Alcohol industry’s arguments disseminated in the mainstream press against pregnancy alcohol warning labels in France

Alcohol drinking during pregnancy has harmful consequences. Warnings displayed on alcohol bottles are an effective measure to inform people about these risks and have been put in place in France. However, the alcohol industry (AI) resisted this measure when it was introduced in 2007 and during an expansion project in 2018.

This study aims to add new insights about AI lobbying against the warnings targeting pregnant women, in particular about the disseminated arguments.

A documentary method was used to analyse these arguments disseminated by the AI and its partners (elected representatives of wine-producing regions, etc.) in the French mainstream press (the national, regional and specialised press) from 2000 to 2020 through the Europresse documentary database.

An inductive thematic content analysis using NVivo© Software and a mapping of the pro-industry actors who express themselves were carried out.

Among the 86 articles included in this study, a majority of the arguments used by the AI are against the introduction and evolution of the pictogram. They argue that this measure (1) is unnecessary because it is ineffective in changing behaviours, (2) will have negative economic consequences for producers and exportations, (3) damages the image of the product ('mortifying logo') and harms women (guilt and anxiety); (4) instead, other measures are preferable (preventive actions aimed at pregnant women, promotion of individual responsibility). A minority is nevertheless in favour of this measure (with or without conditions).

Among the pro-industry actors who expressed themselves, a large majority comes from the winegrowing sector.

The analysis of the arguments used by the AI against warnings aimed at pregnant women will add new insights that will be useful for public health advocacy and for countries which have – or are in the process of having– implemented such measures in order to counter these arguments which are not necessarily evidence based.