The SSA recorded a policy roundtable discussion in February 2026 on the topic of a national alcohol strategy. To mark the release of the video, Science Communication Officer Holly Wood-Blake describes some of the key talking points and highlights the benefits of bringing people with different backgrounds together to address addiction policy problems.
Alcohol harm remains one of the most persistent and pervasive public health challenges in the UK. Despite decades of research documenting alcohol’s impact on health, social care, families, and communities, progress on effective alcohol policy has been uneven and, at times, has stalled. It has now been well over a decade since the last national alcohol strategy, published under David Cameron’s coalition government.
To explore what the evidence tells us, and why acting on it has proved so difficult, the SSA convened a policy roundtable event in Sheffield – bringing together experts in policymaking, public health, research, and lived experience. The discussion created space for informed and open debate about where alcohol policy currently stands, where it has fallen short, and what opportunities for change might emerge.
As alcohol consumption patterns shift, inequalities in harm widen, and pressures on health and social care intensify, speakers were clear that alcohol policy remains a live and urgent public health issue. Dr Gautam Mehta, Consultant Hepatologist and Associate Professor at UCL, shared his experience of treating people with alcohol-related liver disease. “[It] affects people of working age, contributing to life – with many, many years of productive life left to live,” he explained. “Most people don’t know they have liver disease until they have a severe, catastrophic complication. About 70% of people in hospital haven’t got a previous diagnosis, and of those, a quarter will die within a matter of months.”
Alcohol harm is not just about individual behaviour
While the panel represented a range of perspectives, there was agreement that alcohol harm cannot be understood or addressed solely as a matter of individual behaviour.
Several speakers highlighted how harm often intersects with wider social and economic inequalities. Framing alcohol primarily as an issue of ‘personal responsibility’, they argued, obscures its structural drivers, limits the scope of policy responses, and plays into the alcohol industry’s preferred narrative around the issue.
“Alcohol policies at the moment talk about it from an industry perspective, in the sense that it’s an ‘individual problem’”, said Clive Henn, former policy advisor and public health expert. “That cements a framework where this is all about the individual.”
The pandemic provided a stark illustration of how context and environment can inform the level of harm. As hospitality closed and drinking shifted into the home, alcohol-related harms rose.
“COVID was a natural experiment,” recalled Alice Wiseman MBE, Director of Public Health for Newcastle and Gateshead. “We saw harm go through the roof. People didn’t have structure in the day and had access to alcohol in supermarkets. That shift towards drinking at home is something we need to think seriously about when we design policies to protect people.”
Who shapes alcohol policy, and why it matters
Another area of consensus was the need to safeguard alcohol policymaking from industry influence. Speakers described how commercial interests continue to steer the framing of problems and solutions, often in ways that run counter to public health goals.
“The industry puts a lot of effort into controlling alcohol policy,” remarked Professor John Holmes, Director of the Sheffield Addictions Research Group. He pointed to tactics such as coalition-building, controlling evidence and debate, relationships with government, and, at times, legal threats and attacks on research.
Rosanna O’Connor, Chair of Collective Voice, proposed that alcohol policy could learn from tobacco control, where protections against industry influence are more firmly embedded. “[We] need something like the framework for tobacco control for alcohol,” she said. “Without it, we’ll be forever doomed with influence – it’s insidious.”
Recent debates around minimum unit pricing illustrated how these dynamics continue to play out. Despite growing evidence of effectiveness, hopes that minimum unit pricing might feature in long-term UK health planning were ultimately dashed.
“We had whisperings that [minimum unit pricing] might be included in the 10-year NHS plan,” Alice noted. “[The Department of Health and Social Care] thought it was a good idea […] but the Institute of Alcohol Studies showed, through a freedom of information request, how active industry lobbying was in the lead-up to that plan being published.”
Dr Peter Rice, Chair of the Institute of Alcohol Studies, recalled the process by which minimum unit pricing came to be law in Scotland and the importance of political will. “The industry put the frighteners on government, and we were just lucky that there were brave people willing to see it through.”
Beyond information and awareness
The panel said that there is no single policy lever that can address alcohol harm across all groups and settings. Education and information-based approaches remain popular and politically attractive, but speakers cautioned against relying on them in isolation.
“The trouble with the truth is it’s the same old truth,” observed Julia Sinclair, Professor of Addiction Psychiatry at the University of Southampton. “We shouldn’t get diverted into doing bright, shiny things just because they’re shiny. We need to get people to do the things we know there’s really good evidence for.”
Panellists agreed that an effective alcohol strategy would require a combination of approaches targeting pricing, availability, and marketing restrictions, as well as improved access to treatment for people experiencing alcohol-related harm. Crucially, these measures work best when they help to change the environment in which drinking occurs, rather than placing the burden solely on individuals.
Changing the way we talk about alcohol
The panel recognised the importance of conversations beyond the policy sphere, particularly in shifting public narratives and challenging stigma. There was a shared emphasis on the need to confront the stigma surrounding alcohol-related harm, and how this continues to shape both public attitudes and policy responses.
Alice highlighted that a prevailing narrative frames alcohol-related harm as an individual problem, experienced by people who have failed to manage their consumption. “That’s a narrative that’s been developed by the alcohol industry: that it’s ‘irresponsible drinkers.’ So therefore, if you can’t manage this addictive product, then you are somehow irresponsible.”
Several contributors pointed to a growing societal awareness of both the harms associated with alcohol and the benefits of cutting back.
Aunee Bhogaita, a lived experience advocate, reflected on the shifting cultural narrative around alcohol, including the increasing visibility of sobriety as a positive lifestyle choice. “There’s such a positive light around sobriety now,” she said. “It’s about the life you can build: being present, being active, maximising your potential. Even people who don’t think they have a ‘drinking problem’ are inspired.”
Looking ahead
Reflecting on past public health struggles, Alice offered a note of perspective and persistence.
“Public health people in the 60s, 70s, and 80s were doing with tobacco what we’re doing now with alcohol, processed food, and gambling,” she said. “We have to maintain our tenacity. These things do make a difference.”
The policy roundtable discussion is now available to watch on the SSA’s YouTube channel.
