Home delivery and distance selling of alcohol threaten Finns’ health – profits go abroad, harms stay in Finland

Juha Mikkonen

15.10.2025 - The Finnish Parliament held last week a preliminary debate on the government’s proposed legislative amendment that would expand the distance selling, delivery, and marketing of alcoholic beverages. The proposal threatens to worsen alcohol-related harms in Finland, while the economic benefits would go to private alcohol sellers and producers, as well as foreign alcohol retailers. The proposal risks undermining proven, cost-effective measures that reduce alcohol harm at the population level.

Alcohol is not an ordinary consumer product but an intoxicant that causes billions of euros in societal costs. Therefore, alcohol policy must primarily be approached as a social and health policy issue.

“The government has treated alcohol almost exclusively as a matter of competition and business policy, aiming to maximise the sales of commercial actors that produce and sell alcohol, even though alcohol use causes broad and undeniable harms to society,” says Juha Mikkonen, Executive Director of the Finnish Association for Substance Abuse Prevention EHYT ry.

Allowing home delivery and distance selling of alcoholic beverages with strengths of up to 80 percent threatens to increase consumption and related harms, especially among risk groups. The main beneficiaries of the proposal would be foreign operators: the economic gains from alcohol ordered from abroad would flow out of Finland, while the resulting problems from alcohol use would remain in the country.

Under EU rules, distance purchasing cannot be restricted when the buyer arranges the transport of the drinks themselves. However, the government should have more thoroughly examined the possibility mentioned in the proposal to prohibit distance sales of drinks exceeding 8.0% or 5.5% alcohol when the seller is responsible for the transport.

According to EHYT, the proposed law would alter Alko’s role and mandate in contradiction with the government programme. Finland has obtained from the European Union the right to protect public health through the state retail alcohol monopoly. Now, however, the government has not even attempted to negotiate with the Union or notify the Commission of legislation safeguarding the monopoly system.

“Alcohol policy is a national issue. We don’t set age limits for intoxicant sales based on other countries’ rules. Could it not have been possible to find a solution with the Commission allowing the same alcohol strength limits for distance sales as for domestic retail? Why should we accept that one anticipatory interpretation of EU requirements determines the entire direction of Finland’s alcohol policy? Is the government’s real goal to dismantle the public health-based sales system, promote the business interests of foreign alcohol retailers, and shift the consequences of a health-damaging policy onto ordinary Finnish taxpayers?” Mikkonen asks.

Alcohol deliveries to homes threaten children’s and young people’s wellbeing

Restrictions on alcohol availability and marketing have contributed to the decline in youth drinking. However, minors can more easily obtain alcohol when age control at the time of ordering does not extend to the actual handover. Greater availability also increases the often invisible suffering of children. More than 89,000 children in Finland live before adulthood in homes where daily life is overshadowed by a serious substance abuse problem.

Parental drinking at home has been linked to reduced child wellbeing and increased alcohol experimentation. Early drinking initiation is a major, and according to research indisputable, risk factor for later substance problems. International studies show that age verification in alcohol home delivery is poorly implemented.

“The proposed law would place an impossible task on supervisory authorities, as the delivery location of alcohol could be freely agreed between the buyer and seller, with few exceptions such as daycare centres,” Mikkonen says.

In practice, the current licensing system that underpins alcohol policy would lose its meaning, and the market would open more widely to the grey economy. Authorities would no longer know who is responsible for deliveries or who ultimately receives the alcohol. In addition, enforcement resources are minimal, especially as a major organisational restructuring is underway in licensing and supervisory agencies.

The draft law sets a penalty fee for delivery permit holders who violate age control or intoxication supervision obligations. The upper limit of this fine (1,000 euros) is completely inadequate compared to the potential harms and business volumes. Unlike in the spring draft, the fine has been reduced from 20,000 euros to 1,000, and the requirement for strong buyer identification has been removed.

“The core task of a well-functioning society is to protect children and young people. This is not achieved by delivering alcohol to the doorstep by express courier. It is particularly striking that this is a project of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Limited alcohol availability is not a problem in Finland, but alcohol harms are,” Mikkonen stresses.

Only business concerns were taken seriously in the preparation of the law

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends limiting alcohol availability, regulating prices, and curbing marketing to reduce harm. The Finnish government is doing the opposite: increasing availability, allowing influencer marketing, and weakening the tax base by unreasonably expanding alcohol imports from abroad.

The Finnish Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis asked in its opinion how excise duties related to alcohol distance selling could be collected more effectively. Similarly, Customs noted that the proposal would likely reduce alcohol tax revenue, as only a small portion of cross-border purchases are taxed in Finland.

The Council of Regulatory Impact Analysis also pointed out the need to assess the combined effects of the alcohol law changes and cuts targeting preventive substance abuse organisations. However, no such assessment of these joint effects or the extensive 140 million euro cuts affecting social and health NGOs has been carried out.

“In future, resources for preventive substance abuse work should be proportional to the scale of the problem. If financial resources cannot be found otherwise, decision-makers should explore the introduction of responsibility fees for alcohol sellers or earmarking parts of alcohol taxes directly for harm prevention. A similar earmark existed for tobacco tax before, so it is entirely feasible,” concludes Mikkonen.

---

Source: EHYT ry