Dr. Nikhil Gokani, a lecturer specializing in consumer protection and public health law at the University of Essex, holds key positions in several organizations: Chair of the Alcohol Labelling and Health Warning International Expert Group at the European Alcohol Policy Alliance, Vice President of the Law Section at the European Public Health Association, and a member of the Technical Advisory Group on Alcohol Labelling at the World Health Organization (WHO).

*This blog post offers a condensed overview of the article: N Gokani, ‘Booze, Bottles and Brussels: Member States’ Dilemma on Alcohol Health Warnings’ (2024) 13(2) Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 97-102. You can access the complete article here. An open-access version is also provided here.

Image: William Hogarth, Gin Lane

Alcohol and the Need for Clear Labeling

Alcohol consumption is directly linked to over 200 diseases, injuries, and disabilities. Even moderate alcohol intake is associated with elevated risks of heart conditions, stroke, liver cirrhosis, various cancers, and fetal alcohol disorders. Within the European Union (EU), alcohol consumption contributes to an estimated 255,000 to 290,000 deaths annually. Beyond the health implications, alcohol leads to considerable social and economic burdens on individuals and society as a whole.

Despite the well-documented negative consequences, consumer awareness regarding the harms of alcohol remains low. The WHO has consistently advocated for countries to implement measures that provide consumers with crucial information about alcohol through clear and comprehensive labeling. The EU itself acknowledges the significance of informing consumers about alcohol, aligning with the principle of EU consumer protection policy that empowers consumers by ensuring they are well-informed.

EU Regulations on Alcohol Labeling

Current EU regulations, specifically Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (‘FIC Regulation’), mandate that alcoholic beverages exceeding 1.2% alcohol by volume (‘ABV’) must display alcohol content on their labels. Other health-related details, including a list of ingredients and nutritional information, typically required on most food product labels, are not mandatory for alcoholic beverages over 1.2% ABV. Currently, EU law does not require any additional health-related information to be included on labels.

Member State Initiatives on Alcohol Labeling

While health-related warnings are not explicitly covered under EU law, several member states have implemented their own mandatory labeling regulations. These regulations primarily focus on two types of messaging: mandatory labeling related to the legal drinking age, and messaging that advises against alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

In October 2018, Ireland enacted the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018. Later, in May 2023, Ireland implemented the Public Health (Alcohol) (Labelling) Regulations 2023. As a result, starting in May 2026, non-reusable alcohol containers will be required to feature specific health warnings on their labels.

Despite receiving positive feedback from public health and consumer protection organizations, these Irish regulations have faced opposition from industry groups worldwide. The objections primarily challenge the compatibility of these regulations, and warning labels in general, with existing EU law in three main ways, addressed below.

Legal Objection 1: Irish Regulations Impede Free Movement

National labeling regulations fall under the scope of the FIC Regulation, implemented under shared EU competence in the internal market.

Regarding matters not “specifically harmonized” by the FIC Regulation, there seems to be a minimum harmonization: Article 38(2) allows member states to adopt specific national measures. As health warnings are not explicitly outlined in the FIC Regulation, it implies that health warning labeling may not be “specifically harmonized.” This allows member states to introduce national measures if these measures do not contradict the FIC Regulation’s protection or violate general Treaty provisions.

For areas “specifically harmonized” by the FIC Regulation, there appears to be a maximum harmonization: a clear intention to establish uniform protection; an exclusivity clause prohibiting the sale of non-compliant products; and a market access clause that prevents national measures unless authorized by EU law. Since mandatory particulars are thoroughly considered and listed, it suggests “specific harmonization,” subjecting them to maximum harmonization. If alcohol health warning labeling falls under this, member states cannot undermine the FIC’s protection but can exceed it under general Treaty rules, only when the FIC Regulation explicitly permits it. In this context, the FIC Regulation includes a derogation (Article 39(1)) that could enable member states to exceed the standards and adopt rules for additional mandatory particulars justified on public health or consumer protection grounds.

Therefore, regardless of whether health warning labeling is specifically harmonized or not, current harmonization allows member states to proceed with national warning labeling initiatives.

Legal Objection 2: Inconsistency with Existing EU Harmonization

The core protections outlined in the FIC Regulation, which member states cannot undermine, are detailed in Article 7 as “fair information practices.” Food information must be “accurate,” “clear and easy to understand,” and “not misleading,” especially regarding the “characteristics of the food” or by falsely “attributing to the food effects or properties which it does not possess.”

Accurate: The Irish labeling aligns with the general scientific consensus. Evidence overwhelmingly confirms that “Drinking alcohol causes liver disease,” even with relatively low consumption levels, and the risk escalates with increased intake. The evidence regarding the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy is equally compelling. It can negatively impact fertility, lead to pregnancy complications, and disrupt fetal development, potentially resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. The scientific consensus maintains that no amount of alcohol is safe during pregnancy. The assertion that “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers” is also firmly grounded in scientific evidence. The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer categorizes alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen due to the confirmed causal link between alcohol consumption and at least seven types of cancer. These risks are present regardless of the type of alcoholic beverage, are evident even at lower consumption levels, and increase proportionally with higher intake.

Clear: The clarity requirement pertains to the readability and visibility of the information. The Irish warnings likely meet these requirements as they are presented against a white background, enclosed within a black box, and adhere to a minimum size requirement.

Not misleading: The Irish labeling is not misleading. Following broader consumer protection principles in the internal market, adherence to information regulations is evaluated based on the behavior of the “average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect taking into account social, cultural and linguistic factors.” This hypothetical average consumer is an active participant in the market who engages with product information, possesses background knowledge, critically assesses the provided information, avoids literal interpretations, and is unlikely to be easily misled if sufficient information is provided. This average consumer is expected to understand the intended meaning of the labeling. The pregnancy warning, for instance, simply advises against alcohol consumption during pregnancy, echoing national health guidelines. The statement “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers” conveys an association with fatal cancers. However, it stops short of claiming a direct causal relationship despite the substantial scientific evidence supporting causation. Similarly, the warning “Drinking alcohol causes liver disease” is not misleading, given that liver disease can develop even with moderate alcohol consumption.

Legal Objection 3: Lack of Proportionality

National alcohol labeling regulations must also demonstrate proportionality, meaning they must be appropriate and necessary to achieve their intended goals.

Legitimate objective: The primary aim of health messaging on labels is to provide consumers with essential information. While informing consumers is the main objective, it contributes to the broader goal of reducing alcohol consumption. Since the Irish regulations were introduced under the Article 39 derogation, the objectives are confined to “the protection of public health” and “the protection of consumers.” Alcohol control aligns with these broad goals, as the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) consistently maintains that mitigating alcohol-related harm is a crucial and valid objective.

Suitability: To assess suitability, it’s essential to determine if the proposed labeling can effectively achieve its objectives of informing consumers and, as part of a broader set of measures, contribute to a reduction in alcohol consumption. Regarding the primary objective, evidence suggests a lack of awareness about the health risks associated with alcohol consumption, and labeling has been shown to be an effective tool for informing consumers. Research indicates that health warnings on alcoholic beverages increase awareness of health risks, including cancer, liver disease, and pregnancy-related risks. Furthermore, EU law already mandates health warnings on certain food products. Regarding the secondary objective, evidence supports labeling’s contribution to reducing alcohol-related harm and overall consumption.

Necessity: The necessity principle requires that less intrusive measures be considered and, if found equally effective in achieving the intended objectives, should be prioritized over the proposed labeling. However, in this case, alternative measures are not deemed equally effective. Labeling has the distinct advantage of being accessible at both the point of purchase and the point of consumption. It is present on every container, ensuring that anyone encountering the product also encounters the warning. Labeling effectively counteracts the influence of promotional marketing messages often found on packaging. Additionally, it entails minimal ongoing costs. The CJEU has consistently upheld that, compared to other potential interventions, labeling is a less restrictive approach.

Towards Effective Alcohol Health Warning Labeling

The industry’s arguments, which suggest that EU food law poses a barrier to national regulations on alcohol health warning labeling, lack legal merit. Consequently, in the absence of EU-wide action, member states must take the initiative and move forward independently. The hope is that other EU member states will follow Ireland’s lead in this regard.

It is crucial for EU institutions to support member states in their efforts to address and reduce alcohol-related harm. There were encouraging signs with the “Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan,” where the Commission committed to introducing proposals on alcohol health warning labeling by the end of 2023. However, this deadline has passed without concrete action. It is hoped that the EU will ultimately prioritize the health of its citizens over the interests of economic stakeholders.