Emerging but limited evidence suggests that alcohol consumption has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study assessed: (1) whether drinking behaviors changed during the pandemic; and, (2) how those changes were impacted by COVID-19-related stress. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with a convenience sample of U.S. adults over 21 years in May 2020. We conducted adjusted linear regressions to assess COVID-19 stress and alcohol consumption, adjusting for gender, race, ethnicity, age, and household income. A total of 832 responded: 84% female, 85% White, and 72% ages 26–49. Participants reported consuming 26.8 alcohol drinks on 12.2 of the past 30 days. One-third of participants (34.1%) reported binge drinking and 7.0% reported extreme binge drinking. Participants who experienced COVID-19-related stress (versus not) reported consuming more drinks (β = 4.7; CI (0.2, 9.1); p = 0.040) and a greater number of days drinking (β = 2.4; CI (0.6, 4.1); p = 0.007). Additionally, 60% reported increased drinking but 13% reported decreased drinking, compared to pre-COVID-19. Reasons for increased drinking included increased stress (45.7%), increased alcohol availability (34.4%), and boredom (30.1%). Participants who reported being stressed by the pandemic consumed more drinks over a greater number of days, which raises concerns from both an individual and public health perspective.

Background: Alcohol consumption in the U.S. is a public health problem that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatedly, many states have responded to COVID-19 by relaxing their alcohol laws, making it possible for adults to have alcohol delivered to their homes. This study sought to understand the impact of allowing alcohol home delivery on self-reported adult alcohol consumption in the US. Methods: In May 2020, we surveyed a convenience sample of U.S. adults over 21 years of age recruited through social media and listservs. Eight hundred and thirty-two participants completed the online survey: 84% were female, 85% were White, and 72% were between the ages of 26 and 49. Results: Twenty-one percent of participants who consumed alcohol in the past month had at least some alcohol delivered, with 60% having it delivered from liquor stores, restaurants, or bars. The remainder of the participants purchased the alcohol in-person or owned it pre-COVID-19. Participants who reported having alcohol delivered also reported consuming more drinks (β = 13.3; 95% CI [8.2, 18.4]; p < .000) and drinking on more days (β = 5.0; 95% CI [2.9, 7.0]; p < .000) over the past month than participants who obtained alcohol through other methods. Participants who had alcohol delivered were nearly two times more likely to report engaging in binge drinking than those who obtained alcohol through other methods (OR = 1.96; 95% CI [1.3, 3.1]; p = .003). Conclusions: Obtaining alcohol through home delivery was associated with greater alcohol consumption including binge drinking. As states consider permanently allowing alcohol home delivery, it is important to consider the potential public health implications.

COVID-19 has caused increased stress among U.S. adults, with many reporting concerns assisting their children with distance learning due to school closures. This study surveyed U.S. parents–most of whom were middle-aged, White, affluent, and female–to learn what types of distance learning activities parents engaged in with their children during COVID-19; whether these types of activities varied by the child’s age; and whether there was an association between engaging in these activities and stress. Most parents engaged in Monitoring, Teaching or Technology support activities with their children. Although these activities varied by child’s age, parents who reported engaging in any distance learning activity reported increased stress.

Background: Many university students regularly consume sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), which are associated with obesity and related chronic diseases. Moreover, students are strongly influenced by both their peers and product marketing. Our exploratory study examined pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies, focusing on provisions establishing campus/brand ambassador positions and marketing/merchandising manager positions whose jobs are to market SSBs on campus. Methods: For this cross-sectional study conducted in late 2020, two independent coders reviewed 131 pouring rights contracts between Coca-Cola or Pepsi and 124 unique public universities with 20,000 or more students enrolled. Contracts were active in 2018 or 2019. Results: Twenty-six contracts (20%) contained provisions specifically establishing either campus/brand ambassador positions ( n = 16), marketing/merchandising manager positions ( n = 7), both ( n = 1), or unclear language related to these positions ( n = 2). Thirteen contracts (10%) required that the position be filled by a current student. The objectives for both types of positions included increasing revenue and driving beverage sales. When stated in the contracts ( n = 5), the payments allocated for these positions ranged between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Conclusions: Given the association between SSBs and obesity and other related health outcomes, combined with the influence that peers and product marketing may have on adolescents' and young adults' attitudes toward consumption of these beverages, universities should be more transparent when these provisions are included in their pouring rights contracts and should carefully consider whether it is appropriate for these contracts to include funding for students to market SSBs.

Background: Alcohol is responsible for 4,300 deaths a year in the U.S. among persons under 21. Alcohol companies innovate rapidly and produce new products, some of which prove popular among young people. The 18 “control jurisdictions” in the U.S. – those that exercise monopoly control over some aspect of alcohol distribution – have the ability to govern which products become available within their borders and have, at times, exercised that authority to block particular products from sale. Objectives: This paper is an exploratory study examining how states use regulatory authority in control jurisdictions to restrict the sale of new alcohol products within their borders, and the reasoning used to justify those decisions. Methods: The authors, collaborating with the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, surveyed control state officials regarding procedures and policies governing the sale of new products in their jurisdictions. Results: Control jurisdictions have banned/restricted different products (e.g., grain alcohol and alcoholic energy drinks) for a variety of reasons (e.g., flavorings/packaging appealing to underage drinkers, blurring of distinctions between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks, and judgment that the product was not socially responsible). Conclusions/ Importance: Although U.S. control jurisdictions universally have the authority to limit access to problematic alcohol products; they vary in the degree to which they use it. These states need to take action, and as of now, there is no systematic reasoning behind when and how states make decisions to ban/restrict these products. Greater exploration of regulatory authority in this arena could be protective of public health.