Europe, time to sober up!
- Martyna Wiśniewska
- 24 hours ago
- 10 min read
The Case for an EU Alcohol Control Framework
On January 1st 2026 the 33rd anniversary of establishing the European Single Market will be celebrated. Although the EU has built one of the most integrated markets in the world, alcohol policy remains a patchwork of national regulations. The European framework for action on alcohol, (2022–2025) which paves the way towards implementation of the global Action Plan (2022–2030), addressed the difficulties of a fragmented response as a main issue with effective implementing of the plan just next to complexity of the issue and as well as the influence and power of commercial interests in policy-making.
Despite this, alcohol hasn't been a weak player in the region. Nine of ten countries that have the highest levels of consumption in the world are located in the WHO European Region. Alcohol also makes the largest contribution to all-cause mortality. In Europe one in every ten deaths is caused by alcohol consumption. It is a causal factor for more than 200 diseases and linked to 7 types of cancer. One could say that it's quite a lot of harm for a liquid that in some member countries can be bought at the ripe age of 14.
On the other hand, evidence shows that when taxes form a larger share of the final retail price of alcohol, governments consistently collect more revenue even when people drink less. Alcohol is not perfectly inelastic: increases in price (via taxation) reduce consumption, yet evidence shows that states still benefit fiscally from such taxes. WHO states that a 10% increase in the tax share of alcoholic beverages was linked to an average of €59 per capita in additional revenue. Beyond the revenue argument, there is a dual economic incentive: lower consumption reduces the burden on public health systems, workforce productivity losses, social welfare costs and justice system expenditures. In the WHO’s European Region the cost of alcohol-related harm in high-income countries is estimated to reach up to 2.6% of GDP annually. For instance in Germany the annual revenue from alcohol excise taxes, which amount to about €3 billion annually, covers just 8% of the direct and indirect costs of alcohol consumption. These funds can then be earmarked and used to support health programmes and social services.
Therefore, the broader question remains. As it is already well established that alcohol causes serious harm, and it is also clear that curbing its consumption makes economic sense, why is action still lacking?
How Europe’s integrated economy still struggles with disjointed public health policies
The European framework for action on alcohol highlights 6 key priorities for action:
Pricing policies
Alcohol Availability
Alcohol Marketing
Health information with a specific focus on alcohol labelling
Health services’ response
Community action
Implementing these actions faces not only difficulties with fragmented response in the region, but also huge policy gaps between two model approaches to anti-alcohol policies: the Nordic and the Eastern European one.
Nordic vs Eastern European Model
In the Nordic countries alcohol policy approaches are defined by state monopolies (state-owned stores like Systembolaget in Sweden or Vinmonopolet in Norway), limited availability (stores have limited operating hours, and advertising is banned), and high taxation. On the contrary, Eastern European alcohol policies are characterized by weaker government control, presence of illicit trade and significantly varying restrictiveness between countries. These differences are best pictured by liquor store per citizen ratios in these two European regions. For example in Poland there are nearly 119,000 shops, while Sweden has 900 alcohol stores. One per roughly 11,000 people, compared with one for every 320 people in Poland. Empirical evidence suggests that emulating the Nordic countries could deliver considerable benefits given its countries' greater decrease in alcohol consumption in the last decades among high schoolers in comparison to Eastern European Countries on examples of Sweden and Poland.
Will bold anti-alcohol policies survive in the East?
Although one could presume that these high-control policies would not survive in the Eastern European realities, the evidence paints a very different picture. In Poland more and more municipalities are introducing night time bans for alcohol sales. In Cracow, where the rule applies between 0:00-5:30 a.m., during the first two years city’s authorities observed a significant decrease in police interventions during the hours the sales restriction resolution was in effect. The number of police interventions related to alcohol consumption decreased by almost 70% compared to July 2022 (before the restriction was introduced) and July 2025. In the wake of the success of Cracow, two months ago two parties of government coalition, Lewica (The Left) and centrist Polska 2050 (Poland 2050) have submitted legislative proposals including broad alcohol advertising bans, outlawing off-license sales from at least 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and curbs on alcohol sales at petrol stations and online. These legislative proposals show a greater shift happening in the Eastern European bloc’s country that has the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths in the region. There is a chance that while moving towards more innovative policies than regular taxation, Poland will finally soon acknowledge that the social cost from alcohol is not worth the excise revenue, since in this country it covers only 15% of that harm. That could influence the rest of the Eastern bloc towards a more regulated, Nordic approach regarding alcohol policies. Even though the Polish parliament voted last month to increase taxes on alcohol by 15% next year and 10% in 2027, expected revenue from that tax will still not cover the 93 billion social cost that we all pay for alcohol consumption. Introduction of this policy can be also seen as an aftermath of the widely criticised surcharge on sweet drinks, which was implemented in 2021. Policymakers initially claimed that such tax was imposed to improve the health of citizens. However, many experts have seen it as rather another tool of the government for increasing tax revenue. The Supreme Audit Office (NIK) confirmed this year that these fees had raised 5.2 billion zloty (€1,22 million) for the National Health Fund (NFZ) between the years of 2021 and 2023. Therefore, the following years should be crucial in answering the question if this year's increase in taxes on alcohol was similarly used as a source of income for the government or a helpful tool in enhancing public health in the country.
Another peculiar case of that social shift in East European countries is Lithuania. This country was ranked by WHO in 2015 as one with the highest consumption of alcoholic beverages. In just four years Lithuania was ranked 6th. In 2014 the country introduced a revolutionary ban on the sale of various alcohol-containing surrogates, such as mouthwashes, colognes and technical fluids with more than 20% ethyl alcohol content, which had previously been widely available in temporary retail outlets. Although we could rationally expect that after the introduction of those laws Lithuania would just see an increase in the number of illegal alcohol sales, the reality shows the opposite. In Lithuania, unrecorded consumption has been relatively low over the past years, varying in between 5% and 8% for all categories except for cross-border shopping, which could be partially linked to “The Baltic tax War” discussed later on. However, empirical evidence from studies demonstrate that taxation increases may cause different outcomes on unrecorded consumption, including decreases and increases in different contexts. Hence, illicit alcohol use remains a question to be carefully disected in such a diverse region as Eastern Europe proves to be, where black market sizes for alcohol tend to differ. For example, illicit alcohol in Russia represents 28.5% of total alcohol consumption, while it represents only 7.1% in the Czech Republic.
In Lithuania, similar predictions accompanied bans adopted between 2019 and 2023, such as the production of toys, food products, and other goods with designs imitating alcoholic beverages (the famous "champagne for children" ban). However, the data show a huge decline in current alcohol use among youth since the beginning of that anti-alcohol revolution.
In 2018, in subsequent restrictions, the government raised the minimum legal drinking age from 18 to 20, leaving the country with the highest legal drinking age in the region. This regional cultural change constitutes a perfect opportunity to push for greater tightening of this gap in alcohol policies in the EU. If Lithuania, the country with the highest consumption of alcoholic beverages in Europe, the toughest environment for implementing alcohol laws, managed to reverse its negative trajectory through bold policymaking, it means we can also do it in the rest of Europe, in better conditions. It is a necessary milestone between the present and the future when we will finally be able to deal with the issue of fragmented response highlighted by WHO.
When policies collide: the Baltic Tax War
Increasing alcohol excise tax to reduce alcohol affordability is one of the three WHO Best Buys, one of the most cost-effective policy measures which yields the most health gains for the least resources invested, since taxes generate direct and immediate revenue for countries. However, without unified action we will fail miserably just as it happened years back on the Estonia Latvia border. The cross-border alcohol trade in Latvia and Estonia increased in 2016 and 2017, due to lower alcohol retail prices in Latvia. To reduce cross-border trade, the Estonian government reduced the alcohol excise tax by 25% in July 2019. The Latvian government reacted a month ago and lowered the excise tax on spirits in Latvia by 15%. At the time the cross-border trade dynamics between Estonia and Latvia were not necessarily altered by these contesting tax changes but rather by the onset of travelling restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic.
Additionally, Europe suffers from a highly unbalanced alcohol taxation system. In 14 out of the 28 EU Member States, wine is completely exempt from excise duties. Meanwhile, in 21 countries, the excise tax on a unit of beer was less than €0.12 in 2018. By contrast, only three countries applied such low rates to spirits containing 40% alcohol. This imbalance means that beer accounts for between 35% and 51% of total alcohol consumption in the EU, yet contributes only 19% to 25% of government alcohol tax revenue. Aligning excise rates more proportionally across beverage types could therefore both reduce overall consumption and increase fiscal revenue. However, without a unified approach in a region, it will just trigger the same mechanisms that enabled Latvian-Estonian tax scuffles.
Why fragmentation fails us at all fronts
The fragmentation of alcohol policies across the EU reveals a deep contradiction at the heart of the Single Market. On one hand, Europe celebrates the free movement of goods, services, and people. On the other, national governments continue to enforce vastly different taxation, availability, and marketing rules for a product that imposes measurable social and economic harm across borders. This policy mismatch creates a regulatory vacuum that favours neither public health nor fair market competition. A coherent EU Alcohol Control Framework could serve as a remedy. Building on the success of the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive, a similar framework could harmonise the essential aspects of alcohol regulation while preserving the flexibility for Member States to tailor specific interventions to their social and cultural contexts. This approach would not aim to replace national sovereignty but to align it with shared economic and health objectives under the Single Market principles.
First, tax harmonisation should be prioritised. The existing disparity where some countries impose no excise duties on wine while others apply high taxes to spirits distorts trade, stimulates cross-border shopping, and undermines fiscal equity. Introducing minimum excise duty thresholds across beverage categories would ensure that taxation more accurately reflects alcohol content and related health risks. This would reduce incentives for regulatory arbitrage and stabilise revenue flows across Member States.
Second, common marketing and labelling standards are necessary to protect consumers and curb aggressive industry practices. As seen with tobacco, harmonised warning labels and restrictions on advertising, especially online, can have a measurable impact on consumption patterns. Mandatory labelling of alcohol content, calorie values, and health warnings could help consumers make more informed choices while countering misinformation spread by commercial interests.
Third, EU-wide monitoring and data-sharing mechanisms could bridge the knowledge gap between Member States. Coordinated surveillance of cross-border trade, consumption trends, and enforcement outcomes would make policy evaluation more transparent and evidence-driven. This would also empower smaller or less-resourced Member States to benefit from regional data rather than relying on industry-funded research.
Beyond the alcohol sector, the lessons from this case study point to a broader truth: regulatory fragmentation undermines the full potential of the Single Market. Whether it concerns sugary drinks, cannabis products, or emerging nicotine substitutes, the lack of coordination breeds inefficiency and inequity. The integration of markets must therefore be matched by the integration of health and fiscal policies. If Europe managed to turn the tobacco epidemic into a success story of coordinated regulation, there is no reason it cannot do the same for alcohol. A European Alcohol Control Framework would not only save lives but also strengthen the economic and moral coherence of the Union itself. A tightening gap between two extreme models of approaches towards alcohol policy implementation can already be observed. This moment offers a rare policy window: growing political will in Eastern Europe meets long-standing experience from the North. This opportunity should be taken advantage of.
As the end of 2025 approaches, WHO will soon issue their Final report regarding The European framework for action on alcohol. Although some positive changes in data regarding alcohol related behavior and societal damages will emerge, WHO will still call attention to probably the same 3 issues concerning policy implementation they have already mentioned three years ago: difficulties of a fragmented response in the EU, complexity of the issue and power of commercial interests in policy-making. Alcohol companies are agents with an enormous power, but not the ones impossible to fight, as previously shown by the conflict with tobacco companies. Therefore, confidence should be placed in the EU and its ability to address the problem faced in the region. Nevertheless, some degree of legal harmonisation between member states will be required. It should be emphasised to political leaders that the current situation represents an alcohol-policy limbo. Present policy solutions benefit neither public health nor fair market competition. The Single Market aims to remove barriers to trade, yet alcohol regulation has effectively created invisible borders, undermining both market fairness and health protection.
The countries concerned collect only a fraction of the costs generated by alcohol use through excise taxation. Ordinarily, an individual who invests ten times more money than the profit they are able to generate would be described as a “visionary entrepreneur”, a “philanthropist”, or simply “bad at math”. And if such an approach would appear absurd in business, it should appear even more absurd in public policy.
Bibliography
Biuletyn Informacji Prasowej Miasta Kraków. (2025). Po dwóch latach nocny zakaz sprzedaży alkoholu daje pozytywne efekty [After two years, the night-time ban on alcohol sales is producing positive effects]. https://krakow.pl/aktualnosci/298167,29,komunikat,po_dwoch_latach_nocny_zakaz_sprzedazy_alkoholu_daje_pozytywne_efekty.html
Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2022). Turning down the alcohol flow: Background document on the European framework for action on alcohol, 2022–2025. https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/37045/2/WHO-EURO-2022_Turning_down_the_alcohol_flow.pdf
Euromonitor International. (2018). Size and shape of the global illicit alcohol market. https://www.tracit.org/uploads/1/0/2/2/102238034/illicit_alcohol__-_white_paper.pdf
ESPAD. (2024). Key findings from the 2024 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs. https://www.euda.europa.eu/publications/data-factsheets/espad-2024-key-findings_en#data-explorer
Kość, W. (2025, September 29). Booze-soaked Poland pushes for nighttime sales ban. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-alcohol-night-sales-ban-health/
Manthey, J., Gobiņa, I., & Isajeva, L. (2024). The impact of raising alcohol taxes on government tax revenue: Insights from five European countries. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-024-00873-5
Manthey, J., Hassan, S. A., & Carr, S. (2021). What are the economic costs to society attributable to alcohol use? A systematic review and modelling study. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01031-8
Rehm, J., Neufeld, M., Room, R., Sornpaisarn, B., Štelemėkas, M., Swahn, M. H., & Lachenmeier, D. W. (2022, January). The impact of alcohol taxation changes on unrecorded alcohol consumption: A review and recommendations. International Journal of Drug Policy. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271958/1-s2.0-S0955395921X00102/
Tilles, D. (2025, November 10). Polish parliament approves increased taxes on alcohol and sweet drinks, but presidential veto looms. Notes from Poland. https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/11/10/polish-parliament-approves-increased-taxes-on-alcohol-and-sweet-drinks-but-presidential-veto-looms/
WHO. (2024, June 28). Alcohol. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol