The growing popularity of alcohol-free alternatives—drinks containing a maximum of 0.5% alcohol by volume (ABV)—has significantly transformed consumer habits.
When purchasing a ‘alcohol free’ drink, such as a beer or wine, customers have been confused as to why they may be asked for identification. If, by definition, this drink is classed as alcohol free, why do I need to validate my age?
This raises important questions about the balance between responsible retail practices and overregulation.
Alcohol-free drinks are distinct from their stronger counterparts. According to the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG), these alternatives are “intended to act as a replacement for alcoholic drinks, for adults, in contexts where alcoholic drinks would normally be consumed or provide an option in contexts where alcohol would not normally be suitable.” Despite containing little to no alcohol—often no more than a glass of orange juice—they are designed to emulate traditional alcoholic beverages, complete with similar branding, packaging, and positioning.
From a legal standpoint, these drinks are not considered alcohol under laws in England, Wales, and Scotland, as they fall below the 0.5% ABV threshold. Yet, their strategic placement in the beers, wines, and spirits aisle clearly marks them as adult beverages.
The rationale behind ID checks lies in promoting responsible retailing.
Both the RASG and the Portman Group, which governs alcohol labelling, recommend applying age verification policies like Challenge 25 to alcohol-free products.
The reasoning is twofold:
The Portman Group guidelines emphasise that alcohol-free products should avoid marketing strategies that appeal to under-18s, such as using youthful designs or depictions of younger individuals consuming the product. Ensuring clear labelling and intentional placement further helps distinguish these beverages from standard alcoholic ones and “minimise potential confusion”.
However, critics argue that age-verification measures for alcohol-free drinks may verge on excessive. In an era when youth alcohol consumption is at record lows, applying the same restrictive policies to alcohol alternatives might feel counterintuitive. These beverages are meant to encourage harm reduction by providing adults with a responsible alternative. Some say that forcing ID checks could unintentionally stigmatise these options, associating them with the same barriers imposed on alcoholic products.
From a compliance perspective, ID checks help uphold clarity and responsibility in the sale of products that mimic alcohol. Retailers who adopt this practice also safeguard against reputational risks and bolster their standing as responsible operators.
Yet, there’s an opportunity to reevaluate whether these precautions align with a progressive and inclusive drinking culture. Normalising alcohol alternatives could foster broader acceptance of moderation, empowering consumers to make thoughtful choices without unnecessary obstacles.
What do you think is the best solution here?