The wine and spirits industry is quietly steering Mexico’s alcohol tax debate – and it’s doing so under the guise of policy expertise.
In recent coverage by El Economista and Revista Fortuna, a so-called “discussion document” was presented as a contribution to improving the country’s alcohol tax structure. But what neither outlet highlights is that this report wasn’t an independent academic exercise. It was commissioned by the Comisión para la Industria de Vinos y Licores (CIVYL) – the industry group representing the very companies who stand to gain most from the proposed changes.
Diageo, Bacardi, Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy, and Campari – all global giants with massive commercial stakes in spirits – are members of CIVYL. These are the same companies that profit from high-alcohol, high-margin products and rely on sustained or increasing consumption for continued growth. Now they are pushing for a new tax model that would make their products cheaper, under the guise of a more “efficient” tax system.
It’s true that the current tax structure in Mexico – which relies heavily on ad valorem (price-based) taxes – is flawed. Public health experts and international institutions like WHO and PAHO support specific excise taxes based on alcohol content, which are more effective at reducing consumption and generating stable revenue.
But the way this industry-sponsored report applies that principle is anything but neutral.
Instead of using specific taxes as a tool to discourage consumption of high-strength and high-risk products, the CIVYL-backed proposal appears to set rates at a level that would actually make many wine and spirits products cheaper – undermining the very purpose of excise taxation in the first place.
The public health consequence is clear: cheaper alcohol means more alcohol harm, and more burden on Mexico’s health system. And yet this plan is being floated in the middle of a larger fiscal reform debate, disguised as a technical fix.
This tactic isn’t new. As documented in global reports like Big Alcohol Exposed: Annual Report 2024, industry groups routinely fund economic studies to push for favorable tax treatments, often presenting them as independent evidence. What’s especially troubling is that major media outlets are reporting on the CIVYL-backed document without disclosing the conflict of interest.
Political interference, or lobbying, is Big Alcohol’s activity to eliminate or minimize any alcohol policy effort that would threaten sales and profits. The focus of this Dubious Five strategy is the decision-makers and opinion leaders with the power to shape and decide alcohol policy decisions. Tactics of political interference are delay, derail, or even destroy alcohol policy initiatives, and to divide coalitions supporting alcohol policy initiatives. Big Alcohol is paying lobbyists and lobby front groups to interfere in public health policy making around the world.
Sources: