By World Spirits Alliance
When governments publish drinking guidelines, they do not ask whether the alcohol came from beer, wine or spirits. Some will argue that when the same governments tax those drinks, the amount should depend less on the alcohol than on what kind of drink it is.
That logic does not hold up to scrutiny. Why is a gin and tonic, a small glass of wine and a bottle of beer with the same amount of alcohol taxed differently in so many countries? A government whose drinking guidelines count one thing and whose tax codes another is, in effect, working against itself.
Low-risk drinking guidelines are clear: risk depends on how much and how often people drink. A 2022 systematic review comparing studies of beer, wine and spirits reported no appreciable differences in health outcomes between moderate consumption of the three, once diet and lifestyle were taken into account.
That is why many governments draft their drinking guidelines in standard drinks or units. A standard drink is a fixed amount of pure alcohol, the same whether the glass holds beer, wine or spirits.
Drink-driving legislation uses the same principle. Limits are set as a maximum concentration of alcohol in a driver’s blood or breath. There is no separate limit for beer drinkers and whisky drinkers, because the law measures the alcohol, not the drink.
Tax codes often work differently. In many countries, excise regimes were built over decades, one drink at a time. Rates were set category by category, to raise revenue or to protect local trade, and exemptions and thresholds were added along the way. The result is a system in which the same amount of alcohol can be taxed very differently depending on the drink it comes in. It ultimately favours some drinks over others for reasons that have little to do with the alcohol they contain.
When governments decide, rightly, that the amount of alcohol is what matters when they advise people how to drink moderately, it is fair to ask why a different logic should apply when those same governments tax it.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states in its 2023 technical manual on alcohol tax policy and administrationthat, from a public health perspective, excise taxes based on alcohol content may be the most effective way to minimise the impact of harmful drinking. The case for counting alcohol in efforts to reduce harmful drinking therefore already extends to tax, but tax codes have not caught up.
An approach based on alcohol content has practical merits beyond consistency. It is transparent because the tax on a product can be read from its strength and volume. It is predictable for producers of every size. It charges less tax on lower-strength products in every category, because they contain less alcohol. And it sends consumers a signal that matches the drinking guidelines governments already publish. When drinks with the same amount of alcohol are taxed differently, the tax code can imply that some drinks are inherently safer than others, which the evidence does not support.
None of this means every country should adopt an identical excise model. Tax policy is a sovereign decision for each country, and it serves many legitimate purposes, including raising revenue, supporting agriculture and investment, and reflecting local history and culture. Governments will weigh those differently, and they should. Rates also need calibrating alongside enforcement, because large price gaps can unintentionally fuel illicit and cross-border trade.
The WSA asksfor something simple: that alcoholic beverages be taxed on their alcohol content, at a proportionate rate applied in the same way to every category.
The standard drink gives both consumers and regulators a common measure of alcohol. Tax is the natural next place to apply it.
Count the alcohol. Tax the alcohol. Measure what matters.
Explore more insights from our Measured Conversation series on LinkedIn, and subscribe to stay informed on responsible drinking, industry perspectives, and the latest initiatives from WSA.