Recently the likes of Timothy
Taylor unveiled a new beer called Blonde (3.8%) yet beneath the surface,
it is essentially a rebranded and weakened version of their established product
Knowle Spring (4.2%) which until recently was available on cask. This
drive to produce weaker beer was coined Drinkflation, a term coined three years
ago by Sean Poulter from the Daily Mail, which means punters unwittingly buy weaker beer while the prices in the pub stay the same or in many cases
increase. Poulter adds “while the reductions may appear small, they generate
a tax saving of 2p to 3p on every bottle and can made. Rather than passing this
saving on to drinkers, the cash is being pocketed by the brewers and retailers.”[1] These changes were first brought in by reforms to the Alcohol Duty system in
August 2023, when the government overhauled the existing four band system by
introducing six standardised alcohol duty bands across all types of alcoholic
products. At the same time, the government increased alcohol duty on all
drinks, which resulted in the biggest tax increases on higher-strength
beverages in half a century. So, a beer at 5% abv would be taxed at a higher
rate than one below 4%. Although the difference was a few pence, millions of
pounds could be saved in taxes. Colin Angus, a research fellow from SARG (Sheffield Addictions Research Group) noted at the time if a brewer reduced their beer 0.3%, they
could save an estimated £250m on duty payments to the government.[2] Conor Reynolds adds “for a brewer in the ‘at least 3.5% but less than 8.5%
abv’ range, they would have to knock 0.5 percentage points off the abv to
offset the 10% duty increase.”[3] In anticipation of these changes a number major breweries took the plunge on
their popular brands, in June that year Shepherd Neame announced they would be
lowering the ABV of two their beers, Spitfire Amber Ale decreased from 4.5% to
4.2% while Bishop’s Finger dropped from 5.4% to 5.2% respectively, a representative
claimed this was due to consumers increasingly choosing beers of lower alcohol
content as part of a healthy lifestyle. Colin Angus notes “sometimes brewers make the case that they have made these reductions in strength levels on health grounds. Given their historically strong opposition to public health policies, though, the motive is much more likely to be financial.”[4] In the case of Sheps, it was discovered that the brewer
saved 3p on Spitfire, and 2p on Bishop’s Finger per every 500ml bottle. The brewery admitted like many in the food and beverage industry they faced siginificant increases in the cost of raw materials, energy and products like glass. They added “these increases are well above the headline rate of inflation. While we are doing everything possible to mitigate these costs, we have had to increase the price of all our beers.”[5] In this instance the term Drinkflation can be easily applied since the consumer isn't financially benefitting from the brewery's cutbacks. Moreover, Greene
King used similar comments about financial issues when they reduced the ABV on products including Ruddles
Best from 3.7% to 3.4% (in bottles), Old Speckled Hen from 5% to 4.8% (bottles
and cans) and their flagship IPA from 3.6% to 3.4%, yet they also noted the
move was necessary in order to combat rising costs of raw materials, from malt,
glass and packaging to increasing energy rates brought on by external events in
recent years like the Ukraine War and the Covid pandemic, whilst brazenly
claiming these changes would not affect the quality and taste of their
products. While the term Drinkflation is technically correct, Reynolds argues
there were various factors behind its emergence since it was brought on by freeze
in alcohol duty in 2020, other cost pressures facing brewers, and the
government push for lower strength-beers. Coming this angle it seems Drinkflation was an inevitable outcome due to a multitude of issues that eventually had effect on not only the brewing sector but the entire food and beverage industry.
The radical changes to alcohol
duty trickled further down the brewing industry, Timothy Taylor cut back the
likes of Dark Mild and Golden Best from 3.5% to 3.4% respectively, the same
went for Hook Norton’s signature product Hooky and Lakes Brew Co's Pale Ale respectively, while their former neighbours Hawkshead (which now brews in Flookburgh) drastically cut back their iconic Windermere Pale from 4% to a mere 3.4%, while Revival from Moor Brew
Co’s radically came down from 3.8% to 3.4%, similarly the likes of Banks Amber
Bitter decreased by a similar strength and Hobgoblin Original IPA went down from
5.2% to 4.8% on draught, after previously being reduced from 5.6% by their
overlords Carlsberg Britvic. These changes weren’t just limited to session
beers, even examples on the stronger end of the scale were affected like
Fuller’s Vintage Ale which was cut back from 8.5% to 8.4% when it reappeared
later that Autumn and Harvey’s Easter Ale which drastically came down from 6.8%
to 5.6% the following Easter. Reflecting on these changes at the end of that
year, the Pub Curmudgeon noted “while it is entirely possible to brew good
beers at 3.4%, few if any will be improved by having their strength reduced to
that level, and many of the beers of that strength tend to be somewhat thin and
lacklustre. It would be a depressing prospect if that was to become the norm of
British beer drinking.”[6] As 2024 crept into view, megabrewers like Asahi, Molson Coors and Heineken led
the charge by reducing the strength on their popular brands. In August, Asahi
which owns Dark Star lowered in strength of Hophead from 3.7% to 3.4% in order
to benefit from the duty cuts, a spokesman from Asahi stated “entering the lower
threshold for duty supports our ability to invest in Dark Star, including
continuing to grow Hophead as a national brand.”[7] Meanwhile, consumers shared their frustrations when highlighting that these
savings were not passed on, since the wholesale price remained the same. The
rollbacks continued, Rebellion IPA went down from 3.7% to 3.4%, and Wild Swan
from Thornbridge was trimmed back from 3.5% to 3.4%. Andrew Tindall duly
highlighted “if you lose just 0.25% of alcohol in something, it dramatically
changes everything from mouthfeel to sweet/bitter tastes.”[8] This was the case when Marble reduced their Pint Bitter from 3.9% to 3.4% in
2023 following introduction of the new duty legislation, after facing a raft of
negative feedback from customers they restored it back to 3.9% in 2025. After
the changeover, they reported sales of beer had actually increased, showing
there was still an appetite for stronger beers. It’s clear from looking at a
number sources that alcohol is a volatile component in the brewing process, it
is a key driver in enriching beer from establishing compounds that enhance its
bouquet to forming a harmonious flavour profile, the blogger Ratatouie adds “for many beer styles, ABV also correlates with
the intensity of malt sweetness, hop bitterness and the overall balance of a
beer. A beer’s ABV does not dictate sweetness or bitterness directly, but it
often gates the level of malt complexity and hop character achievable during
brewing, which in turn shapes flavour.”[9] For beers of any style or strength, as history often tells us whenever the
ABV is reduced, a part of the beer’s fundamental flavour is lost, for instance
when Theakston’s Old Peculier was reduced down to 5.6% during Scottish &
Newcastle’s reign over the brewery, drinkers detected a distinct change in its
complex flavour profile. For session beers that were developed at a lower ABV
from the onset, any reduction in ABV is equally noticeable if not more so. This drive to reduce ABV in session beers creates other issues as Phil
Mellows states “add on the draught relief and a brewer pays £8.42 per litre
of pure alcohol for a beer of 3.4% compared to £19.08 for a beer of 3.7%. And
don’t forget to take off the duty on the 0.3% too. It’s also possible that the
ingredients will be cheaper in weaker beer.”[10] This in turn creates a perfect storm that potentially creates an adverse
effect on the quality and marketability of established beer brands from
independent and regional brewers.
Despite a change in government in 2024,
earlier this year it was announced that alcohol duty would rise by a whopping
3.66% in line with inflation at the start of February, equating to around an
additional 2p on the price of a pint in a pub. In addition to this, beers with
strengths ranging between 3.5% to 8.4% which were previously paying £21.78 in
duty per litre of pure alcohol would now pay £22.58. As a result, British
drinkers now pay 54p of duty per pint pulled in a pub, make it the third
highest level of tax in Europe, behind Finland and Ireland. These recent
changes pushed more brewers into reducing the strength of their beers,
notably in May of this year it was announced that Adnams would be cutting back
the ABV on a number of their core-range products including Ghost Ship cut back
from 4.5% to 4.1%, Southwold Bitter reduced down to a meagre 3.4% and Broadside
clipped from 6.3% to 6%, in turn knocking off a layer of its complexity and
big-hitting flavour that the brewery waxes lyrical about. In Adnams case, James
Flanders notes “the move is a direct response to the country’s alcohol duty
system, which now wallops drinks at 3.5% ABV or above with a charge of around
£22 per litre of pure alcohol.”[11] A spokesman from Adnams stated “These changes not only align with consumer trends but also offer us an opportunity to create more value to invest back into the growth of our brands.”[11] Yet in
the bigger picture Adnams has already had a torrid financial year of late with
turnover falling by 6% to £63.7million in 2025, which resulted in the brewer
having to trade away their assets by selling a portion of their pub estate in
order to keep down their debts, which were cut back to £9.2 million by the end of last
year. Current chairman Simon Townshend blamed rising national insurance costs, minimum wage, and a wave of new employment regulations leading to the hospitality sector becoming overtaxed. So, in hindsight the increases in alcohol duty are yet another setback
for the already beleaguered brewer. A government source declared “our
changes to alcohol duty balance the important contribution of producers, pubs
and hospitality with funding vital public services and the harms caused by
alcohol.”[12] This message presents us with a double-edge sword, whilst claiming to support the
health lobby they have clearly implied that the higher duties will be used to fund
government (i.e. public) funded services, which some commentators have labelled
as a blatant act of state intervention. Moreover, this latest rise in alcohol
duty will only push more breweries to reduce the ABV further in their beers in
a bid to cut down costs and reduce their existing financial troubles brought on
by external factors. As a result, this all plays into the increasing sales of
lower strength and no-alcohol beers which have become one of the fast-growing
markets in the last several years, as Tom Haynes notes “the British Beer and
Pub Association (BBPA) found sales of beers with strengths of between 1.3pc and
3.4pc alcohol by volume (ABV) have surged from just 35 million pints in 2022 to
912 million pints by the end of 2025, a 2,500pc increase.”[13] There is little doubt that the increase in alcohol duty and the subsequent
reduction of ABV in major multinational beer and lager brands brought on by
successive tax raids has engineered this. Yet the idea that this helps incentivize
healthier drinking is a merely a smokescreen, as Albert Tait points out “brewers
claim the reduction is for health reasons. However, it also allows them to save
tens of millions of pounds in alcohol duty each year by falling into a lower
tax threshold.”[14] CAMRA has a part to play in this, when proposals for raising the lower tax threshold
of beer from 2.8% to 3.4% were first proposed in the Autumn Budget of 2021, the
organisation threw their support behind these proposals, then chairman Nik
Antona stated “cutting tax for lower ABV drinks will incentivise lower
strength alcoholic drinks, whilst new financial support for smaller producers.”[15] Yet by supporting this, they helped encourage the large-scale watering of
higher strength beers, and invertedly help the mega-brewers to corner their
monopoly on the market and decrease the amount of choice in pubs, shutting out
the small brewers in the process in what could be seen as a repeat of the 1989 beer
orders act that led to the rise of the pubcos. Tim Webb (chairman of CAMRA’s beer and cider
campaign committees) noted “Global brewing giants, however, have diluted
their recipes to hit the lower tax band, without reducing prices, and sometimes
hiking them. This is something that independent brewers simply can’t afford to
do or won’t do because it will compromise quality.”[14] Yet their position on
this continues to be muddled as current CAMRA chairman Ash Corbett-Collins recently
explained “ensuring lower strength beers are served on the bar is essential
so consumers have more choice; however, that doesn’t mean that consumers want
brewers to lower the ABVs of their existing beers.”[13] In turn by supporting
lower strength beers, CAMRA has managed to harm the very industry they were established
to support.
For the foreseeable future it
looks like more breweries across the UK will jump on the band wagon and reduce
the strength of their existing beers in a bid to avoid the wrath of the taxman. From a historical standpoint it is clear that the strength beer has varied depending on the financial situation and politics of the time, indeed there’s nothing new about the recent raft of cutbacks in beer strength since we’ve been here before, during WW1 the
pro-temperance Liberal government rose the level of beer duty in the wake of
the Defence of the Realm Act in August 1914 which gave the home secretary
powers to control the production and supply of alcohol, Roger Protz notes “in real terms, allowing for war-time inflation, the increase in duty between 1914 and 1920 was a staggering 430 per cent.”[16] This in turn pocketed a handy £120 million for the government;
which resulted in scores of breweries having to dilute or in some case withdraw
their beers entirely, leading Britain having the weakest beer in the world at
the time. The same tactics are now being repeated in the modern age as recent governments
have increasingly utilized the brewing industry as a cash cow, while claiming the reduction of ABV in beers is all for the good of public health. The diluting of popular beer brands will inevitably have effect on the consumer, while some would embrace the changes postively, others will reject the reduction of strength and cite it as an example of declining quality and shy away leading to a decline in sales. If this underhand scheming from the government is not
called out for what it actually is, then the changes to the brewing industry
will be irreparable.
List of References
