This UN Meeting Could Change How the World Drinks
A former UK ambassador is leading the fight against calls to treat alcohol like tobacco
Tomorrow, the UN will be debating whether alcohol is as dangerous as tobacco and, if so, what measures it should take.
The outcome, a Political Declaration, will shape global alcohol policy to 2030 and beyond.
And the group representing the alcohol industry has been accused by one of the world’s most influential temperance groups of spreading lies and distorting the truth.
Julian Braithwaite, CEO, IARD
A diplomat turns to drink
On 25 September 2025, the UN will hold its fourth High Level Meeting (HLM) on NCDs and Mental Health.
The WHO claims that 74% of all deaths worldwide are because of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), for which it blames industry, saying that “NCDs share five major risk factors: tobacco use, physical inactivity, the harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets and air pollution.”
The WHO is advocating for the UN to impose taxes and restrictions on a number of products, including alcohol. They and their partners will be in the room, along with ministers and heads of state.
IARD, the International Association for Responsible Drinking, will also be present, represented by CEO Julian Braithwaite and his team.
Julian is a former UK diplomat, whose career began with a bang when the British Foreign Office sent him to hotspots like the former Yugoslavia, and then Washington, Brussels and Geneva where, among other roles, he liaised with the WHO around Ebola in West Africa, as well as antimicrobial resistance and the COVID response.
“An important strand of my career has been working on economic issues,” he says, noting that while in Washington he helped British companies navigate the complexities of the US market.
Since March 2024 he’s been President and CEO of IARD (the International Association for Responsible Drinking), a not-for-profit organisation “dedicated to reducing harmful drinking and promoting understanding of responsible drinking”.
It’s funded by 13 of the world’s biggest alcohol companies, including ABInBev, Asahi Group, Diageo, Heineken and Moët-Hennessy.
“IARD is their collective membership organisation for addressing the big externality in their industry, which is the alcohol and health agenda,” says Julian. The goal is to show that they support “an agenda to tackle the harmful consumption of alcohol”.
The two principles
Julian says there is already a UN strategy in place to reduce the harmful use of alcohol, “which was agreed in 2010 through the World Health Assembly — which is the committee of all the member states (basically every country in the world) — who are members of WHO. This is the underpinnings of all international alcohol policy”.
He explains the existing international approach is based on two core principles:
1. Tackling the harmful use of alcohol.
“Not all alcohol consumption is the subject of public policy,” says Julian. “Harmful consumption is the thing they are trying to reduce — not consumption per se. It’s a very important distinction.”
2. A whole-of-society approach.
“A fancy phrase for saying we achieve success by bringing together the resources of government, civil society and the private sector, to tackle the harmful use of alcohol, established in 2010.”
This week’s HLM is where new targets will be set, and old ones evaluated.
Member states will then adopt a new Political Declaration that sets the global agenda for NCDs and mental health. It will be the document that governments can use to justify new taxes, restrictions and warning labels.
Movendi’s graphic designer illustrates the effect of Julian addressing the UN.
The battle over words
While industry likes to frame wine, beer, and spirits as cultural goods, UN health agencies put alcohol in the same category as tobacco, and will be fighting to have it recognised as such in the Political Declaration.
Alcohol control advocates also want a change in language.
Alcohol entered the agenda in the early 2000s, when the WHO used the term “excessive consumption”. In 2005, the WHO said “public health problems caused by alcohol”, which angered both alcohol companies and Denmark. To get Denmark on board, the phrase “harmful use” was adopted.
Temperance lobbyists are now targeting the phrase “harmful use”, because it suggests there is harmless use; they want alcohol seen as harmful from the first drop.
It seems like a small thing, but if they were to win the language battle, countries would have a much easier time in mandating cancer warning labels and restrictions on availability.
Julian says that any changes to the language must be evidence based.
“I have a strong belief in evidence-based policy making. That’s what these great international institutions do,” says Julian.
IARD doesn’t produce its own research but compiles and analyses existing studies, producing reports that its members use to track developments in the science of alcohol and health
“We have a science section that provides analytical functions for our members so they can understand the developments in the science of alcohol and health,” says Julian, arguing the scientific evidence doesn’t justify the shift in language.
He also says the data shows that the existing UN strategy to tackle the harmful use of alcohol is working.
Temperance vs industry
IARD has ECOSOC status at the UN, which means it’s officially accredited as an NGO and can participate in UN processes.
Julian says the “reason why we get invited and are able to attend multi-stakeholder events,” is because one of the UN’s fundamental principles is the importance of partnership with the private sector.
He adds it’s in the industry’s best interests to have its products consumed moderately, because otherwise it has no commercial future. “You don’t want to be selling products in a way that then gets abused and misused. That is not a sustainable business model.”
In May, IARD presented the industry’s point of view to the UN — which angered the temperance lobby, which accuses the organisation of being nothing more than a front group for Big Alcohol.
“IARD abused the UN platform to distort reality and spread lies,” according to Movendi.
What is the reality?
Julian explains that one of the official indicators that tracks that progress is called “alcohol attributable mortality, which is an awful phrase, but basically means, to what extent has alcohol contributed to alcohol-related deaths around the world?”
The WHO “published data last year that said alcohol attributable mortality had fallen by 20% globally between 2010 and 2019, since the onset of the UN strategy in 2010.”
Temperance groups argue that the absolute number of alcohol-related deaths has barely shifted since 2010, making it sound as if there has been no progress. But the global population is bigger than it was, so the absolute number represents a smaller share of overall mortality. That makes the 20% drop the more meaningful measure.
Another official indicator is alcohol consumption per capita. “The WHO has published data saying that the world is on track to achieving a 20% reduction in alcohol per capita consumption from 2010 to 2030.”
The Political Declaration
The politicking on all sides has been intense and the Political Declaration has now been revised three times. The current version has alarmed alcohol control advocates, because it retains the “harmful use” language, maintains a role for industry, and has not adopted the WHO’s ‘Best Buys’ package, which includes increased taxation and restricted availability.
But the fight isn’t over yet. International public health lobbies have mobilised supporters to pressure governments in the lead-up to the HLM.
Last week, the Académie Internationale du Vin, “comprising around 100 of the world’s most renowned wine personalities from 20 nations” also called on governments and heads of state to reject the WHO’s position.
The stakes are high, because whatever delegates decide will set the tone for the next decade of alcohol policy.
Julian is sanguine. “I proudly work for an industry that’s been around for 8,000 years,” he said. “And I’m pretty confident it’ll be around another 8,000.”
If you want to hear more about the politics of alcohol, I interviewed Julian for the podcast, which you can find here.
Reuters has also written a story about this, which you can find here. It takes the view that IARD and other companies are undermining the WHO.