Zero Pulse
Prevention, lobbying and the state: who is behind the FUD?
By Anthony
To begin
In 1927, at the height of American Prohibition, thousands of citizens fell ill or died after drinking industrial alcohol that had been deliberately poisoned by the State. The idea was Machiavellian: to deter consumption through fear. The result was catastrophic, leaving an indelible mark; for when prevention turns into manipulation, the line between protection and violence becomes blurred.
A century later, the methods have changed, but the mechanics remain the same. In the alcohol debate, fear, uncertainty, and doubt—the well-known "FUD"—have become communication tools with a dual purpose. Lobbyists use them to downplay risks and muddy the waters, while certain public entities still rely on shock tactics and fear to spark public awareness. Caught in the middle of this tug-of-war, the consumer wavers between mistrust and confusion. So, how far can fear be used as a tool for prevention? And how can we distinguish between responsible information and emotional manipulation?
Fear as an argument
Long before today's campaigns, temperance movements made extensive use of the language of fear. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, posters portrayed alcohol as an existential threat: a source of crime, misery, and the breakdown of the family unit. Alcoholics were depicted as “living sores”—incurable and dangerous to the social order.
American Prohibition (1920–1933) represents the extreme culmination of this logic. To discourage illegal consumption, the government went so far as to poison industrial alcohol, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. The aim was to instill enough fear to turn the public away from alcohol. However, the strategy backfired: far from eradicating consumption, it spawned a thriving black market and heightened distrust of the authorities.
This historical episode highlights a simple truth: when FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) is used as a public health tool, it can produce the opposite of the intended effect. Fear may stun, but it does not persuade in the long run.
France today: a debate trapped between fear and normalisation
Overly alarmist campaigns... censored
In 2023, two prevention campaigns ready for release were cancelled by the government, deemed too “shocking.” Slogans such as “When we drink, our health takes a hit” or “Don’t let alcohol knock you out” clearly highlighted the health risks. However, according to several public health stakeholders, the decision to scrap these messages was directly influenced by the wine industry lobby, which was keen to protect wine’s image. This medical information, deemed too alarmist, never reached the public.
“C’est la base” (It’s the Basics): prevention or trivialisation?
A few months later, the “C’est la base” campaign, aimed at 17-to-25-year-olds, adopted the opposite strategy: carefully avoiding any mention of alcohol’s dangers while emphasising the importance of drinking water between alcoholic drinks. Presented as a harm-reduction approach, this campaign faced sharp criticism. Detractors accused it of trivialising consumption and reinforcing the notion that alcohol remains the social norm, provided one knows how to “stay hydrated.”
Lobbyists are masters of obfuscation
At the same time, the alcohol industry develops its own campaigns—sometimes presented as prevention efforts but actually designed to sow doubt. In 2015, for instance, a campaign by the group Vin & Société was labelled “disinformation” by health organisations: beneath seemingly neutral advice, the core message remained the promotion of wine as a cultural product. These strategies rely on reverse FUD: downplaying risks, diverting attention, and sowing scientific confusion.
The adverse effects of a double FUD
Too much fear leads to rejection
Alarmist campaigns have a paradoxical effect: they can trigger denial rather than buy-in. When a prevention message is perceived as excessive or guilt-inducing, it loses credibility. The public thinks:
“They’re exaggerating, so I’m tuning out.”
Legitimate warnings are thus rejected outright. This phenomenon has been observed with certain “shock” campaigns against alcohol, as well as in other areas of public health. Fear may stun, but it does not bring about lasting behavioural change.
Trivialisation fuels consumption
Conversely, campaigns that are too neutral—or even complacent —can contribute to normalising alcohol consumption. By focusing on “soft” messages (drinking water between alcoholic drinks, consuming in moderation, etc.), they imply that alcohol remains acceptable as long as it is managed responsibly. This ambiguity fuels a reverse FUD: doubt shifts away from the dangers of alcohol and towards the very legitimacy of prevention efforts. Amidst trivialisation and ambiguity, consumers struggle to know what to trust.
Towards ethical and effective communication
Informing without shocking
Public health research is clear: campaigns based solely on fear only work if they are accompanied by concrete solutions. Simply saying “alcohol kills” without offering an alternative or a resource tends to leave people stunned and paralyzed. In contrast, linking the warning to a practical action —such as taking part in an alcohol-free challenge like Sober October, trying a festive alternative, or relying on a support network — significantly increases the message's effectiveness.
Prioritise transparency
Today’s consumers do not want to be treated like children; they want clear information. Transparency—presenting scientific data, acknowledging uncertainties, and citing sources —builds trust and fosters critical thinking. This rare intellectual honesty is a far more enduring tool than raw fear or cultivated doubt.
Highlight alternatives
Finally, effective communication about alcohol should not merely point out the risks but also highlight the alternatives. Alcohol-free drinks, sober social gatherings, and inspiring personal stories: these are all positive elements that help us envision a future free from alcohol dependence. Instead of inducing guilt or trivialising the issue, the goal is to inspire people to try something different.
In the debate surrounding alcohol, fear, uncertainty, and doubt form a well-oiled mechanism. Used by temperance movements or the State, they have sometimes led to excesses—culminating in the disaster of Prohibition. Conversely, when exploited by lobbies, they serve to muddy the waters, downplay risks, and undermine prevention messages. These two forms of FUD, while seemingly opposite, share a common trait: they erode public trust and prevent calm, rational debate. Excessive fear leads to rejection, while excessive ambiguity sustains consumption.
The most productive approach is to step away from this tug-of-war. Instead of fueling fear or doubt, the focus should be on transparency, nuance, and highlighting alternatives. Clear information, concrete solutions, and appealing non-alcoholic options form the pillars of ethical communication. Ultimately, the goal is to enable everyone to make informed decisions, free from emotional manipulation.