (UK) has been declining, approximately two-fifths of 11–15 year olds in England have consumed alcohol and almost a third of 16–24 year old drinkers have exceeded binge-drinking thresholds in the past week.2 The inclusion of health messaging and product-related information on alcohol packaging is a low-cost and high-reach intervention that may have the potential to moderate alcohol use and reduce higher-risk consumption among young people.3,4
In the UK, certain information is mandated on the packaging of alcohol products through national and international legislation on food and beverage standards.5,6 This includes the name and address of the supplier, country of origin, net quantity (in centilitres or millilitres), alcohol strength by volume (ABV, %), and use by date. The alcohol industry self-regulates other product-related information, health messaging, and warnings on packs. Examples include the number of alcohol units in the product, drinking guidelines (e.g. recommended units per week), warnings (e.g. liver disease and drinking during pregnancy), and messages concerning other alcohol-related harms (e.g. drink driving). Under this self-regulatory approach, such information is voluntary6,7 and there are no consistent standards of design or consistency on what information is required. For example, as part of the UK Government’s 2011 Responsibility Deal, the alcohol industry agreed to ensure that 80% of products displayed unit content, recommended lower-risk guidelines, and warnings on drinking during pregnancy.8 The latest guidelines, from 2017, no longer recommend the inclusion of lower-risk guidelines.9
Concerns have been raised over how health messaging and product-related information is communicated through alcohol packaging in the UK. For example, 2 years after the Chief Medical Officer issued revised drinking guidelines in the UK,10 an audit of over 300 alcohol products found that less than one-in-ten carried the revised guidelines, two-thirds referred to out-of-date guidance, and a quarter carried no guidance or guidelines.11 Even when drinking guidelines are present, research suggests that they are displayed in small fonts and positioned on the rear of the packaging (i.e. not in immediate eye line), and that other health messages are unclear or inconsistently formatted (e.g. warnings on drinking during pregnancy are smaller on wine than on beer products).12 Consistent with these concerns, research with adults in the UK has found that awareness of product information and health messaging on packaging is low, choices appear seldom informed by alcoholic unit content or drinking guidelines, consumers experience challenges in using labels to determine how many servings are equivalent to the recommended weekly limit, and current messaging and product labelling fails to capture attention.5,13–15
Research in the UK has only explored awareness of health messaging and product information on alcohol packaging among adult consumers. In this study, we explore awareness and recall of such information among adolescents and young adults aged 11–19 years old, what messages they recall seeing, and whether awareness differs by consumption group or demographics. Adolescents are important to investigate as alcohol use in this age group is linked to greater consumption and alcohol-related harms in later life.16,17 Therefore, exposure to product information and health messaging during formative experiences of alcohol may play an important role in shaping longer-term consumption.18
Methods
Design and sample
An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with 11–19 year olds in the UK in April-May 2017 (n = 3399). The survey was hosted by YouGov, a market research company, who recruited a sample designed to be representative of the UK population from their panel. A survey weight was provided for each respondent (based on age, gender, ethnicity, UK region, and social grade) to enable descriptive data to be representative of the UK population. Further details on the survey design and recruitment are reported elsewhere.19,20
Measures
Demography
Demographic variables were obtained from information held by YouGov about panel participants or survey questions. Demographic variables included age, gender, ethnicity (recoded as White British and Other), resident country (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and quintile of deprivation (measured through Indices of Multiple Deprivation [IMD], a quantitative measure of local area deprivation based on elements such as income, crime and education).
Awareness of health messaging on alcohol packaging
Participants were asked ‘Have you seen any information, health messages or warnings on alcohol packaging over the last month?’ (Yes/No). No visual prompts or cues were provided, consistent with research measuring awareness of health messaging on cigarette packaging among young people.21 Participants who answered ‘Yes’ were asked ‘What messages do you remember seeing?’ with a free-text box for answers. Multiple answers were permitted in the free-text box, and participants were able to indicate ‘Don’t Know’ if they were unable to recall any messages.
Legal purchasing age and ever-drinking status
The sample was divided into those who met the minimum purchasing age for alcohol (≥18 years old) and those who did not. Participants were asked ‘Have you ever had a whole alcoholic drink? Not just a sip.’ Those answering ‘No’ were classed as never-drinkers while those answering ‘Yes’ were classed as ever-drinkers. A ‘Prefer not to say’ option was also provided.
Current drinking and higher-risk drinking status
Among ever-drinkers, alcohol consumption was measured through the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption (AUDIT-C), a three-item scale which measured: (1) frequency of consumption (0 = Never to 4 = Four or more times a week); (2) number of units drunk in a typical drinking occasion (0 = One or two units to 4 = Ten or more units); and (3) frequency of heavy episodic drinking (0 = Never to 4 = Daily or almost daily). Heavy episodic drinking was defined as consuming six or more units if female, or eight or more units if male, in a typical drinking session; one unit of alcohol is equivalent to 10 ml or 8 g of pure alcohol. A cumulative AUDIT-C score was computed (0–12) and a cut-off score of ≥5 used to indicate higher-risk consumption.22,23 Participants who answered anything other than ‘Never’ to the first AUDIT-C item were categorized as ‘current drinkers’ and asked to complete items two and three (units drunk and frequency of heavy episodic drinking). Within current drinkers, the AUDIT-C had acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.79). All other participants were classed as ‘non-drinkers’ and were not asked to complete the final two items. The ‘non-drinker’ category includes never-drinkers and those who do not currently drink.
Susceptibility to consume alcohol
Participants were asked ‘Do you think you will drink alcohol at any time during the next year?’ (1 = Definitely No to 4 = Definitely Yes; or Not sure). Never-drinkers were categorized as ‘susceptible’ if they answered other than ‘Definitely No’, while those who selected this option were categorized as ‘non-susceptible’.
Ethics
Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Stirling General University Ethics Panel (GUEP59).
Analysis
Data were analysed using SPSS version 23 and Microsoft Excel. All analyses were weighted to be representative of the demographic profile of the UK population. Frequencies examined awareness of product information, health messaging, and warnings on alcohol packaging in the past month. Pearson’s Chi-square tests examined differences in awareness by gender, ethnicity (White British vs. Other), resident country, legal purchase age status, ever-drinking status, current drinking status, higher-risk drinking status, and susceptibility. A Pearson’s Chi-square test also examined awareness by IMD, and a linear-by-linear association examined whether this increased from the more deprived to more affluent quintiles.
Responses to the free-text item were manually examined, and appropriate codes developed and refined from the raw data. An initial list of codes were developed by DJ, and revised and refined into 10 individual codes following discussion with NC and CM. Where participants provided information on more than one code (e.g. drinking during pregnancy and drink-driving), these were coded separately. Responses that were nonsensical or provided irrelevant information (e.g. messages about smoking or mention of receiving alcohol health education at school), examples of alcohol branding, and missing data, were excluded from analysis. If the branding also included product information, health messaging or warnings (e.g. ‘Please enjoy Brand X responsibly’) it was included. Following coding, weighted frequencies examined how often each code was recalled among those who had seen health messaging or product-related information on alcohol packaging within the past month, and how many different messages were recalled by each participant.
Results
Sample characteristics
The weighted sample (n = 3399) contained 51% males and an equal distribution across the five quintiles of deprivation (20% in each) (Table 1). Most participants were White British (76%), lived in England (84%) and were below the minimum legal purchasing age for alcohol (76%). The average age was 15.18 years old (SD = 2.55).
Table 1.
Sample profile based on unweighted and weighted frequencies
| Unweighted | Weighted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | % | n | % | n |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 49 | 1679 | 51 | 1733 |
| Female | 51 | 1720 | 49 | 1666 |
| Ethnicity | ||||
| White British | 80 | 2716 | 76 | 2594 |
| Other | 19 | 647 | 23 | 779 |
| Not specified or prefer not to say | 1 | 36 | 1 | 26 |
| Country lived in | ||||
| England | 77 | 2601 | 84 | 2869 |
| Scotland | 12 | 424 | 8 | 265 |
| Wales | 7 | 250 | 5 | 160 |
| Northern Ireland | 4 | 124 | 3 | 105 |
| IMD Quintile a | ||||
| 1 (most deprived) | 20 | 680 | 20 | 676 |
| 2 | 20 | 666 | 20 | 676 |
| 3 | 21 | 723 | 20 | 676 |
| 4 | 18 | 616 | 20 | 676 |
| 5 (least deprived) | 21 | 712 | 20 | 676 |
| Legal purchase age for alcohol | ||||
| No | 75 | 2551 | 76 | 2582 |
| Yes | 25 | 848 | 24 | 817 |
| Ever consumed alcohol b | ||||
| Never drinker | 48 | 1598 | 49 | 1623 |
| Ever drinker | 52 | 1741 | 51 | 1713 |
| Current drinking status b | ||||
| Non-drinkerc | 52 | 1724 | 52 | 1747 |
| Current drinker | 48 | 1615 | 48 | 1590 |
| Higher-risk consumption d | ||||
| Lower-risk drinker | 56 | 907 | 56 | 883 |
| Higher-risk drinker | 44 | 708 | 44 | 707 |
| Susceptible to consume e | ||||
| Non-susceptible | 52 | 836 | 48 | 782 |
| Susceptible | 48 | 762 | 52 | 841 |
Cases excluded due to missing data:
a(n = 17 [weighted]).
b(n = 62 [weighted]).
cNon-drinker = Never consumed alcohol or do not currently consume alcohol.
dBase = All current drinkers.
eBase = All never drinkers.
Alcohol consumption
After excluding cases with missing data on drinking status (n = 62, weighted), half of the weighted sample were ever-drinkers (51%). Almost half of the weighted sample were current drinkers (48%) and almost half of current drinkers (44%) were classified as consuming at higher-risk (≥5 on the AUDIT-C) (Table 1). Almost half of the weighted sample were never-drinkers (49%) and almost half of never-drinkers were classified as susceptible (52%).
Awareness of messaging on packaging
Approximately a third of participants (32%) recalled seeing product-related information, health messaging or warnings on alcohol packaging in the past month (Table 2). Chi-square tests indicated that awareness was significantly greater in those above the legal purchasing age (48%) compared to those below (27%), χ2(1) = 128.53, P < 0.001, ϕ(Phi) = −0.19; in ever-drinkers (45%) versus never-drinkers (18%), χ2 (1) = 268.15, P < 0.001, ϕ = −0.28; in current drinkers (46%) versus non-drinkers (19%), χ2(1) = 294.40, P < 0.001, ϕ = −0.30; and in higher-risk drinkers (55%) versus lower-risk drinkers (39%), χ2(1) = 43.53, P < 0.001, ϕ = −0.17. In never-drinkers, awareness was greater among those susceptible to consuming alcohol (21%) compared to those not susceptible to consuming alcohol (16%), χ2(1) = 6.31, P = 0.01, ϕ = −0.06.
Table 2.
Awareness of information, health messaging, and health warnings on packaging by demography and drinking status
| Aware of health messaging on packaging in past month | Chi-Square | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | n | χ2 | P | |
| Weighted base | 32 | 1076 | - | - |
| Gender | 2.65 | n.s. | ||
| Male | 33 | 571 | ||
| Female | 30 | 505 | ||
| Ethnicity | 4.77 | 0.03 | ||
| White British | 31 | 798 | ||
| Other ethnicity | 35 | 272 | ||
| IMD Quintile | 16.95a | <0.001 | ||
| 1 (most deprived) | 25 | 172 | ||
| 2 | 30 | 203 | ||
| 3 | 31 | 206 | ||
| 4 | 37 | 250 | ||
| 5 (least deprived) | 34 | 227 | ||
| Country lived in | 4.42 | n.s. | ||
| England | 32 | 921 | ||
| Scotland | 31 | 81 | ||
| Wales | 31 | 50 | ||
| Northern Ireland | 23 | 24 | ||
| Legal purchase age | 128.53 | <0.001 | ||
| Below legal purchase age | 27 | 686 | ||
| Above legal purchase age | 48 | 390 | ||
| Ever consumed alcohol | 268.15 | <0.001 | ||
| Never drinker | 18 | 295 | ||
| Ever drinker | 45 | 764 | ||
| Current drinking status | 294.40 | <0.001 | ||
| Not current drinker | 19 | 324 | ||
| Current drinker | 46 | 735 | ||
| Higher-risk drinking b | 43.53 | <0.001 | ||
| Lower-risk drinker | 39 | 343 | ||
| Higher-risk drinker | 55 | 392 | ||
| Susceptibility c | 6.31 | 0.01 | ||
| Non-susceptible | 16 | 123 | ||
| Susceptible | 21 | 173 | ||
Analyses are weighted
aLinear-by-Linear association.
bBased on current drinkers only.
cBased on never drinkers only.
Chi-square tests indicated that awareness was significantly lower in White British (31%) participants compared to Other ethnicities (35%), χ2(1) = 4.77, P = 0.03, ϕ = 0.04 (Table 2). There was also a significant difference between IMD quintiles (P < 0.001, ϕ = 0.08), with the linear-by-linear association indicating that those from more affluent quintiles reported greater awareness than those from lower quintiles, χ2(4) = 16.95, P < 0.001. Further analyses, however, suggested that these differences might partially be the result of the varied prevalence of alcohol use between the demographic groups. For example, those of White British ethnicity were significantly more likely to be current drinkers (51%) than those of Other ethnicities (36%), χ2 (1) = 51.85, P < 0.001, ϕ = 0.13. There was also a linear-by-linear association of current drinking across IMD quintiles, χ2(1) = 52.41, p < 0.001, ϕ = 0.16, with the most affluent quintile having a greater proportion of current drinkers (52%) than the most deprived (33%).
Messages on packaging recalled
After removing nonsensical or irrelevant answers (n = 62, weighted) and missing data (n = 25, weighted), 41% of participants recalled one message, 9% two messages, 2% three messages, and 1% four messages (Table 3). The most commonly recalled messages related to drinking responsibly or in moderation (18%) and consumption during pregnancy (13%). For messages related to pregnancy, there was almost no difference in recall between males and females (12.4% and 12.9%, respectively). Messages recalled by the fewest participants included gender-related drinking guidelines (2%), daily drinking guidelines (2%), age limits for alcohol (1%), and product ABV (<1%). Just under half of respondents (47%) indicated ‘Don’t Know’ to what messages they had seen.
Table 3.
Health messages on packaging recalled and weighted frequency of recall
| Frequency of recall | ||
|---|---|---|
| % | n | |
| Topic of health messages recalled | ||
| Drink responsibly | 18 | 198 |
| Don’t drink during pregnancy | 13 | 135 |
| Know and stick to your limits | 7 | 71 |
| Health, personal and social issues related to alcohol use | 7 | 69 |
| Don’t drink and drive | 5 | 54 |
| DrinkAware | 5 | 56 |
| Unit measurement | 3 | 33 |
| Gender drinking guidelines | 2 | 24 |
| Daily drinking guidelines | 2 | 20 |
| Over 18 only | 1 | 14 |
| ABV (%) | <1 | 4 |
| Total number of health messages recalled a | ||
| None (answered don’t know) | 47 | 460 |
| One | 41 | 410 |
| Two | 9 | 89 |
| Three | 2 | 23 |
| Four | 1 | 5 |
Data are weighted
Base: All participants who indicated they had seen health messaging on alcohol packaging in the past month.
aExcludes participants who provided a nonsensical or irrelevant answers (n = 62, weighted) and missing data (n = 25, weighted).
Discussion
Main findings of this study
Only a third of participants had seen any product-related information, health messages or warnings on alcohol packaging in the past month. Awareness was higher among those above the legal purchasing age, ever-drinkers, and current drinkers. This is to be expected given that non-drinkers and those who cannot legally purchase alcohol will typically have fewer opportunities to be exposed to alcohol packaging. Greater contact with alcohol packaging may also explain why higher-risk drinkers had the greater awareness. Nevertheless, less than half of those above the legal purchasing age (48%) or current drinkers (46%), and just over half of higher-risk drinkers (55%), reported being aware of information, health messages or warnings on alcohol packaging. Awareness was lower among those from less affluent quintiles and those not of White British ethnicity. The results, however, suggest that these differences may partially be a function of the varied proportions of drinkers within each demographic group.
Among participants who had seen health messaging or product-related information on alcohol packaging in the past month, the messages recalled most concerned drinking responsibly and drinking during pregnancy. The messages recalled least were for daily or gender-specific drinking guidelines, age-restriction messages, and product ABV. Of those who recalled seeing messages on packaging, most participants recalled only one message and almost half indicated that they did not know what messages they had seen.
What is already known on this topic??
Research into other fast-moving consumer goods (e.g. tobacco and food) has shown that health messaging and warnings on packaging can promote healthier attitudes and behaviours.24–30 Research exploring similar information or messaging on alcohol packaging, however, has reported an inconsistent effect and gaps in the evidence.31–35 In the UK, there is limited information on alcohol packaging that is mandatory (e.g. ABV and product origin), with most messaging or warnings voluntary (e.g. drinking guidelines, unit content, drinking in pregnancy).5–7 Research which has examined current labelling practice suggests that alcohol packaging does not always carry up-to-date consumption guidelines, and that information is not highly visible and may be unclear or inconsistently formatted.5,11,12,36 Resultantly, adults report little knowledge of, and allocate limited attention to, the product-related information and messaging on alcohol packaging.13–15 There is no research exploring awareness among young people.
What this study adds
This study shows, for the first time, the proportion of adolescents (above and below the legal purchasing age) in the UK that are aware of product-related information, health messaging, and warnings on alcohol packaging, and how this awareness varies by demography and consumption. That awareness was lower among young people from less affluent areas requires further exploration given the association this may have with health inequalities. That about half of current drinkers and those consuming alcohol at potentially higher risk were not aware of any health messaging or product-related information questions the nature and design of current labelling practices.
This is also the first study to consider what product-related information and messages young people recall from alcohol packaging. Ten different health messages were recalled, including factual product information (e.g. ABV and unit content), health messaging (e.g. consumption during pregnancy), and health or social issues related to alcohol (e.g. liver disease). Future research should explore the perceived relevance and efficacy of these messages among young people and the extent to which they inform their attitudes and consumption. Although several messages were recalled, only two were recalled by at least one-in-ten participants. The first was drink responsibly, a term considered strategically ambiguous as it is open to subjective interpretation, does not relate to an objective amount of alcohol or level of risk, and is often used to promote consumption of a brand (e.g. ‘Please drink Brand X responsibly’).37–41 The second concerned alcohol consumption during pregnancy, a message which may have limited efficacy to young people as the average age of first pregnancy in the UK is 28.8 years old.42 Seven messages were recalled by a minority of young people (one-in-twenty participants or fewer). This included messages around the age-restricted nature of alcohol and drinking guidelines.
Questions have been raised about the efficacy of self-regulation for alcohol marketing43–46 and packaging.11,12 In the UK, evidence suggests that current self-regulated labelling under-performs in comparison to more novel designs (e.g. pie charts showing proportion of weekly limit per serving)15 and does not always contain information that consumers consider informative.5 The suggested weak designs and poor clarity of self-regulated messages may help explain the low awareness and recall among young people. In the UK, health messages and warnings are mandatory on tobacco products,47 and research shows that such messages are influence smoking attitudes and behaviour.25,26,48 The current findings therefore suggest that further steps are required to increase the visibility and comprehension of messages on alcohol packaging, for example further exploration of optimal designs and standardizing across products.
Limitations of this study
Although product-related information, health messages, and warnings may all shape consumption behaviour and attitudes, they are heterogeneous in design and the information provided. In this study, however, they were measured through a single combined item and no visual or written prompts were provided. Future research could therefore consider prompted and unprompted awareness of the individual components (e.g. drinking guidelines and pregnancy warnings). The awareness of information and messages reported in this study is also not indicative of salience or perceived credibility among young people. Future research is needed to explore young people’s understanding of and engagement with product-related information and health messages. The free-text item on messages recalled was not mandatory, and thus it cannot be determined whether ‘Don’t Know’ responses reflected a genuine uncertainty over which messages had been seen or a desire to minimize response time. Consequently, it is possible that the free-text responses are not exhaustive of all health messages seen by young people on alcohol packaging. Finally, while the initial question asked about product-related information, health messages and warnings, the subsequent free-text item only asked what ‘messages’ they recalled. Consequently, this may have led some respondents to not report relevant product information (e.g. ABV) or warnings (e.g. liver damage).
Conclusion
This is the first study to examine awareness of product information, health messages and warnings among a demographically representative sample of adolescents in the UK. The findings show that most young people, including around half of current drinkers and half of higher-risk drinkers, did not recall seeing such information in the past month. Recall of messages was also low, with almost half of young people indicating they were unsure what messages they had seen. Further steps are needed to increase the visibility and comprehension of product information, health messages, and warnings on packaging.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank YouGov for their assistance in preparing and managing delivery of the survey and data. We also thank NatCen Social Research for their contribution to the original scoping studies used in the development of this project.
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from Cancer Research UK (1107098).
Declaration of interest
NC is a board member of Alcohol Focus Scotland. LH and JV work for Cancer Research UK, who funded the study. CT was also previously employed at Cancer Research UK. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
REFERENCES
- 1. World Health Organisation Global Status Report on Alcohol And Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Oldham M, Holmes J, Whitaker V et al. Youth Drinking in Decline. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 3. Calvert E. Alcohol Information: Label vs. Screen [blog]. 2018. May 15. Available from: https://www.beuc.eu/blog/alcohol-information-label-vs-screen/ [accessed 15th Feb 2019].
- 4. Al-Hamdani M, Smith SM.. Alcohol health-warning labels: promises and challenges. J Public Health 2017;39(1):3–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Royal Society for Public Health Labelling the Point: Towards Better Alcohol Health Information. London, UK: Royal Society for Public Health, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 6. International Alliance of Responsible Drinkers Beverage Alcohol Labelling Requirements Available from: http://www.iard.org/resources/beverage-alcohol-labeling-requirements/#european-union [accessed 15th Feb 2019].
- 7. The Portman Group Code of Practice on the Naming, Packaging and Promotion of Alcoholic Drinks, 5th edn London, UK: The Portman Group, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Institute for Alcohol Studies Dead on Arrival? Evaluating the Public Health Responsibility Deal for Alcohol. London, UK: Institute for Alcohol Studies, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 9. The Portman Group Communicating Alcohol and Health-Related Information. London, UK: The Portman Group, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Department of Health, Welsh Government, Department of Health Northern Ireland, Scottish Government UK Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines. London, UK: Department of Health, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Alcohol Health Alliance Our Right to Know: How Alcohol Labelling Is Failing Consumers. London, UK: Alcohol Health Alliance, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Petticrew M, Douglas N, Knai C et al. Health information on alcoholic beverage containers: Has the alcohol industry’s pledge in England to improve labelling been met? Addiction 2015;111(1):51–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kersbergen I, Field M.. Alcohol consumers’ attention to warning labels and brand information on alcohol packaging: Findings from cross-sectional and experimental studies. BMC Public Health 2017;17:123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Roderique-Davies G, John B, Jones S et al. Investigating the Potential Impact of Changing Health Messages on Alcohol Products. London, UK: Alcohol Concern and Alcohol Research UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Blackwell AKM, Drax K, Attwood AS et al. Informing drinkers: can current UK alcohol labels be improved? Drug Alcohol Depend 2018;192:163–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Newbury-Birch D, Walker J, Avery L et al. Impact of Alcohol Consumption on Young People: A Systematic Review of Published Literature. London, UK: Department for Children, Families and Schools, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 17. McCambridge J, McAlaney J, Rowe R.. Adult consequences of late adolescent alcohol consumption: a systematic review of cohort studies. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1000413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Velleman R. Influences on How Children and Young People Learn About and Behave Towards Alcohol. York, UK: The Joseph Roundtree Foundation, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Critchlow N, MacKintosh AM, Thomas C et al. Awareness of alcohol marketing, ownership of alcohol branded merchandise, and the association with alcohol consumption, higher-risk drinking and drinking susceptibility in adolescents and young adults: a cross-sectional survey in the UK. BMJ Open 2019;29(3):e025297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Critchlow N, MacKintosh AM, Thomas C et al. Participation with alcohol marketing and user-created promotion on social media, and the association with higher-risk alcohol consumption and brand identification among adolescents in the UK. Addict Res Theory 2019;27:515–26. 10.1080/16066359.2019.1567715 [Advance online publication]. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G.. Adolescents’ response to pictorial warnings on the reverse panel of cigarette packs: a repeat cross-sectional study. Tob Control 2015;24(1):93–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Public Health England NHS Health Check: Best Practice Guidance. London, UK: Public Health England, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Research in Practice Scoring Standardised Measures—All Measures and Guidance. Totnes, UK: Research in Practice, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Rosenblatt DH, Bode S, Dixon H et al. Health warnings promote healthier dietary decision making: Effects of positive versus negative messaging framing and graphic versus text-based warnings. Appetite 2018;127:280–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Drovandi A, Teague PA, Glass B et al. A systematic review of the perceptions of adolescents on graphic health warnings and plain packaging of cigarettes. Syste. Rev 2019;17(8):25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control 2011;20(5):327–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Brown HM, Rollo ME, de Vliger NM et al. Influence of the nutrition and health information presented in food labels on portion size consumed: a systematic review. Nutr Rev 2018;76(9):655–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Mantzari E, Vasiljevic M, Turney I et al. Impact of warning labels on sugar sweetened beverage on parental selection: An online experimental survey. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:259–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. van Kleef E, van Trijp H, Paeps F et al. Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling. Public Health Nutr 2008;11(2):203–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Becker MW, Bello NM, Sundar RP et al. Front of pack labels enhance attention to nutrition information in novel and commercial brands. Food Policy 2015;56:76–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Thomas G, Gonneau G, Poole N et al. The effectiveness of alcohol warning labels in the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a brief review. Int J Alcohol Drug Res 2014;3(1):91–103. [Google Scholar]
- 32. Wilkinson C, Room R.. Warning on alcohol containers and advertisements: International experience and evidence on effects. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009;28(4):426–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Andrews JC. The effectiveness of alcohol warning labels: a review and extension. Am Behav Sci 1995;38(4):622–32. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Hassan LM, Shui E.. A systematic review of the efficacy of alcohol warning labels: Insights from qualitative and quantitative research in the new millennium. J Soc Mark 2018;8(2):333–52. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Coomber K, Martino FI, Babour R et al. Do consumers ‘Get the facts’? A survey of alcohol warning label recognition in Australia. BMC Public Health 2015;15:816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. British Broadcast Corporation Latest health guidance missing from alcohol labels Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48549561 (accessed 18th June 2019).
- 37. McCambridge J, Kypri K, Miller P et al. Be aware of Drinkaware. Addiction 2013;109(4):591–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Hessari NM, Petticrew M.. What does the alcohol industry mean by ‘Responsible drinking?’ A comparative analysis. J Public Health 2018;40(1):90–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Smith KC, Cukier S, Jernigan D.. Defining strategies for promoting product through ‘drink responsibly’ messages in magazine ads for beer, spirits and alcopops. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;142:168–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Jones SC, Hall S, Kypri K.. Should I drink responsibly, safely, or properly? Confusing messages about reducing alcohol-related harm. PLoS One 2017;12(9):e0184705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Smith SW, Atkin CK, Roznowski J.. Are ‘Drink responsibly’ alcohol campaigns strategically ambiguous? Health Commun 2006;20(1):1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Office for National Statistics Births by Parents’ Characteristics in England and Wales: 2016. London, UK: Office for National Statistics, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 43. Alcohol Focus Scotland Promoting Good Health from Childhood: Reducing the Impact of Alcohol Marketing on Children in Scotland – A Report by the Virtual Expert Network on Alcohol Marketing. Glasgow, UK: Alcohol Focus Scotland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 44. Noel JK, Babor TF, Robaina K.. Industry self-regulation of alcohol marketing: a systematic review of content and exposure research. Addiction 2017;112(S1):28–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Noel JK, Babor TF.. Does industry self-regulation protect young people from exposure to alcohol marketing? A review of compliance and complaint studies. Addiction 2017;112(S1):51–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Alcohol Concern and Alcohol Research UK Fit for Purpose? An Analysis of the Role of the Portman Group in Alcohol Industry Self-regulation. London: Alcohol Concern and Alcohol Research UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 47. Department of Health Tobacco Packaging Guidance: Guidance for Retailers, Manufacturers and Distributors of Tobacco Products, Enforcement Agencies, and the Public on Changes to Tobacco Packaging from 20 May 2016. London, UK: Department of Health, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 48. Moodie C, Brose LS, Lee HS et al. How did smokers respond to standardised cigarette packaging with new, larger health warnings in the United Kingdom during the transition period? A cross-sectional online survey. Addict Res Theory 2019. 10.1080/16066359.2019.1579803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]