Most of us are familiar with, and probably frustrated by, the practice known as shrinkflation. Shrinkflation occurs when a company reduces the size, weight, or quantity of a product while keeping the price the same. In effect, consumers pay the same amount but receive less product.
Whether it is potato chips, cookies, coffee, or even toilet paper, examples of shrinkflation are easy to find. Reporting for ConsumerAffairs in 2024, Gary Guthrie notes that the size of a standard bag of Doritos had recently declined from 9.75 ounces to 9.25 ounces, while Quaker Instant Oatmeal reduced the number of packets in some variety packs from 10 to 8. Folgers provides another notable example. Containers that once held 51 ounces of coffee were reduced to 43.5 ounces, yet both the old and new packages claimed to contain enough coffee to brew 400 cups. These examples illustrate how consumers can end up paying the same price while receiving less product.
But forget shrinkflation—this blog entry is about drinkflation. What is that? It’s the sneaky practice of cutting the alcohol content in your favorite beers. European breweries have been quietly engaging in this practice since at least 2023, lowering the ABV (alcohol by volume) while keeping prices exactly the same.
Take Greene King as an example. In 2023, the major UK brewer and pub chain trimmed the alcohol by volume (ABV) of its popular Old Speckled Hen pale ale from 5% down to 4.8%. Around the same time, Dutch brewing giant Heineken made a similar move. They lowered the strength of Foster’s lager from 4% to 3.7%. In 2025, Heineken further reduced the ABV of Foster’s to 3.4%.
[As an aside, while most people naturally associate Foster’s with Australia, its global footprint is a bit more complex. The brand is actually owned by Japan’s Asahi Group Holdings, but it is brewed under license by Heineken for the European market. (Who owns what beer brand -perhaps that is a deep dive for another blog post!)].
The practice of reducing ABV is driven by government-imposed alcohol duties. By reducing a beer’s alcohol content, breweries can drop into a lower tax bracket and protect their profit margins. Because retail pricing and volumes generally remain identical, consumers essentially absorb the cost by receiving a weaker product for the same price. Less buzz for your buck, if you will.
Reducing the alcohol content of a 500 ml can of beer from 5.0% ABV to 4.8% ABV lowers the UK alcohol duty payable from approximately 56 pence to 54 pence per can. While a reduction of just 2 pence per can may appear modest, it can translate into substantial tax savings when applied across the large production volumes typical of major breweries.
A spokesperson for Shepherd Neame, Britain’s oldest brewery, claimed that the brewery had reduced the alcohol content of some of its beers in order to broaden their appeal, noting that consumers were increasingly opting for lower-alcohol beverages as part of a healthier lifestyle. There is probably quite a bit of truth in that statement. In Britain, as in many other advanced economies, there is a growing demand for lower alcohol beers as health-conscious drinkers increasingly seek beverages that better align with changing lifestyle preferences.
It is also important to recognize that many breweries in the United Kingdom have been facing significant increases in production costs. Brewers have reported higher expenditures for key inputs and operations, including malt, hops, energy, carbon dioxide, packaging, labor, and fuel. Reflecting these challenges, William Lees-Jones, Managing Director of J. W. Lees Brewery in Manchester, England, noted in September 2025 that the company’s production costs had risen by nearly 7 percent over the previous year.
A spokesperson for the aforementioned Greene King noted that reducing a beer’s ABV “lowers the amount of tax we pay without noticeably affecting the beer’s flavour.” Whether consumers share that assessment remains an open question. While small reductions in alcohol content may have little measurable effect on flavor, the brewing industry is replete with examples of recipe adjustments that have changed a beer’s character and flavor.
In a 2005 study published in the journal Business Horizons, David Y. Choi and Martin H. Stack documented a gradual reduction in the quantity of key brewing ingredients used by American brewers over time. They found that between 1935 and 1990, the average amount of malt required to produce a barrel of beer declined from 38.3 pounds to 24.3 pounds, while hop usage fell from 0.70 pounds to just 0.22 pounds per barrel (see figure below). This represented a 36% decline in the use of malt and a 69% decrease in the use of hops. Because malt contributes color, body, and flavor, reducing malt levels generally produces a lighter and less flavorful beer. Since hops provide bitterness, aroma, and flavor complexity, lower hop levels contributed to a less distinctive taste profile. As Choi and Stack noted in their paper, “by using smaller and smaller amounts of hops and grains, the industry overall has helped create steadily less flavorful beers.”
The craft beer revolution that gained momentum in the mid-1980s was, in part, a reaction against the increasingly bland and standardized beers produced by America’s large brewing corporations. Frustrated by the lack of flavor, variety, and individuality in mainstream beer, a growing number of consumers turned to homebrewing. Some of these homebrewers eventually entered the marketplace as entrepreneurs, establishing craft breweries dedicated to producing more distinctive and flavorful beers.
Whether we are talking about shrinkflation or drinkflation, the underlying principle is the same: consumers are paying the same price while receiving something less than they once did. In the case of beer, the difference is not measured in ounces or package size, but in alcohol content and, potentially, in the overall drinking experience.
To be fair, breweries today face genuine pressures. Rising production costs, changing consumer preferences, and government tax policies all influence the decisions they make. A modest reduction in ABV may help British breweries remain profitable while also appealing to drinkers seeking lower-alcohol options. Yet history suggests that small recipe changes can have larger consequences over time. As Choi and Stack observed, decades of incremental reductions in malt and hops contributed to the emergence of a beer market dominated by lighter, more standardized products. It was precisely this trend that helped inspire the craft beer movement’s quest for flavor, variety, and individuality.
The question, then, is not whether reducing a beer from 5.0% to 4.8% ABV will noticeably change its character. The more interesting question is what happens when thousands of similar decisions accumulate across an industry over many years. If drinkflation becomes widespread, British consumers may one day look back and wonder whether their favorite beers were once a little stronger, a little more distinctive, and perhaps a little more memorable. After all, when it comes to beer, getting less buzz for your buck may be just as disappointing as getting fewer chips in the bag.
Further Reading:
Choi, David Y. and Martin H. Stack. 2005. The all-American beer: A case of inferior standard (taste) prevailing. Business Horizons, Volume 48, Issue 1, pages 79-86.