Dry January Forces a Conversation on Alcohol in Luxembourg

Luxembourg's official adoption of Dry January in December 2025 certainly ruffled a few feathers in the country's Horeca sector, with several drink manufacturers and bar owners audibly grumbling at the advice to consumers to forgo the consumption of alcohol for 31 days.

Despite being a regular consumer of alcohol myself, I found these complaints to be somewhat short-sighted, even in the face of the challenges the Horeca sector currently faces. Today, we have more than sufficient evidence which shows that the impacts of alcohol on the human body are detrimental regardless of the amount consumed. Impacts which in many ways mirror the negative effects of tobacco. Now, imagine if cigarette manufacturers were to complain about smoking-prevention campaigns. We would laugh them out of town.

When I first arrived in Luxembourg in 1998, it was hard to ignore the role alcohol played in the social and cultural landscape of the country. Even as a Scotsman, with our well-known relationship with alcohol, I found the levels of consumption in the Grand Duchy to be eye-opening. At the time, a small beer or wine with lunch was practically alien to me. The sight of businessmen savouring a strong digestive to conclude a business meal even more so. Yet it was a regular sight in restaurants every lunchtime. After-work drinks seemed to be for after any workday, not just a Friday and as a pre-cursor to the weekend.

This trend didn't appear to be directly influenced by the international community, which grew significantly from the late 1990s onwards. It was mostly locals and cross-border workers. The international community just jumped on board and regarded it as part of fitting in - the cheap prices of beer, wine and spirits making the integration easy on the pocket (if not so much on the head).

Luxembourg it seems has always had a relatively high level of alcohol consumption. In 1998, the average per‑capita alcohol consumption across the European Union was approximately 7.3 litres of pure alcohol per person per year. In Luxembourg, it was 13.3 litres (Source: robinroom.net). However, such statistics need to be fully understood as they reflect purchases not only by residents, but also by cross-border workers as well as "wine tourists", as alcoholic drinks cost less in the Grand Duchy.

Today, it is around 12.9 litres compared to an average of around 10 litres across the EU. Despite this small drop, it is worth noting that in this period several countries joined the EU, including Czechia, Latvia and Lithuania; three countries which currently occupy the top four countries for per capita alcohol consumption in the union (14.3 litres, 13.2 litres and 12.8 litres respectively). This could be the reason why there has been only a slight reduction in recorded alcohol consumption here since 1998.

So, does Luxembourg have an alcohol problem and can Dry January go some way to changing that? I guess this comes down to what one would consider as "a problem". For me, one such problem would be another alcohol-related trend which struck me upon my arrival in Luxembourg; the drink-driving culture.

According to a 2025 study by VignetteSwitzerland.com, Luxembourg has the highest percentage in Europe of drivers who admit to driving after consuming alcohol (37.2%). In 2022 in Luxembourg, 16% of all road traffic accidents involved a driver over the minimum alcohol limit of 0.5% of alcohol per litre of blood (Source: STATEC). In 2024, the Grand Ducal Police issued 2,100 warnings for traffic accidents caused by drink driving. That's 5.75 per day. In that same period, the police recorded 23 serious accidents and three fatal crashes due to intoxicated drivers. While past government efforts to curb these kind of incidents included reducing the minimum alcohol limit for drivers from 0.7% to 0.5% in 2022, it sadly didn't prevent those 23 serious accidents and three fatal crashes.

Beyond the obvious benefits to one's health, could Dry January help reduce these kind of incidents? Potentially, but Luxembourg faces a distinct problem in that its roads are populated with drivers from multiple different countries (be they cross-border workers or those who have migrated here) each of which has their own distinct social and cultural relationship with alcohol, both in-car and out of.

For me, this highlights a flaw in the marketing adopted by the government for its Dry January campaign. In encouraging people to participate, the government has chosen to directly concentrate on the positive impacts to one's health and mental wellbeing but, as far as I can see, has not highlighted the impact excessive alcohol has on others, particularly in relation to drink-driving, violence in households and anti-social behaviour.

There are certainly generational shifts taking place in Luxembourg in relation to the implications of alcohol consumption, but with an ever-ageing yet more active older population, the issue of alcohol consumption and its effects remain prescient.

So what solutions are available to the government? In Scotland, the introduction in 2018 of Minimum Unit Pricing, which sets a legal minimum price per unit of pure alcohol, regardless of promotions or discounts - has had a noticeably positive impact. Research from Public Health Scotland and the University of Glasgow found a 13.4 % reduction in deaths wholly attributable to alcohol consumption, compared with what would likely have occurred without the policy, and that was within just two and a half years of the policy being introduced. Alcohol-related hospital admissions also dropped by 4% in the same period.

However, alcohol excise duties in Luxembourg are some of the lowest in Europe, making all forms of alcoholic beverages - outside of other cost factors - relatively cheaper than elsewhere. Given that Luxembourg applies a zero excise rate on still wine regardless of strength and no general excise on beer or other fermented beverages under certain alcohol thresholds (along with a reduced VAT rate (14%) for still wine up to 13% ABV and a specific surcharge of €600 per hectolitre on alcopops), any change to these levels of tax would only cause yet more uproar in Luxembourg's alcohol industry and with consumers also.

So, what is a viable solution? At one time the government's Action Plan against Alcohol Abuse (PALMA) seemed to present a viable framework for education and support but it hasn't received an update since 2024. The adoption of Dry January doesn't appear to be part of that framework, making it difficult to ascertain what the government's true stance is on dealing with Luxembourg's notably significant relationship with alcohol.

For me, one solution lies in redefining our psychological relationship with alcohol. Offering more non-alcoholic options - a solution already championed by local bar owners and breweries - has to be a starting point. This is, however, hampered by costs. To me, it is maddening that a small beer is cheaper than a bottle of water in a drinking establishment or restaurant. But this is just indicative of other underlying issues within Luxembourg's Horeca industry: the reliance on over-priced products to maintain profitability in a market crushed by operating costs.

When everything is expensive, people will invariably choose the option which best meets the outcome of cost vs satisfaction. Right now, that's rosé versus Rosport and Diekrich versus Diet Coke. In that fight, alcohol will invariably win until attitudes shift significantly and/or the alternatives become economically viable or desirable.

To achieve that, Luxembourg's alcohol manufacturers and alcohol-selling establishments must provide more compelling non-alcoholic alternatives for its customers. We live in an age of diversity, so diversify. Luxembourg is hailed as a country of entrepreneurs, so innovate. Quit the complaining and get with the picture.

The government should also adopt a more modern and realistic stance on its levies on alcoholic beverages and seriously consider reducing the tax on non-alcoholic alternatives. According to the Chamber of Deputies, Luxembourg receives around €66 million per year from alcohol excise duties. This is a tiny amount in comparison to other government income streams.

Tax alcohol higher and alternatives at a reduced rate. The impact to the exchequer is likely to be negligible. The societal impact could be considerable. That's the sort of positive change to which I'd raise a glass (of non-alcoholic beverage).