The World Cancer Research Fund International Policy Advisory Group (PAG) brings together leading policy experts from government, academia, and civil society around the world to guide WCRF’s efforts to turn evidence into action.

Established in 2015, the group advises on how to identify and communicate evidence effectively to policymakers and advance cancer prevention efforts. Its role is to highlight critical needs, overcome barriers to implementation, and strengthen alliances that can drive wider uptake of effective cancer prevention policies.

In this blog, we put a set of pressing global public health questions to the group, inviting them to share their insights on how best to steer policy and action in cancer prevention worldwide.

Elevating NCDs on the global agenda

NCDs have historically received less attention than infectious diseases, but PAG members agree that this is beginning to shift – albeit slowly. Dr Feisul Mustapha (Ministry of Health, Malaysia) notes that ageing populations, fiscal pressure, and post-COVID backlogs make NCDs unavoidable.

However, as Dr Si Thu Win Tin (Pacific Community, Fiji) observes, recognition has not translated into concrete action and funding investment to address NCDs, particularly in vulnerable regions such as Pacific small island developing states (SIDS).

Dr Henry Li (Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, UK) reframes the argument: NCDs are not a crisis but a structural economic challenge, threatening productivity, social stability, and fiscal sustainability.

All members agree that NCDs must be positioned beyond the health sector. Dr Feisul emphasises embedding NCDs into universal health coverage (UHC), climate policy, and development financing. Dr Win Tin calls for integration into health security and resilience agendas to unlock funding, while Dr Li highlights the need for life-course approaches to manage long-term costs.

Financing must pivot toward prevention, using measures such as earmarked taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks, subsidy reform, pooled procurement, and domestic co-financing, matched with catalytic international support.

Political will and sustainable delivery models are critical: prevention must be framed as essential to economic and social stability, not optional.

Policy interventions for maximum impact

When asked which interventions should be prioritised, the PAG highlighted both structural durability and innovation. Professor Shiriki Kumanyika (University of Pennsylvania, USA) reframes the question by considering what has shown least impact: behavioural interventions alone have a limited population-level effect in the absence of structural solutions.

Additionally, new pharmaceutical treatments like GLP-1s are changing policy expectations. Evidence is now needed on how these therapies can support primary and secondary cancer prevention while reinforcing dietary and nutrition policy measures.

Dr Li highlights structural policies – sugary drink taxes, marketing restrictions, and urban planning—not for maximum efficacy, but because they are politically durable and difficult to reverse. He also suggests pairing prevention with early detection technologies as a “Trojan horse” to attract investment and political momentum, ultimately benefiting longer-term preventive strategies. Collectively, these insights emphasise balancing innovation, feasibility, and sustainability in prevention policy.

The case for prevention

Prevention remains the most neglected pillar of cancer control, yet it is essential for sustainability. Dr Pubudu Sumanasekara (Movendi International, Sri Lanka) points out that prevention reduces demand on treatment services, empowers communities, and embeds healthier norms into daily life.

Michelle Halligan (Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Canada) provides evidence from Canada: prevention is central to the national strategy because it reduces incidence and healthcare costs. Tobacco alone costs $16.2 billion annually, including $6.5 billion in direct healthcare costs. Prevention strategies – from supporting smoking cessation to promoting healthier lifestyles—save lives, reduce inequities, and protect public finances.

Dr Li adds a political lens: prevention is often unrewarding in the short term. Politicians prefer visible treatment projects, while prevention yields long-term gains. He recommends creating early wins, building unusual coalitions with employers, insurers, and urban planners, framing prevention as an economic opportunity, and leveraging health system crises to demonstrate that prevention is the only sustainable solution. Prevention must be reframed as an essential, politically relevant pillar of cancer control.

Equity in policy

Ensuring policies reach underserved populations is critical. Dr Feisul emphasises building equity into design from the outset: remove user fees, use disaggregated data, co-create with communities, and finance outreach.

In low- and middle-income countries, delivery models such as community health workers, mobile clinics, workplace hubs, HPV self-sampling, single-visit screen-and-treat programs, and patient support for travel and childcare are essential. Continuous monitoring and course-correcting ensure equitable coverage.

Halligan advocates proportionate universalism: combining universal access with targeted approaches ensures equity-denied populations are served while maintaining broad reach. Building trust and co-developing culturally safe services is essential. Professor Kumanyika suggests clarifying definitions of equity to guide concrete policy actions.

Dr Li cautions that rigid equity-first approaches can slow progress. Instead, he recommends designing universal programmes that can scale, then addressing gaps through adaptive, iterative policy interventions. Equity emerges most effectively from sustainable, abundant delivery systems rather than as a precondition that restricts innovation.

Partnerships for scale

Partnerships are vital to scaling cancer prevention. Dr Feisul identifies four priority collaborations:

• governments with civil society for accountability and last-mile delivery
• academia for research and implementation evaluation
• private sector actors for regulated co-delivery via logistics, workplaces, and digital tools
• and multilateral agencies and philanthropy for catalytic funding.

Dr Sumanasekara emphasises government coordination to align stakeholders, including media and private sector actors. Michelle Halligan highlights trust-based, reciprocal partnerships with communities historically excluded from decision-making (such as Indigenous peoples in Canada).

In the Pacific region, Dr Win Tin stresses the importance of regional organisations, communities, faith-based groups, and private-sector engagement. Professor Kumanyika adds that partnerships should link cancer prevention with human rights and environmental sustainability.

Dr Li warns that many partnerships fail because organisations optimise for their own visibility rather than shared outcomes. Successful partnerships create new delivery entities with shared risk, governance, and accountability, focusing on population-level outcomes. Examples include joint ventures between governments, tech companies, and payers, or employer–healthcare provider collaborations responsible for long-term employee health. Effective partnerships are about delivery, not coordination.

Under-recognised priorities

Several priorities remain under-recognised globally. Dr Sumanasekara identifies alcohol as a major neglected cancer risk factor: its social and economic costs are poorly researched, public awareness is low, and industry interference slows policy progress. Harm to others beyond individual users is especially overlooked, highlighting the need for communication strategies that change behaviour.

Dr Li points to systemic gaps: insufficient workforce for prevention, lack of implementation science, and inadequate interoperable data systems to coordinate care and target high-risk populations. Dr Win Tin notes that political and commercial pressures frequently block well-evidenced fiscal and regulatory interventions.

Dr Li emphasises that the disconnect is political rather than scientific: research must focus not only on what works, but on how to implement interventions successfully within complex political and institutional environments.

Underserved populations

PAG members highlight populations most overlooked in research. Dr Win Tin points to small island populations, indigenous communities, and remote rural areas, whose cultural, environmental, and dietary contexts are rarely studied, leaving policy misaligned with local realities.

Dr Li adds middle-income countries experiencing rapid urbanisation, where high-risk populations outpace health system capacity. He also notes populations outside traditional health system reach, including specific employment or demographic groups. Dr Li stresses that the central challenge is not evidence generation – World Cancer Research Fund and others already provide robust data – but translating it into politically sustainable and implementable policies that reach the populations who need them most.

Conclusion

Across these discussions, several consistent themes emerge.

• NCDs and cancer prevention are economic, social, and development imperatives, not optional health priorities.
• Prevention must be central, politically framed, and paired with structural interventions that endure. Equity should be embedded into delivery systems but approached pragmatically to avoid stifling innovation.
• Partnerships must move beyond coordination to create delivery-focused entities with shared accountability.
• Under-recognised risks such as alcohol, underserved populations, and implementation challenges demand greater attention.
• Finally, closing the gap between evidence and policy requires understanding political economy, incentivising prevention, and designing sustainable systems capable of delivering at scale.

Collectively, the PAG’s insights provide a roadmap for elevating cancer prevention and NCD policies globally: combine robust evidence with political strategy, innovate delivery, embed equity, and scale impact through partnerships aligned around outcomes rather than institutional interests.

With the UK Labour Party in government for just over a year, this year’s Party conference provided a valuable opportunity to take stock of the progress made on health and identify areas in need of improvement.

Academics, people with lived experience, and experts from thinktanks and charities congregated in Liverpool in September to share how the government can be bolder on prevention – here are my top five takeaways:

1) Tackle poverty alongside prevention

Just before conference, the government published its 10 Year Health Plan for England, setting out a raft of policy priorities to achieve its health mission. Positively, a key theme throughout the Plan was the need to tackle health inequalities – the systematic and unfair differences in health between different groups of people – especially through prevention.

At an IPPR and Impact on Urban Health fringe event, “Can the Government deliver its long-term health mission?”, speakers made impassioned pleas about the need to address the social determinants of health. Dr Sonia Adesara, a practising GP and Vice Chair of the Fabian Society, explained that while she may be able to treat the symptoms and health issues that manifest as a result of living in poverty, such efforts are in vain if the government does not tackle the root causes of ill health.

These drivers are wide ranging, from poor food environments, where junk food is the cheapest and most available option, to substandard housing. Crucially, addressing them requires the adoption of a truly cross-governmental approach. As Peter Babudu, the Executive Director at Impact on Urban Health, put it, even the Department for Health and Social Care at its very best cannot tackle these complex issues alone.

These are subjects World Cancer Research Fund has engaged with significantly through our blog series on health inequality and cancer.

2) Prioritise public health over industry interests

Another hot topic at conference was the need to place public health above vested interest. The history of industry derailing, delaying and diluting public health policy in pursuit of profit has long been documented both in the UK and abroad. Yet, the food and drink industry continues to play a key role in various policy development processes under Labour.

The delayed junk food marketing ban provides a clear example of why the government needs to make a concerted effort to tackle vested interests. October was meant to see the implementation of a key manifesto pledge: a watershed ban on junk food advertisements. Instead, the ban, which could have a profound effect on reducing childhood obesity, has been delayed yet again. Worse, industry lobbying has resulted in a complete brand exemption. In practice, this means that products like Cadbury Diary Milk, Mars bars, and Coca-Cola can still be advertised because they are not only products but brands as well.

Walking through the exhibition hall, the presence of industry was hard to miss, with prominent stands for Heineken and Sainsbury’s – a reminder that just like those of us in public health, industry is also working hard to influence government.

3) Bring the public along on prevention

Action to improve public health is often depicted, especially in the media, as “nanny-statism”. At Nesta’s event, “How can the government make its health reforms a success?”, Kevin McKenna, the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and a former NHS strategist, insisted that we need to communicate more clearly with the public about why the 3 health shifts (sickness to prevention, analogue to digital, and hospital to community) are so important. Ultimately, we need a more compelling case to counter the “nanny-state” narrative, which does not reflect the public’s views. Polling consistently shows strong support for government action to improve health and reduce inequalities.

Meanwhile, at Demos’ fringe “Prevention: From overlooked to mission critical”, Prof Gurch Randhawa, Director of the Institute for Health Research, emphasised the importance of approaching prevention in a culturally sensitive manner so that everyone benefits. For example, schemes providing healthy food to those in need must take into consideration the food preferences and dietary requirements of the diverse communities they serve.

The task of bringing the public along on the prevention agenda does not rely solely on the government – charities, including ourselves, can play an important role. Our brilliant Health Information team’s work educating the public on how they can reduce their risk of developing cancer through good nutrition and an active lifestyle is just one example.

4) Beware the temptation of silver bullets

Despite the recognition of the need for a health-in-all-policies approach, the temptation of “silver bullets” and quick fixes loomed. This was particularly notable in discussions around weight-loss jabs.

In the UK, obesity is the second biggest cause of cancer after smoking. Addressing this crisis requires a coordinated approach that includes both prevention and equitable access to treatment. However, in his conference speech, the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, didn’t quite echo these sentiments. Instead, he declared that “weight-loss jabs could help us finally defeat obesity”, while failing to mention the need to fix our broken food environment.

The hype around weight-loss drugs was reflected in long queues for a New Statesman event hosted in partnership with Eli Lily, a pharmaceutical company that produces appetite suppressants.

Wearable tech also came up in a similar context, with suggestions that it could revolutionise how individuals take charge of their own health. It was positive that the need for digital inclusion was recognised, but again, we need to ensure that proven policy interventions, such as salt and sugar taxes, remain the first port of call.

5) Reducing alcohol harm is key

One glaring omission was the absence of discussion on alcohol harm, especially given that alcohol deaths have reached record highs across the UK.

Charities including the Forward Trust ensured the issue was still on the agenda, hosting a sober reception as part of their work to advocate for alcohol-free spaces at conference.

We also highlighted alcohol harm, building on this summer’s Cancer Prevention Action Week, which sparked a national discussion on the link between alcohol and cancer. This included meeting with Dr Scott Arthur MP at conference to discuss alcohol-related cancer and the urgent need for government to deliver on its commitment to introduce mandatory alcohol labelling, ensuring that labels make the cancer risk of alcohol explicit.

The prevention mission is here to stay

Despite the long way we have to go, one thing is abundantly clear: the prevention mission is here to stay.

Fortunately, there are several critical influencing opportunities on the horizon where the government can apply these lessons from conference, such as the forthcoming National Food Strategy. Over the coming months, we’ll be working hard to hold the government to account in delivering on cancer prevention and survivorship.

If you’d like to keep up to date with our work, sign up to our monthly Policy and Public Affairs newsletter. If you have any thoughts on what we’ve covered in this blog, we’d love to hear from you! Get in touch with us at policy@wcrf.org.

Setting the Global Direction

The Road to the 4th High-Level Meeting (HLM4) on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) and the Promotion of Mental Health has been a long one.

Kendra Chow (Senior Policy & Public Affairs Manager) and Dr Helen Croker (Assistant Director of Science and Policy) were in New York – alongside government officials and policymakers from around the world, civil society and lived-experience advocates – joined in a busy week of side events and bilateral meetings leading up to the HLM4 at UN Headquarters on 25 September in New York.

Amid a bustling and busy New York scene, the week’s events offered a rare opportunity for governments to set the global course to address NCDs and (for the first time) mental health.

The Political Declaration – a document that has been negotiated by Member States from May through September – was set to be adopted that day. The Declaration is a critical tool that will shape global health priorities until 2030 – a crucial window for progress on cancer and other NCDs.

And although, in the end, it was not officially adopted on the day of the HLM4 (due to concerns raised by a small number of Member States), the number of Member States that did voice their support for the Declaration’s contents and commitments indicates that it is likely to approved in the General Assembly after a voting process.

We have been actively engaged along the entire road to the HLM4 – participating in the multistakeholder hearing in May, meeting with Member State Missions in New York and Geneva, and emphasizing that prevention is the most effective and equitable way to reduce cancer and NCD burden (read our High-level Meeting advocacy brief).

Cancer gains, but gaps remain

There is welcome recognition in the Declaration that cancer is a global priority, with an emphasis on research, evidence and innovation. This is a win for us because we repeatedly pressed Member States for the urgency of cancer to be included in the final Declaration, and these gains in visibility matter.

One in 7 deaths worldwide is caused by cancer. The Declaration includes specific commitments on reducing cases of cervical, childhood and liver cancer, which is meaningful progress.

The need for prevention

The Declaration also includes an ambitious target: by 2030, at least 80% of countries should have operational, multisectoral NCD and mental health strategies in place. This milestone matters, and WCRF International welcomes it as a step forward. But for these strategies to truly succeed, they must be rooted in prevention. Without embedding prevention, policies risk becoming too heavily focused on treatment-focused, missing the opportunity to save lives and reduce costs through avoiding disease in the first place.

Evidence shows that 40% of cancers are preventable by acting on key risk factors—unhealthy diets, alcohol, tobacco, obesity, and air pollution. The Declaration acknowledges these risks but stops short of committing to strong preventive measures.

Alcohol is one clear example: the text refers only to “harmful use”, but we know there is no safe level of consumption. Stronger, clearer language is needed if prevention is to drive meaningful change.

The case for health taxes

Health taxes are a proven part of the solution. The evidence is clear: fiscal measures on tobacco, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverages are among the most effective public health tools available. They deliver health gains, generate economic returns, and are among the WHO best buys (and WHO EURO’s “quick buys”).

Despite this overwhelming evidence, the Declaration fails to deliver firm commitments on health taxes, reflecting the political sensitivity of fiscal measures. WCRF International believes finance ministries, alongside other sectors, must show leadership by adopting prevention-focused fiscal policy.

Tackling political and commercial pressures

The cautious language in the Declaration also reflects our current global political climate. Evidence-based measures such as health taxes and alcohol regulation faced strong pushback during negotiations, amplified by lobbying from unhealthy commodity industries that distort science and confuse the public.

This weakens trust in health policy and emboldens opposition, making it harder for governments to commit to bold action.

Conflicts of interest remain another challenge. Industries that encourage people to buy and use unhealthy products should not shape health policy.

Without institutional safeguards, prevention risks being sidelined in favour of commercial. We continue to call for clear protections to ensure that public health, not profit, drives decision-making.

Dr Helen Croker and Kendra Chow at the UN HLM High Level Meeting in New York

Civil Society’s role

Civil society participation is another area where commitments could have been stronger. People living with NCDs and the organisations that represent them should be central to governance and accountability. Yet compared with previous Political Declarations, this text weakens those commitments. For implementation to succeed, participation must be meaningful, resourced, and embedded in national coordination mechanisms.

Building from here

The NCD burden is urgent and rising, but the solutions are within reach. Prevention is non-negotiable. Health taxes, alcohol control acknowledging no safe level of consumption, and healthier food environments must sit at the centre of national responses. Tackling misinformation, industry interference, and weak implementation is just as important as designing strong policy.

Taken together, these dynamics highlight why the Declaration must be seen as a floor, not a ceiling. Emphasis on the cancer burden and the target for national plans provide a platform to build upon, but prevention must be prioritised if we are to make real progress.

Governments will need political courage, strong leadership, and cross-sector collaboration to deliver on their promises.

We will continue to advocate for prevention as the most effective and equitable approach to reducing cancer and NCDs, and are ready to work with UN agencies, Member States, and partners such as the NCD Alliance and UICC to translate the Declaration’s commitments into national action.

> Read our statement prepared for the UN High-level Meeting on NCDs and mental health

> Read our High-Level Meeting Advocacy Brief

The UK government published its 10-year Health Plan on 3 July, setting out its ambitions to reform the health system and shift the focus from sickness to prevention.

As a cancer prevention charity with a vision of a world where no one dies from a preventable cancer, we welcome the Plan’s direction but there are many key areas of health policy where it simply falls short of what the public needs.

Positive inclusions

Many of the commitments in the Plan had already been announced and were warmly received, such as the expansions of free school meals and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

Encouragingly, the Plan also includes new mandatory measures that mark a meaningful step towards creating healthier environments for all.

These include:

• Mandatory healthy food sales reporting for all large companies in the food sector.
• Mandatory healthy food standard to improve the healthiness of sales.
• Updates to the nutrient profile model, used to set marketing restrictions on junk food.
•  10% uplift to restore the value of the Healthy Start scheme from 2026–27.
• Mandatory labelling on alcoholic drinks to include consistent nutritional information and health warning messages.
• Place-based approach to physical activity, including £250m for 100 places via Sport England, at least £400m for local community sports facilities, and new school sport partnerships.
• National walking and running campaign led by Sir Brendan Foster.
• Development of a new physical activity strategy.

These measures are welcome steps forward in improving our food and drink environment and enabling people to be more physically active.

We hope the forthcoming National Food Strategy will drive deeper systemic changes to ensure affordable, accessible healthy food for everyone in England.

Critical missed opportunities

On alcohol, the Plan falls short of prioritising the range of evidence-based policies proven to reduce alcohol consumption, which causes around 17,000 UK cancer diagnoses each year.

Notably, it fails to include minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in England, despite the success of MUP in reducing alcohol-related deaths in Scotland and Wales. Worryingly, England continues to lag the devolved nations on this crucial policy.

The Plan also makes no mention of strengthening marketing restrictions on alcohol, and so enables industry to continue to normalise drinking as an aspirational lifestyle choice.

Given the rising number of alcohol-related deaths each year, we are urging the UK government to deliver a National Alcohol Strategy for England. As outlined in our recent letter to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, during Cancer Prevention Action Week, we continue to call for bold action on alcohol-related cancer.

Equally disappointing is the absence of action to strengthen protections and support for breastfeeding and infant feeding. There are no new mandatory, independently enforced regulations on the composition, marketing and labelling of baby and toddler foods. This is a missed opportunity, particularly in light of the UK government’s stated goal to raise the healthiest generation of children ever.

We will continue to urge the government to adopt the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority’s market study on infant and follow-on formula.

Turning ambitions into action

This Plan arrives as Labour marks its first year in government under Starmer. This government now has the opportunity – and responsibility – to turn its prevention agenda into lasting structural change that improves the nation’s health.

The upcoming National Cancer Plan for England presents a further chance to address modifiable risk factors and fill the gaps left by the 10-year Health Plan.

We welcome the Prime Minister’s willingness to challenge accusations of “nanny statism” and urge the government to ensure all health strategies are protected from undue industry influence.

We want prevention to be the foundation of all health strategies. We stand ready to bring our scientific and policy expertise to the table – and we’re calling on the UK government to work with us to turn bold ambition into real change, helping millions live longer, cancer-free lives.

In our resource library

• Comments on the 10-year Health Plan for England
• Call for Evidence – National Cancer Plan for England

As part of Cancer Prevention Action Week 2025, on Wednesday we handed in an open letter and petition, alongside breast cancer survivors Dr Liz O’Riordan and Nikki Bednall, and the Alcohol Health Alliance.

The letter (below) – signed by more than 25 organisations and health experts – and the petition called on Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his government to introduce a National Alcohol Strategy to Prevent Cancer, as part of our Cancer Prevention Action Week (CPAW) activity.

This year, CPAW is highlighting the links between alcohol and cancer – our research shows that most people don’t know that drinking any amount of alcohol increases the risk of 7 types of cancer.

What’s more, around 17,000 new cases every year are down to alcohol – so we’re urging the UK government to introduce a long-overdue National Alcohol Strategy for England – one that tackles alcohol harm head-on through:

• mandatory health warnings highlighting cancer risk
• minimum unit pricing
• marketing restrictions

to reduce consumption, lower cancer risk, and protect lives.

Only 16% of us in the UK feel at ease discussing our relationship with alcohol, ranking it among the least talked about topics – less so than sex (17%) and money (29%), according to our poll.

We’re emphasising the connection between alcohol and cancer as part of Cancer Prevention Action Week, which starts today. We have strong evidence that alcohol increases the risk of 7 cancers:

• Breast
• Bowel
• Head and neck
• Oesophageal
• Liver
• Stomach

Alcoholic drinks are also high in calories and often high in sugar, increasing the risk of gaining weight. Living with overweight or obesity increases the risk of at least 13 types of cancer.

We surveyed 2,000 people to gain insights into Britain’s understanding of alcohol and cancer risks. The findings reveal consistent misconceptions regarding alcohol’s dangers. Alarmingly, 25% of respondents did not associate any health risks with alcohol, and only 1 in 14 mentioned cancers as a risk when asked unprompted.

These misconceptions may hinder our ability to have informed conversations about alcohol. About 4% of cancer cases in the UK are attributed to alcohol, meaning that, each year, around 17,000 people are diagnosed with cancer caused by alcohol. Adding to this immeasurable human cost is the economic burden. Alcohol-related cancers cost the NHS around £100m every year.

We need a National Alcohol Strategy

We support clearer public health messaging to raise awareness of the real dangers of alcohol consumption, as well as other measures such as health warning labels. Alongside many other health organisations in the UK, we’re urging the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, to implement a National Alcohol Strategy for England.

Nikki Bednall is a World Cancer Research Fund Supporter and breast cancer survivor. She said: “I always thought drinking a few times a week was fine. I never knew it could raise my cancer risk. If I’d known earlier, I might have made different choices. Though hindsight is easy, my perspective has changed with the knowledge that came after my diagnosis.”

Drinking habits in the UK paint a concerning picture in comparison with other nations. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2021 data showed that alcohol consumption in the UK was 10 litres per capita – 16% more than the OECD average of 8.6 litres.

Covid led to an increase in the number of high-risk drinks, with the heaviest drinkers increasing their consumption the most. These changes have persisted beyond the national lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, and subsequently there has been a year-on-year rise in alcohol-specific deaths, which reached an all-time high of 10,473 in 2023.

The research was conducted by Opinion Matters, among a sample of 2,000 nationally representative UK adults. The data was collected between 21.03.2025–24.03.2025.

The government of the Republic of Ireland must ensure that the planned introduction of alcohol health labels, in May 2026, which are mandated under the Public Health (Alcohol) Act 2018, come into force without delay.

Dr Giota Mitrou, our Executive Director of Research and Policy, has written to Taoiseach Micheál Martin TD and Health Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill TD, in support of Ireland’s forthcoming mandatory health warnings labels on alcohol.

We are calling on the Irish government to stand firm on alcohol labelling in the face of misleading representations from the alcohol industry, and resist outside influence. Doing so, Dr Mitrou writes, will solidify Ireland’s record as a world leader on public health and set a much-needed example for other governments across the globe.

Health labels on alcohol crucial to preventing cancer

From 2026, all alcohol products sold in the Republic of Ireland will be required to state: “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers”. This measure makes Ireland the first country in the world to mandate a warning linking any level of alcohol consumption to cancer.

Yet Ireland is facing resistance to these measures from the alcohol industry in Ireland and worldwide.

Drinking any type of alcohol increases your risk of 7 different types of cancer, and our evidence shows that there is no safe level of drinking.

For Cancer Prevention Action Week 2025, on 23–29 June, we’re highlighting the links between alcohol and cancer and encouraging an open conversation about alcohol’s many harms.

> Read the letters

> On the blog: How Ireland beat the odds to introduce cancer warning labels on alcohol

Alcohol is a proven risk factor for 7 cancer types, and our evidence clearly shows there is no safe level of consumption when it comes to preventing cancer. Each year 17,000 people – 46 people every day – are diagnosed with a cancer caused by alcohol.

Alcohol deaths in England reached nearly 10,500 in 2023, a massive 42% increase since 2019. Despite these tragic statistics, alcohol policy across the UK remains woefully inadequate, doing very little to mitigate its significant harms, including cancer, and the immense burden it places on the NHS.

Making the case for change

Which cancers are linked to alcohol?

That’s why this year, our flagship campaign – Cancer Prevention Action Week – focuses on the links between alcohol and cancer, aiming to ensure that everyone can make informed decisions about their alcohol consumption. While raising awareness is important, it must be combined with evidenced-based polices that enable and support people to make healthier choices.

As many aspects of alcohol policy are the responsibility of the devolved administrations, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have alcohol strategies in place. In contrast, England has not had a National Alcohol Strategy since 2012.

We’re calling on the UK government to introduce a long overdue National Alcohol Strategy for England without delay. The Strategy must introduce policies on labelling, pricing and marketing – 3 interventions that have strong evidence of positive impact. Crucially, it must also remain independent of industry influence.

1) Labelling

Despite being carcinogenic, alcohol is exempt from mandatory health warning labels. Unlike other food and drinks, alcohol labels are also not required to include information on nutritional content or calories. As the Alcohol Health Alliance puts it, there is more product information on a bottle of orange juice than on a bottle of beer. In fact, alcoholic drinks only have to display to display minimal information such as the name, strength as alcohol by volume (but only if over 1.2%), allergen information and the best before date (if the drink’s strength is under 10%). Even pregnancy and drink driving warnings are voluntary.

Consumers have a right to know about every product’s health risks and harms. Introducing health warning labels on alcohol that highlight cancer risk, alongside information on nutrition and calories, is an easy and effective way to ensure this. Evidence shows that effective labelling can prompt behaviour change and lead to reduced consumption.

For labelling to be effective, it must be clear, plain, distinct and mandatory. Additionally, labels should not include ambiguous language such as “drink responsibly”. Our policy position on alcohol explains that the use of QR codes to link to health information must be prohibited as, rather than informing people about risks, they provide marketing opportunities by redirecting consumers to producers’ websites.

2) Pricing

Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) has been introduced in Scotland and Wales, but not in England or Northern Ireland. It sets a baseline price at which a unit of alcohol can be sold and targets cheap, strong alcohol that is often consumed by adolescents and other vulnerable groups.

Public Health Scotland’s review indicates that MUP has reduced alcohol-specific deaths by 13% and averted over 800 hospitals admissions every year since its introduction in 2012. MUP was found to have the most impact on those living in the 40% most deprived areas of Scotland, helping to reduce health inequalities. The Welsh government has also seen the benefits of MUP, which it introduced in 2020. Northern Ireland has consulted on proposals to introduce MUP.

England must follow suit, introducing MUP at 65p and adjusted for inflation thereafter. Without MUP in England, a 2.5 litre bottle of cider containing 19 units of alcohol can be bought for as little at £5.25. Under a 65p minimum unit price, this would rise to £12.19. Industry opposes MUP, arguing that it would damage sales in pubs and restaurants. However, most alcohol sold in these settings is already above minimum unit prices.

3) Marketing restrictions

Marketing restrictions on alcohol remain woefully inadequate. Advertising regulations prohibit linking alcohol with youth, irresponsible behaviour or social success, but enforcement is ineffective. The Advertising Standards Agency has no power to issue fines or sanctions, and often rules on complaints only after a campaign has ended. Like labelling, advertising is not a devolved issue, meaning the picture across the UK is largely the same.

Alcohol advertising is widespread, despite strong evidence linking exposure to alcohol marketing with young people drinking more and at an earlier age. The UK’s insufficient restrictions must be addressed by classifying alcohol as an “unhealthy product” under high fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) marketing restrictions. This would limit its promotion, particularly to vulnerable populations including children and adolescents.

The time to act is now

No family should have to endure the devastating trauma of alcohol-related cancer. Yet, as a result of the rise in high-risk drinking since the coronavirus pandemic, the UK could see more than 18,000 additional cancer cases by 2035.

Join us this Cancer Prevention Action Week to demand action. Sign and share our petition today, calling for a National Alcohol Strategy for England.

• The Alcohol Health Alliance, which we are a member of, has more information on MUP, labelling and marketing restrictions.

Action needed on NCDs – now

Much work needs to happen between now and the HLM in September. We’re attending the Multi-stakeholder Hearing in New York this week to engage Member States and share our priorities. Our advocacy will continue through our annual participation at the 78th WHO World Health Assembly this month, as we promote the benefits of cancer prevention policy.

We’ll participate in advocacy activities and side-events, promoting our HLM policy brief, which outlines our key messages. Civil society must continue its vital role in pushing for change and shaping an impactful Political Declaration.

We’ll collaborate with our longstanding partners such as NCD Alliance, UICC, World Obesity Federation and Movendi International to support the cancer and NCD prevention policy agenda. In the lead-up to the HLM in September, we’ll continue this series doing a deeper dive into each of these policy asks, and share our reflections as progress develops.

If you would be interested in supporting these advocacy asks, please reach out to policy@wcrf.org.

We’ve come across many examples of human rights being used to advance cancer prevention at the McCabe Centre – whether through public interest litigation by civil society in south Asia to introduce smoke-free public places, or through incorporating non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention and healthy diets into regional human rights strategies and reporting to UN human rights bodies in the Pacific.

We were therefore pleased to see World Cancer Research Fund International’s recently launched Policy Blueprint recognise the co-benefits of cancer prevention and the fulfilment of human rights.

This blog aims to explain what these co-benefits are, and how those working in cancer prevention can make the most of them.

Cancer prevention is part of our human rights

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights establishes that people have a right, and countries have a duty, to prevention, treatment and control of disease as part of the right to health. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is established under the Covenant to assist in its interpretation, outlines that in order to protect, promote and fulfil the right to health, countries need to regulate health-harming products and make preventive health services and health information available, accessible, acceptable and good quality. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, an independent expert on human rights whose mandate is established under the UN Human Rights Council, has endorsed a number of cancer prevention measures as a means of fulfilling this right, most specifically in relation to front-of-pack food labelling and promoting and supporting breastfeeding.

Likewise, the Committee on the Rights of the Child states that children’s right to health in the Convention on the Rights of the Child includes government obligations to address childhood obesity. This includes limiting children’s exposure to fast foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt or energy dense and nutrient poor, and regulating their marketing and availability in schools and other public places.

Grounding prevention policies in human rights

In many countries, human rights law can provide a valuable framing for engagement with ministries outside of health. In Argentina, civil society organisations successfully advocated for front-of-pack food labelling in parliament using a campaign strongly grounded in human rights. This included emphasising consumers’ right to information on whether foods had levels of sugar, fat and sodium that would harm health, and the right to healthier food environments as a component of the rights to food and health.

In Norway, the WHO’s guideline on policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing, which is aligned with obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has been important to the Ministry of Health’s recent announcement of its plans to ban the marketing of junk foods to children.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has raised concerns about commercial marketing in digital environments, including the profiling of children’s personal data for targeted marketing and the use of manipulative advertising techniques. The Committee has made recommendations that have been incorporated into UNICEF/WHO tools to support Member States to address the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. These connections between the marketing of unhealthy foods to children and a broader range of problematic digital commercial practices provide an opportunity to connect cancer prevention challenges to broader issues of online privacy, digital surveillance, and the rights of children in online spaces, and build alliances on these issues.

Cancer places an unequal burden on already marginalised or under-served communities, who are also more exposed to many cancer risk factors. A human rights approach, with its emphasis on ensuring that no one is left behind, and community participation and accountability, is a way of making sure that we have an equitable response that respects, protects and fulfils the rights of each individual to health. In her report on food, nutrition, and the right to health, the UN Special Rapporteur, Tlaleng Mofokeng, describes how disadvantaged groups are targeted in food marketing, and calls for more attention to be given to the relationship between NCDs, racial discrimination and gender.

Challenging the co-option of human rights by unhealthy industries

Despite human rights bodies’ recommendations to prevent cancer and regulate third parties’ impact on health, commercial interests such as the tobacco, alcohol or food industries are often more adept and better resourced at using this body of law than cancer prevention advocates. Unhealthy industries often invoke rights in litigation against public health laws, as part of a trend to launch legal challenges under trade, investment and constitutional law as a means of blocking public health policy. In Mexico, food companies launched a constitutional challenge to front-of-pack food labelling, arguing that it discriminated against food companies and restricted their right to trade.

Courts consistently reject these arguments, recognising that the rights of commercial actors must be balanced against other societal interests, including the rights of people to health, and that it does not enhance rights if we leave the marketing of harmful products by powerful commercial entities unchecked. The Supreme Court of Mexico upheld the front-of-pack labelling law, finding that the labels furthered the right to health and did not present a barrier to commerce. These challenges demonstrate the importance of proactively engaging with human rights and the law as part of a broader strategy on cancer prevention, so that lawyers representing commercial entities are less able to co-opt human rights to block public health policy.

A need for strategic alliances

Human rights are ultimately allies in implementing evidence-based laws to fulfil people’s right to health, with legal principles that emphasise equity, the right of consumers to be informed, and government obligations to regulate commercial actors that may harm human rights all fitting in well with public health objectives. Recalling these principles and building strategic alliances with human rights groups means we can better realise the potential of cancer prevention policies to promote and fulfil human rights for all.

The author would like to acknowledge Hayley Jones and Clare Slattery for comments on an earlier draft of this article.