Is Buying and Drinking Zero and Low Alcohol Beer a Higher Socio-Economic Phenomenon? Analysis of British Survey Data, 2015–2018 and Household Purchase Data 2015–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zero and low alcohol products, particularly beer, are gaining consideration as a method to reduce consumption of ethanol. We do not know if this approach is likely to increase or decrease health inequalities. The aim of the study was to determine if the purchase and consumption of zero and low alcohol beers differs by demographic and socio-economic characteristics of consumers. Based on British household purchase data from 79,411 households and on British survey data of more than 104,635 adult (18+) respondents, we estimated the likelihood of buying and drinking zero (ABV = 0.0%) and low alcohol (ABV > 0.0% and ≤ 3.5%) beer by a range of socio-demographic characteristics. We found that buying and consuming zero alcohol beer is much more likely to occur in younger age groups, in more affluent households, and in those with higher social grades, with gaps in buying zero alcohol beer between households in higher and lower social grades widening between 2015 and 2020. Buying and drinking low alcohol beer had less consistent relationships with socio-demographic characteristics, but was strongly driven by households that normally buy and drink the most alcohol. Common to many health-related behaviours, it seems that it is the more affluent that lead the way in choosing zero or low alcohol products. Whilst the increased availability of zero and low alcohol products might be a useful tool to reduce overall ethanol consumption in the more socially advantageous part of society, it may be less beneficial for the rest of the population. Other evidence-based alcohol policy measures that lessen health inequalities, need to go hand-in-hand with those promoting the uptake of zero and low alcohol beer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".