Here’s an interesting article from WE. This coincides with me receiving news that from fall this year, EU has demanded that either a declaration of ingredients/nutrition needs to be on the label, or a QR-code leading to it (which will mean we’ll start seeing it on US labels as well, because most wineries aren’t going to print two different labels).
Overall, seems like a tightening and a focus on alcohol being the new baddie, in all forms. Add the Gen Z abstinence into this and we might be moving towards a tougher environment for wine. Are we marching towards a new Neo-Prohibition?
The QR for ingredients and Alcohol seem completely unrelated to me (perhaps I missed something in my brief skim of the article). This is particularly true if the discussion is between complete abstinence and any amount of alcohol.
I would not be surprised to see more surgeon general efforts go into warnings (label and otherwise) about alcohol.
If anything, I think this move would attract more drinkers. People already know alcohol is bad for you, but there are a lot of people who like to know what they are putting in their bodies, and currently, you aren’t really able to do that when drinking wine.
Mike Officer had a thoughtful essay in the most recent Carlisle release, about his thoughts on ingredient labeling on wine (spoiler: he thinks it’s a terrible idea).
How this portends a return of Prohibition is less clear to me…
I’m ambivalent about ingredient labeling. I can see why winemakers would be against it, but I also think that it could have some benefits for consumers.
Regarding neo-prohibition, in all likelihood added sugar in our diets is worse for health than alcohol is. Maybe the neo-prohibitionists should prioritize going after that first?
Feds preparing to call alcohol unsafe in Dietary Guidelines for 2025? Seems like it’s a real possibility.
That’s bad not only for wine sales, but also because it opens up for classifying alcohol as tobacco etc, In fact, in the article there was even a seminar called “Alcohol and Cancer: A New Litigation Strategy Against Large Producers” paving the way for temperance organizations to sue wine producers. There is no such connection of course, but it will certainly open up for litigation. And just like article mentions, both current candidates are teetotalers and perhaps more likely to usher these things through.
I mean, plaintiff’s lawyers filing class actions to collect fees are one thing, but are there really legit temperance organizations in the US trying to get people to stop drinking alcohol?
I think they do. Very big influence on the WHO’s recommendations - which is what is paving the way for this Fed thing - was how highly influenced they were by the IOGT-NTO movement/temperance society. They now have the ear of the WHO, despite very little actual scientific data supporting them. But they are well funded lobby group with reach. I’m not proud to say that they have their origins in Sweden and are in many parts the reason why the Scandinavian countries have a monopoly situation where they both make money off of state controlled alcohol sales at the same time as they low-key try to discourage it. This schizophrenic business model has been going on for 100 years there.
I drink like a fish and am no fan of government over-reach, but is anyone seriously still pretending that alcohol is not bad for you (especially brain function)? Sure, lots on components of grapes are good for you, but alcohol?