Data on the %ABV of specific wine brand and varietal were obtained from Washington State Liquor Control Board Price Lists for the years 2003 – 2012. As WSLB did not produce these price lists after the privatization of alcohol sales in 2012, we used the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s website to identify %ABV. In the case that a specific brand varietal for a specific year could not be identified in either of these sources, we used the winery-reported value as reported on their websites. As previously described , we did this for each brand varietal accounting for the top 80% of wine sales in Pennsylvania for each wine sub-type. There were many thousands of brand varietals sold comprising the largest category “table wine”, and an increasing number of brands each year. Further, this methodology of identifying %ABV for each varietal has been critiqued as too labor intensive . To address the labor-intensity of this process, in this update of %ABV estimates and PCC we matched sales and %ABV for the top 50% of table wine sales in Pennsylvania, and calculated a mean %ABV for 30% of the total sales of table wines. We calculated a mean %ABV for the most commonly sold varietals, which were chardonnay, cabernet sauvignon, merlot, and zinfandel, by obtaining the %ABV for all the wines listed in these varietal categories, excluding those already included in the top 50%. We applied this mean %ABV to 30% of the total sales volume thus increasing our mean %ABV estimate to include 80% of the total. This was feasible for each year from 2003 to 2011 because the Washington Price lists were available and included %ABV values for each brand varietal in each top-selling varietal category. For the years from 2012 to 2016 we carried forward the 2011 %ABV value representing the mean of the most commonly sold varietals and applied it to each year’s 30% value of total sales volume.
Data sources for spirits. We used the Liquor Handbooks to obtain data on the leading brands, the volume sold of each,clone rack and state and national annual market shares of each spirits sub-type . Spirits sub-type categories were straight whiskey, blended whiskey, Canadian whiskey, Scotch whiskey, Irish whiskey, gin, vodka, rum, tequila, brandy & cognac, cordials & liqueurs, and prepared cocktails. We obtained %ABV values for each brand within each spirits sub-type from the WSLB Price Lists for the years 2003 – 2012 and from the NABCA database for the years 2013-2016. If the %ABV could not be identified from these sources we used values from the distillery’s website. Other data sources. We used sales figure data for 2003-2016 from the Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System for the volume of each beverage type sold for each state and nationally for each year . These figures are based on tax receipts and industry sources. We obtained estimates of the United States population aged 15 and older for each state and nationally from 2003 to 2016 from the U.S. Census Bureau . The AEDS figures presented here based on the ABV-invariant method are not the same as those in the AEDS Surveillance reports because here they are referenced to the population aged 15 and older, while AEDS reports used figures for the population aged 14 and older. Estimating sales-weighted mean % ABV. To estimate the sales-weighted mean %ABV for each beverage sub-type for each year we 1) multiplied the %ABV for each leading brand by the volume sold , 2) took the sum of these product values and 3) divided this sum by the sum of the volume sold. To estimate the mean %ABV for each beverage type we multiplied the annual market share of each beverage sub-type by the sales-weighted mean %ABV of that sub-type and summed across all beverage sub-types for each state for each year, and nationally for each year. Estimating per capita alcohol consumption.
Nationally and for each state we calculated PCC estimates for each beverage type by multiplying the mean %ABV by the volume of each beverage type sold and dividing by the population aged 15 and above.To be consistent with international standards, we present PCC estimates in liters. We describe our %ABV estimates for beer, wine, and spirits, their trends between 2003 and 2016, and make comparisons to the static %ABV values used in the AEDS PCC calculations. To explain the trends in %ABV estimates for each beer, wine, and spirits, we describe the mean %ABV and market shares for beverage sub-types. We describe our beverage-specific and total PCC estimates and trends, and make trend comparisons to estimates from the AEDS ABV-invariant methods. We present national estimates as described above followed by a brief overview of state estimates. National %ABV estimates for beer, wine, and spirits. Our estimates of the mean %ABV of beer, wine, and spirits sold in the United States between 2003 and 2016 are presented in Figure 1. Overall, the means for all beverage types increased over the 2003-2016 period from 4.65% to 4.74 %ABV, 11.6% to 12.3 %ABV, and 36.9% to 38.3 %ABV for beer, wine, and spirits, respectively. For beer, the overall trend in mean %ABV was a decline between 2003 and 2005, a small increase in 2006 followed by a steady decline until 2010, after which there was a notable increase until 2015 and a slight decline to 2016. Our estimates were consistently higher than the time-invariant 4.5 %ABV value used for every year in AEDS, with the largest difference of 0.25 percentage points in 2015. For wine, the overall trend in average %ABV was a stable value between 2003 and 2007, then a sharp increase until 2010 after which it declined slightly and remained relatively stable until 2016. Our estimates were lower than the time invariant 12.9 %ABV value for every year in AEDS but the difference decreased over time as our estimates increased. For spirits, the overall trend in mean %ABV showed a steady increase between 2003 and 2014, with a slight dip in 2015 and an increase in 2016.
Our estimates were consistently lower than the static AEDS estimates, although differences decreased over the time period as our estimates increased. National mean %ABVs and market shares for beverage sub-types. The changes we observed in our national estimates of mean %ABV of each beverage type were influenced by changes in the sales-weighted mean %ABVs of beverage sub-types and changes in beverage sub-type market shares over time, that is, changes in beverage sub-type preferences. The %ABVs and market shares are presented for selected years for each beverage type in Table 1. The initial decrease in the mean %ABV of beer between 2003 and 2005 was driven by declines in market shares and not %ABV as beer sub-types’ mean %ABV changed by no more than 0.03 over this time period. Premium beer and popular beer had the second and fourth largest market shares in 2003, respectively, and each lost about 12% of their market shares by 2005. On the other hand,4×8 tray grow the increase in the national mean %ABV of beer between 2005 and 2006 was the result of an increase in the mean %ABV of malt beverages, which increased from 6.14% to 6.68 %ABV. This increase was driven by the brand Steel Reserve, with a %ABV of 8.1%, as the top-selling brand in the malt beer category from 2006 onwards. Also between 2005 and 2006 the market share of malt beer increased by about 29%, although it still only comprised less than 3% of the market share in 2006. The decline in the national mean %ABV of beer between 2006 and 2010 was explained by the continued decline in market shares of premium beer, which lost 20% of its market shares over this period. The marked increase in the national mean %ABV of beer from 2010 to 2016 was driven by the increase in mean %ABV and market shares of flavored malt beverages and of craft beer. The mean %ABV of FMBs increased from 5.9% to 6.5%, and of craft beer from 4.9% to 5.3% between 2011 and 2016. Over the same period FMBs increased its market share by approximately 56%, while craft beer increased by approximately 85%. It is also important to note that light beer, which had a stable %ABV over time of about 4.3%, showed a steady decline in market shares from a high of 52.9% in 2010 to 44.5% in 2016.The increase in the mean %ABV of wine between 2007 and 2010 was driven by increases in the sales-weighted mean %ABV of table wine. Table wines increased from 11.7 in 2007 to 12.4 %ABV in 2010 when the %ABV peaked and changed little thereafter. Table wines comprised the vast majority of wine sales nationally with a market share consistently around 90%. This market share changed little over the entire 2003-2016 period from 90.2% to 90.7%, and was highest in 2010 at 91.8%.
The slight decline in the mean %ABV of wine between 2010 and 2011 was attributable to the decline in the mean %ABV of dessert and fortified wine from 15.0% to 14.1%, which also lost market shares by approximately 16% between 2010 and 2011, although comprised only 3% of the market in 2010. Spirits showed a steady increase in mean %ABV over the 2003 to 2016 period, reflecting a gradual increase in the market shares of higher %ABV spirits and a gradual decrease in lower %ABV spirits. Vodka, with a mean 40% ABV throughout the study period, showed the largest rise in market shares from 26.2% in 2003 to 33.6% in 2016. Similarly, market shares of tequila, also with a mean 40% ABV, increased market shares from 4.8% to 7.2%. Straight whiskey also increased its market shares from 8.4% to 9.5% between 2003 and 2016, and had a slight increase in mean %ABV from 41.1% to 41.9%. There were limited changes in the mean %ABV of spirits sub-types, with the exception of cordials & liqueurs and prepared cocktails. Cordials & liqueurs showed an increase of mean %ABV from 23.7% to 28.4%, and prepared cocktails from 9.7% to 11.9%. National beverage-specific and total per capita alcohol consumption estimates. The new national variant %ABV-based PCC estimates for beer, wine, and spirits, and for total consumption, with comparisons to AEDS estimates are presented in Figure 2. Overall, our new estimates showed that consumption of pure alcohol from beer was somewhat higher for every year and that consumption of alcohol from wine, spirits, and total PCC was lower in every year compared to AEDS estimates. Our PCC estimates from beer decreased from 4.8 to 4.4 liters per capita between 2003 and 2016 and showed a similar trend over time compared to AEDS estimates. However, the percent difference between the AEDS and our estimates increased between 2011 and 2016 from 3.2% to 5.1% showing that the trends diverge slightly. Our PCC estimates from wine increased from 1.2 to 1.6 liters per capita between 2003 and 2016. The trend is similar to AEDS estimates, although there is a notable convergence between our estimates and the AEDS estimates, where the percent difference decreased from 9.7% in 2003 to 5.0% in 2016. Our estimates of PCC from spirits increased between 2003 and 2016 from 2.31 to 2.98 liters per capita and followed a very similar trend to the AEDS estimates, remaining mostly parallel over the study period. A slight convergence was observed as the percent difference between our estimate and the AEDS estimate was 10.3% in 2003, 7.9% in 2015 and 6.8% in 2016. Our total PCC estimates followed a similar pattern over the 2003 to 2016 period to that of the AEDS estimates . However, there are important differences. Overall, our total PCC estimates were lower than the AEDS estimates. Further, the trend for our estimate converged with the AEDS estimate trend. The difference between our estimates declined from 0.24 liters of alcohol per person in 2003 to a difference of just 0.08 liters in 2016. Importantly, the percent change between 2003 and 2016 for the AEDS estimates was 5.8% compared to a 7.9%change in our estimates over the same period. This 7.9% change represents 0.66 liters, which is a mean of approximately 37 drinks per person per year. In contrast, a 5.8% change represents 0.48 liters, which is a mean of approximately 27 drinks per person per year. State %ABV estimates for beer, wine, and spirits.