Department of Health and Social Care Consultation on Low Alcohol Descriptors

Department of Health and Social Care Consultation on Low Alcohol Descriptors British Beer & Pub Association Response 10 th May 2018

Introduction The British Beer & Pub Association champions issues that matter to the beer and pub industry. These are causes our members are passionate about: whether that is promoting beer as the nation s favourite alcoholic beverage, or lobbying against increases in beer duty and businesses rates that are so damaging to community pubs. Our members are responsible for 90% of beer brewed in Britain today and we represent around 20,000 of the country s pubs. They include international companies, family brewers, managed locals and the nation s largest tenanted pub estates. It s a diverse group but we are passionate about representing, supporting and campaigning for the interests of the beer and pub sector. The BBPA is now more than 100 years old, having been founded in 1904, we have a unique identity and a powerful voice which we use to influence public opinion, in the interests of our members. Executive Summary The British Beer & Pub Association supports the proposal by DHSC to control the use of low strength descriptors through guidance, rather than in legislation from December 2018. Such guidance requires flexibility, but must ensure that labelling terms are positive and are used consistently. Guidance must be compatible with ASA rules and we would like to see a review of these to support the wider promotion of lower strength products. Whilst the current threshold for low strength is set at no greater than 1.2% ABV, the majority of low alcohol products are sold with an alcohol strength no greater than 0.5% ABV, (including products sold as alcohol free). BBPA recognises the use of the 1.2% ABV threshold as a duty point by HMRC. Therefore, our preference would not be to alter the maximum level at which a product can be defined as low strength, but to revise and simplify the existing terms to more reflect more appropriately the strength of products currently marketed as low strength. On this basis, we would propose revised criteria through removal of the existing term for dealcoholised. The terms alcohol free and non-alcoholic should be used interchangeably which would include broadening the permitted use of the term non-alcoholic, which currently applies only to communion or sacramental wines, as follows: Low Strength: 0.5% ABV - 1.2% ABV Alcohol Free/Non-Alcoholic: no greater than 0.5% ABV In particular, the suggestion to re-define the terminology for products with an alcohol strength no greater than 0.5% ABV using either alcohol free or non-alcoholic carries the broad support of the BBPA membership and represents greater flexibility to reflect consumer expectation. This would also improve consistency with labelling of such products across the EU, as well as other global markets. BBPA also proposes the introduction of a new lower strength category for products above 1.2% ABV and no greater than 3.5% ABV. There is clear evidence from the latest Drinkaware research that a significant proportion of consumers seek out lower strength options as a way of moderating their alcohol consumption. A decision by the Australian Government to introduce tax reductions for lighter beer of 3.5% ABV or below has led to growth of such beers to occupy 25% of the market. Establishing a definition for lower strength at 3.5% ABV would represent a small increase from 2.8% ABV. Consumers are more receptive of beer at this strength and greater consumer acceptance would act as an incentive for significant investment and innovation. A definition at 3.5% ABV would also be consistent with UK Government support for an increase in the current EU excise duty thresholds from 2.8% ABV to 3.5% ABV. 2

Finally, it is vital that the right language is used for product descriptors. BBPA believes that terms such as lighter or mid could be used for lower strength products as these are more positive to consumers than terms such as reduced or lower and are terms already used in other foreign markets. Consultation Question Responses Question 1: Do you agree with the Government s preferred option of providing guidance working with industry and other stakeholders to describe low alcohol descriptors rather than legislate after 13 December 2018? Yes If no, please provide a reason why? The BBPA is supportive of efforts to reduce the burden of regulatory compliance through the use of selfregulatory principles. In the case of low alcohol labelling, working with industry to establish a set of conditions for the use of relevant terms would carry significant advantages over their definition as part of legislation. Industry has considerable experience of the development and use of positive marketing terms and descriptors which are necessary to convey those messages that are likely to encourage consumers to consider lower strength products and to overcome existing skepticism. In particular for such products, use of appropriate descriptors is vitally important given the historically negative consumer perception of the quality of low alcohol beverages. Consumer interest in low alcohol beverages is growing with the category enjoying renewed interest. The consultation notes that sales of low and non-alcoholic drinks have increased by 20% over a 12-month period. However, despite this, low strength beers still represent less than 0.5% of the total beer market (BBPA figures 2017). It therefore remains vital to continue to raise the profile of low strength drinks and to ensure that marketing descriptors are both positive and able to reflect the increasing pace of consumer interest. Self-regulation enables industry, in consultation with wider stakeholders, to identify, recommend and agree the use of terms that are more specific to alcoholic beverages and which the industry understand to resonate with consumers. Self-regulation also enables a faster process of adjustment to reflect changing market trends or consumer than would be possible where definitions are controlled through Legislation. The BBPA is also conscious that moving from a legislative basis for control of relevant terms to a self-regulatory approach comes with a responsibility to avoid an increased risk of abuse. As part of a self-regulatory, sectoral approach it will therefore be important to ensure that industry guidance includes the necessary flexibility to apply the appropriate terms for the different products whilst ensuring that labelling terms remain consistent, unambiguous and are not misleading. There will also be a need to ensure that any approach to defining and controlling use of terms for low and lower strength beverages as part of industry guidance is compatible with ASA Rules on advertising and marketing. Since these rules refer to the legislative nature of the existing descriptors it is vitally important that such a change does not further complicate the abilities of the beverage industry to market low and lower strength beverages in their own right and that the rules that allow this are clearly defined. Indeed, we would like to see a review of the current ASA rules to provide greater scope to market products by virtue of their lower-strength. 3

Development of industry guidance must be undertaken with a mind to ensuring that the language used for descriptors is attractive and positive to avoid reinforcement of existing, negative perceptions. This must also uphold the principles of quality of the final product, ingredients and associated production processes used and which are associated with both low and standard strength beers alike. Question 2: Do you have any evidence to support the case for introducing new alcoholic drink descriptors above 1.2% ABV. Yes Whether through industry guidance or legislative revision, BBPA supports the need for a lower strength descriptor for products with an alcohol strength that would occupy a discrete range above 1.2% ABV. This may be set either across a defined range or with reference to a strength which would differ based on the strength of products within the different alcohol beverage categories. For example, there is very clear evidence from the latest Drinkaware research, that a significant proportion of consumers now seek out lower strength options as a way of moderating their alcohol consumption. The Drinkaware research 1 undertaken by YouGov last year found that a quarter of all adults chose a lower strength drink as a way of moderating their consumption and a similar percentage will look for a low/non-alcoholic beer, wine or cider. However, as noted in the answer to question 1 of this consultation, perceptions of low strength drinks remain poor despite increasing sales. There is a significant degree of consumer skepticism surrounding the quality and drinkability of such products, which is driven principally through historical associations with low alcohol drinks. These perceptions are a significant barrier to encouraging consumers to try low alcohol drinks and therefore heavily influence purchasing decisions. Re-educating consumers about the positive attributes of low strength drinks is a key consideration to regaining consumer trust and the credibility of low strength beverages. Establishing a recognised lower strength definition would provide an opportunity to introduce consumers to products with reduced alcohol strength whilst maintaining expectations of quality and drinkability. This process of successfully introducing consumers to lower strength variants of beers that typically would contain a higher strength has been demonstrated over recent years i.e. through the introduction of session IPAs which typically occupy a lower alcohol range from traditional IPA s. Introducing a lower strength definition may also reflect more accurately the situation surrounding the low strength alcoholic beverage market. Whilst the current threshold for low strength is set at no greater than 1.2% ABV, the majority of low strength products currently sold on the market contain no greater than 0.5% ABV, including those products sold as alcohol free i.e. with an alcohol strength no more than 0.05% ABV. There are very few, if any, products marketed at or around 1.2% ABV however, there is a marked increase in the numbers of products sold at between 2.8% and 3.6% ABV. The current average strength for beer is 4.2% ABV. Below this strength, and until 1.2% ABV is reached, there is no recognised descriptor that might be used as a vehicle to encourage consumers to make lower strength choices. 1 https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/research/our-research-and-evaluation-reports/drinkaware-monitor-2017/ 4

There is however a wealth of products within this strength band that could be identified as lower strength and which, if an appropriate descriptor was agreed, would provide an opportunity to offer consumers with options to select an exponentially greater range of lower strength beers. Based on existing market dynamics and also with reference to relevant Legislation, our preference would be to introduce a new lower strength definition for beer with maximum ABV threshold of no greater than 3.5% ABV. In order to ensure clarity for consumers and given the complications posed by the variance in standard alcohol strength across the alcohol drinks categories, we believe that for lower strength it is more appropriate to establish a beverage specific definition rather than a set reduction from a reference strength. Definitions that are specific to drink categories avoid the constraint encountered for products that already occupy a lower range of alcohol strength and as a result of applying a set reduction from a reference strength that increases across the different beverage types i.e. beer, wine, spirits. Differing lower strength definitions across beverage types also reflects the lack of any consistent standard strength definition across the alcoholic beverage sector. Whilst there are very few beers currently produced between 1.2% - 2.7% ABV, the introduction of a reduced rate of tax for beers produced at 2.8% ABV has stimulated the development of beers produced at this strength. Whilst there is then some further volume produced at 3.0% ABV, this volume is significantly increased at 3.6% ABV and which reflects the heritage of British cask beer production and across which range beer styles such as Ordinary Bitter and Pale Ale would typically have fallen, and which remain popular today. Removal of alcohol typically has a significant impact on the balance of flavour and therefore the drinkability of beer. Re-establishing the required balance can require significant adjustment in ingredient use to address this. This is most commonly found across large reductions i.e. in the production of low or no alcohol beers, or where reductions are undertaken from mid/higher strength i.e. reduction from 5% to 4.5% ABV. However, smaller reductions at lower strength can typically be adjusted for; either within the production process, or as a result of small changes to the combinations of existing ingredients. A slight reduction from 3.6% ABV to 3.4% ABV would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the flavour and drinkability of the product and in this way could deliver a more immediate impact in terms of the availability of a diverse range of lower strength beers that could be quickly assigned to a new, Lower Strength category. Notwithstanding initial consumer interest, the wider uptake of beers at 2.8% ABV has been limited. This is in part due to existing restrictions set within the ASA guidelines and which complicates the marketing of lower strength beverages. However, reserved interest in products at this strength is likely due to inherent consumer mistrust in their quality and drinkability. Establishing a definition for lower strength at 3.5% ABV would represent a small increase from 2.8% ABV but which could provide significant investment and stimulate further innovation since consumers are typically more receptive of beer at this strength. Additionally, there is strong logic for ensuring consistency across tax, labelling descriptors, and marketing rules and we acknowledge UK Government support for an increase in the current EU excise duty threshold for lower-strength beers from 2.8% ABV to 3.5% ABV. In order to market such products in the most effective way and given the current extent of consumer distrust of the quality of low strength beverages, it is vitally important that the right language is used for marketing. Terms that are more positive such as lighter or mid are typically perceived as more positive than terms such as reduced or lower and on this basis would be preferred. Use of such terms also reflects other geographical regions where beers produced and sold at reduced or lower strength are marketed as light/lighter or Mid. In particular, in Australia light is typically applied to beers with an alcohol strength at or around 3% ABV with Mid 5

Strength then applied to beer at 3.5% ABV. Use of these terms also reflects differential rates of duty that are applied to drinks with an alcohol strength between 1.1-3.0% (low) and 3.1-3.5% (mid-strength). Around 25% of the Australian beer market is now accounted for by beer at 3.5% ABV or below. In North American and Canada, the term is also used to describe a category of beers that are reduced in strength for both alcohol and calories from that of regular beer. Question 3: For something to be low alcohol the amount of alcohol needs to be 1.2% or less. Do you think the Government should keep this guideline? Yes BBPA recognises the challenges associated with redefining the level at which low alcohol is currently described under food labelling Legislation, which is also used by HMRC as a duty point. However, as described above, there are very few alcohol products produced and marketed at this strength. Despite this, the extent of the low alcohol descriptor is very important to protect, since it enables a positive description for products marketed in the UK at 0.5 % ABV. This reflects the strength at which similar products are sold in continental Europe, however in the UK, with the exception of dealcoholised which is generally not accepted as a positive descriptor for beer or one which resonates with consumers, there is no alternative descriptor outside of low-strength that can be used for the purposes of marketing low alcohol products. It is clear that differences between EU and UK legislation surrounding the description of low alcohol is a source of great confusion, not only for consumers but also for those seeking to import low strength beer to the UK as well as those exporting to the EU. Whilst not a defined descriptor, the EU definition of products above 0.5% ABV as being alcoholic serves to imply that products below this level are by definition alcohol free (or at the very least non-alcoholic) and which is then in direct contradiction to the UK labelling rules which specify alcohol free for products with a strength no greater than 0.05% ABV. For the purposes of increased consumer clarity and understanding, BBPA would support efforts to equalise the terminology applied to such products such that beers sold across the UK and the EU use a common descriptor. BBPA recognises that increasing the limit at which a product is defined as alcohol free would be difficult to undertake. However, removing the definition of alcohol free and redefining all products with a strength no greater than 0.5% ABV as non-alcoholic may present a clearer, more consumer-friendly descriptor of such products and would serve to introduce greater consistency with EU labelling legislation. 6

Question 4: Should the Government keep the existing descriptor dealcoholised? No There are no beers at 0.5% ABV sold on the UK market that use the dealcoholised descriptor. On this basis we would support its removal. We would however wish to ensure that a positive descriptor is available for products at this strength since there are far greater numbers of beers produced at this level than are produced from 0.5% ABV - 1.2% ABV. Question 5: Do you agree the term non-alcoholic should be permitted to be used otherwise than in connection with sacramental and communion wines? Yes BBPA believes that consumers are likely to perceive non-alcoholic and alcohol free as meaning the same and on this basis, we would support the interchangeable use of both terms for products with a strength no greater than 0.5% ABV. This would require the broader use of the term non-alcoholic than is currently permitted. We believe that labelling descriptors must equally reflect product characteristics as well as consumer expectations and on this basis, producers should have the necessary flexibility to choose a relevant terminology that satisfies both. Further however, allowing the broader use of this term also forms the basis of an opportunity to bring existing UK labelling legislation into line with EU legislation as outlined in our response to Q3. It has already been noted that there are considerately greater numbers of beers produced up to 0.5% ABV in Europe. In their home markets these products are typically sold on the basis that they do not contain alcohol rather than being low in strength whereas in the UK this would not be possible under our current definitions. Such labelling conflicts can present a barrier to trade and on this basis a more consistent approach to labelling may also support drives to increase the range of foreign, low strength products available within the UK as well as supporting greater export opportunities for our National producers. Question 6: Do you agree that Government should maintain the descriptor alcohol free, and for this to continue at 0.05% ABV? No. As for Q5, BBPA believes that consumers are likely to perceive non-alcoholic and alcohol free as meaning the same. We believe that labelling descriptors must equally reflect product characteristics as well as consumer expectations and on this basis, producers should have the necessary flexibility to choose a relevant terminology that satisfies both. Broadly our members have indicated a preference for the interchangeable use of the terms non-alcoholic and alcohol free, and that these terms should apply to a level no greater than 0.5% ABV rather than 0.05% ABV. 7

We believe establishing a consistent level at 0.5% ABV, for alcohol free/non-alcoholic products across EU and other global markets would reduce consumer confusion. Removing the 0.05% ABV band also reflects the situation found across the wider food industry i.e. drinks containing or made with natural fruit juice or foods/ confectionary with alcohol included is an ingredient, where there is no requirement to identify an alcohol as a component and which may be present up to 0.5% ABV. Question 7: Do you have any further comments? The consultation notes that the policy of DHSC is how best to continue to communicate information to the public about low alcohol products. A decision to support or object to the approach to undertaking this through industry guidance may depend on the extent and nature of the information DHSC envisages being included within the guidance outside of low alcohol descriptors. There is no specific detail included in this consultation on this. Government have allowed a limited period of time to announce what they will do and allow industry to affect the necessary actions. What transitionary period will be provided and how will this work given that the sunset clause takes effect from December 2018? Differences in rules across the Devolved Administrations would serve to increase consumer confusion and may undermine efforts to improve consumer trust and confidence in such products, especially where chosen on the basis of reducing alcohol consumption on advice from public health bodies. BBPA contact re this response: Steve Livens, Policy Manager Product Assurance & Supply Chain slivens@beerandpub.com / 0207 627 9136 8