Wine Consumption, Anti-Alcohol Messaging, and Gov’t Responses
Or “Drinking Wine Really is Good for You”
This is a long-ish post seeking to connect the dots among: findings from recent North American and European wine sector studies on production, demand, consumption, attitudes to wine and alcohol generally, the influence (strengthening? waning?) of anti-alcohol groups, government policy, and last, some bright lights for the wine business.
Demand Patterns
Understanding the drivers of demand for wine is essential in these disruptive times for the global wine sector. Changing post-pandemic consumer patterns are by now well-documented, and indeed reinforced by the Organisation for Wine and Vine’s (OIV) annual report: State of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2024: adaptation and cooperation released April 15, 2025. While the topline consumption trend is concerning (a 3.3% decline in 2024 from 2023, rising from 2.2% between 2022 and 2023), other factors (vineyard area, production volumes) are adjusting toward market balance in response (11.6 million hectolitres, a 25% reduction from 2023). This reminds us that wine as a beverage sector is mature, not emerging, despite recent growth (and subsequent retrenchment) in some of the world’s newest and most exciting regions.
For mature markets (particularly Europe, Canada and the US) the two principal factors affecting consumption are undoubtedly changing patterns by various demographics, and the influence of the anti-alcohol movement. Analysing these drivers (which may be cheekily referred to as “preference” and “purity”) can be helpful to producers in guiding their adjustment and introduction of products and origin stories appealing to demographics new to wine. Unravelling the extent of impact of the anti-alcohol movement’s fear-based messaging on consumption levels and the shift to no- or low-alcohol products would also be valuable, but depends on more in-depth research than I have yet seen. (I am hesitant to treat as definitive US survey results that state, for example, that 45% of Americans feel that alcohol is bad for your health (Gallup 2024, up from 39% in 2023 survey). This is logically distinct from the question of consumer motivations to purchase wine.
Clearly, there is an override function for some wine consumers, whose reasons to purchase and consume wine might include a family celebration, a vacation, a date, or a Tuesday, even if they believe it has risks for their health. BMO’s 2025 Wine Market Report (released April 24, 2025) comes close to explaining purchasing motivations: its section called “Fragmented, Wary Consumers” presents survey responses by Wine Opinions, a partner in the production of the Report. Of the regular wine drinkers surveyed (2-3 drinks per month or more), over 50% said there was no change in how much they are drinking, 21% are drinking less, and of those, 50% report they are cutting back beverage alcohol in general, and 37% specifically cited drinking less wine for “health and wellness reasons”. From this alone, we cannot infer whether “health and wellness reasons” indicate receptiveness to anti-alcohol messaging. However, the Report presents fascinating new information on this topic:
Many in the industry have linked declining wine sales with the increase in advisories and media reports on the potentially harmful effects of even moderate consumption of wine. The survey found the respondents were as aware of positive press on wine (64%) as they were of negative press (62%). Frequent wine drinkers who were male and over the age of 40 were the most aware of either negative or positive reports on wine. The youngest drinkers, 21-30, had significantly lower rates of awareness for both positive and negative press concerning wine, although somewhat more reported hearing positive news (55%) than negative (42%).
When asked to further describe their thoughts on the negative press, the survey found most respondents were skeptical of the messaging, stated they would continue to enjoy wine in moderation, had specific health issues or would be reducing their drinking. (p. 23)
Source: BMO Wine and Spirits Group, 2025 Wine Market Report, April 24, 2025, p 23.
These findings, together with additional consumption statistics presented in the BMO Report and other recent research point less to a “sky is falling” outlook, and more to a moderate path to be charted by a sector that should recognize itself as mature and responsive to the scale and preferences of various demographics, at least in established wine-drinking cultures and countries. It also points to a less timid response by the wine sector to the militant anti-alcohol groups, whose message may not be as penetrating as first appeared when its global late-pandemic campaign of “No Safe Level” had early successes in Canada, Ireland, at the World Health Organisation, and most recently, with the former Surgeon General of the United States.
Wine consumers appear to be hearing both negative and positive messages about wine. The imperative of the wine business, therefore, is to ensure its positive messaging meets two objectives (while obviously communicating honestly about its product): conveying authentic and interesting stories about its product to engage younger demographics, and regaining the positive image consumers have long had of wine. In other words, to excite consumers of all demographics about the cultural beverage it has always been.
Consumer Preferences
Key datasets released in 2025 are providing a more nuanced picture of consumers, in particular “Zillennial” wine drinkers in North America and parts of Europe, essentially those under 44 years of age. (Acknowledgement to the California Wine Institute, which coined the term). Far from turning away from wine, these consumers (especially Millennials, the more mature end of the demographic) are purchasing and engaging with premium wine, according to data released by IWSR (formerly International Wine and Spirits Record) in late March 2025 and reported by various outlets (Harpers, Gambero Rosso). In fact, the baby Boomer demographic, nearly all of whom have reached retirement age, has begun to reduce its consumption, and purchasing. But Millennials are consuming in line with their share of population (which in the US is larger than the boom), and outspending Boomers on wine.
According to Gambero Rosso: “In Italy, the profile of wine consumers by age faithfully reflects the demographic distribution of the population (legal drinking age), with under-44s at 35%, while in the USA Millennials and GenZ - who represent only a third of the population - reach 47% of wine consumers, denoting a higher penetration rate of the drink among young people than among more mature consumers.”
BMO’s Report arrives at similar findings among US wine consumers: while over half of survey respondents reported no change in their consumption, seven percent reported an increase since the pandemic, led by the 21-39 demographics (i.e. Zillennials) – albeit from a perhaps lower starting point. Wine consumers in the 40-59 age range (roughly Gen X) report a slight uptick in frequency of consumption. However, according to accompanying research, based on US consumption patterns, Millennials are consuming wine at roughly the same rate as Boomers, but with broader tastes and less loyalty to brand or beverage type (echoing findings and calls for course corrections in recent years by SVB’s State of the Wine Industry annual reports. For the wine business, demography could be destiny: the Millennial demographic in the US is the largest of the legal drinking age cohorts, so will be influential over the coming decades.
Anti-Alcohol Campaign
The twin objectives of anti-alcohol groups are to influence government policy - through recommended drinking and dietary guidelines, labelling, access to alcohol, health “findings”, and ominously, infiltrating* influential government and quasi-government organisations making such decisions; and to influence consumer behaviour through fear tactics in the guise of “informing and educating”, mainly through deliberately vague discussion of risk, and deliberately obfuscating scientific research (more on each category below).
The strategies and tactics used by anti-alcohol groups (chief among them Movendi International, whose religious temperance origins and motivations warrant close scrutiny) have been deeply covered at least in the wine trade press, particularly Felicity Carter’s excellent reporting for Wine Business and other publications. Unfortunately, while we now have evidence that wine consumers are registering positive messages about wine, there has been insufficient crossover to the “lifestyle press” or even mainstream media debunking the “junk science” pushed by such organisations (the New York Times is receiving real-time criticism from respected corners of wine journalism for its abandonment of balanced coverage). Worryingly, casual wine consumers appear to have absorbed – to a still unknown degree – some of the scare tactics conveyed by simplistic, blunt messages like “Alcohol causes cancer” and “No safe level” [of alcohol].
Government Policy
In Canada, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) produced its final report with recommendations (never adopted by Health Canada) in January 2023 to dramatically limit beverage alcohol consumption to three drinks per week for men and two for women. When one reads through the entire report, the “tell” is visible at p. 48: the authors refer to alcohol as a “sinful good”, which tells readers two things: 1) there is bias in the report and its underpinning research against alcohol altogether, and 2) this bias has no place in Canadian public policy - or, one would venture, that of the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the World Health Organisation, or countries or entities whose public policy or guidance is expected to be grounded in credible research, not a religious orientation to its subject matter.
Not coincidentally, these messages have been amplified by government agencies in Canada, including British Columbia’s Ministry of Health, placing it at awkward odds with another branch of the provincial government: the BC Liquor Distribution Branch, residing in the Ministry of Public Safety, whose mandate is to promote, sell and encourage the responsible consumption of alcohol, while remitting approximately C$1 billion to general provincial revenue each year.
Even more awkwardly, within the first month after the CCSA final report, the BC Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch updated its Serving It Right manual and exam – the required certification for all liquor servers in British Columbia – to reflect the CCSA’s recommended consumption, not still-in-effect Health Canada policy (10 standard drinks per week for women and 15 for men). This raises suspicions: bureaucratic responses to legitimate policy changes in federal and provincial matters rarely move this quickly, particularly at the detailed level of revising a relatively technical and non-controversial manual; it is less than appropriate to rapidly change the guidelines on the basis of a contracted report that has never been publicly commented on, let alone adopted by, the relevant federal department.
It is even worse considering – as noted by astute observers – Health Canada has quietly removed the link initially provided to the CCSA report on its official low risk drinking guidelines web page. This is sufficiently important to reproduce in full the website’s present (as at May 1, 2025) guidance about consumption by adults of legal drinking age:
Canada's low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines
Canada's Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines [CCSA link was here] can help you make informed decisions about drinking. The guidelines recommend setting limits to help you reduce the acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) health risks of alcohol use.
It is important to keep in mind that:
the intention of these guidelines is not to encourage people who abstain (for cultural, spiritual, health or other reasons) to start drinking
these are "low-risk" guidelines, not "no-risk" guidelines. Any amount of alcohol consumption can have risks to your health
The guidelines for consumption limits
Women:
limit alcohol to no more than:
2 standard drinks per day
10 standard drinks per week
3 standard drinks on special occasions
avoid drinking alcohol on some days
Men:
limit alcohol to no more than:
3 standard drinks per day
15 standard drinks per week
4 standard drinks on special occasions
avoid drinking alcohol on some days
An initiative to watch in Canada at the federal level includes the introduction in 2022 of Bill S-254 by Québec Senator Patrick Brazeau who sees a direct causal line between alcohol and fatal cancers, and is seeking to have mandatory warning labels to that effect on all alcoholic beverages sold in Canada. Health warning labelling has become a key advocacy point by legitimate health advocates, and those using health advocacy to achieve their temperance and prohibition aims, with some success in jurisdictions such as Ireland (which may result in wine producers diverting from the market due to required language on the back label asserting a causal effect between alcohol and fatal cancers), and Alaska (which very recently passed a requirement for signage at all drinking and retail establishments in the state, also asserting that alcohol plays a causal role in certain cancers).
In the United States, the former Surgeon General was persuaded by a small, motivated group (with significant overlap in membership with the CCSA author- and advisor- group) to issue an Advisory on January 3, 2025 (these are published to draw Americans’ attention to an “urgent public health issue”) declaring that there is “no safe level” of alcohol to drink. Not coincidentally, this kicked off “Dry January”, for any citizen needing a nudge to cease or limit alcohol consumption for at least the first month of the new year. Famously, US Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) was already on the record opposing the prospect of the US adopting the same level as the CCSA recommendations: “If they want us to drink two beers a week, frankly they can kiss my ass.”
The US Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD), whose mandate is ostensibly to prevent underage drinking, has been re-populated and its mandate wrenched from that worthy objective to influencing US official guidance on drinking by adults. The ICCPUD’s Scientific Review Panel (SRP) is six members, three of whose work at Canadian universities is well-known to a) have sought to influence Canadian public policy restricting beverage alcohol through the CCSA and other entities, and b) for these individuals’ known work for temperance organisations like Movendi (formerly the International Order of Good Templars, a group that predated, and may have inspired, the creation of more familiar temperance organizations such as the Woman's Christian Temperance Union). The SRP did not include a cardiovascular specialist, despite reviewing studies and opining on the impact of alcohol consumption on heart disease.
ICCPUD inserted its research into the process of updating US Dietary Guidelines, despite the work of a highly-respected National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) panel, consisting of 14 members plus advisors, drawn from leading universities and with medical and research specialisations spanning the fields in question (specifically cardiovascular and oncology), authoring the Report submitted as required by Congress, to inform the update of the US Dietary Guidelines in 2025 under the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The ICCPUD activism and report attracted the criticism of more than 100 members of Congress (including four medical doctors) via an October 2024 letter to HHS and the US Department of Agriculture for seeking to improperly influence the mandated process via the work of NASEM.
As W. Blake Gray, US Editor of Wine Searcher noted in November 2024: “For nearly a year, a bipartisan Congressional group – but led by Republicans – has been asking the Biden administration why it empowered this anti-alcohol group, and why it stacked the deck with three Canadian researchers whose anti-alcohol recommendations were rejected by the Canadian government.“
The Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is continuing to investigate ICCPUD for its role in influencing the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines, with its Chair writing again on April 25, 2025 to Robert F. Kennedy as Secretary of Health & Human Services, seeking documents and communication, commenting that “The ICCPUD study’s formation outside of the transparency of the typical Dietary Guidelines process raises scientific integrity and conflict of interest concerns.”
The matter remains unsettled at writing on May Day – no comment. If wine lovers are seeking to read the tea leaves about consumption guidance in the forthcoming US Dietary Guidelines, they may take heart from this graphic published by Visual Capitalist in October 2024 mapping US wine consumption by state: the highest jurisdiction is the District of Columbia, where legislators (and lobbyists) congregate to advance the nation’s business. Even in these tumultuous times, it takes a strong imagination to picture the highest wine consuming region of America dramatically roll back consumption recommendations.
Source: Visual Capitalist, Mapped: America’s Wine Consumption by State, Oct 26, 2024.
Consumer Fear
It is helpful to summarise here the set of concerns advanced by the main anti-alcohol groups through the various reports and advocacy they conduct, both to influence government policy and through advertising and indirect communications via general media to the public. The below are summaries only - of the risks asserted by the alcohol opponents and by the objections to their methodologies and therefore their conclusions. I do not claim any medical knowledge, but if one is trained to or beyond a bachelor degree level, it is possible to spot – and appropriate to call out – methodological errors or deliberate obfuscations as harmful to accepted scientific (including social scientific) processes and conclusions.
What are anti-alcohol groups claiming in terms of the health risks of drinking alcohol?
The CCSA study and ICCPUD report tend to group their quasi-medical research objecting to alcohol consumption in two main areas: heart disease and types of cancer.
The US (ICCPUD) report asserts:
· For example, with respect to injuries and the majority of diseases, there is evidence that alcohol use has no protective effect at any level of consumption (24). However, for conditions such as ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, certain cancers (e.g., kidney and thyroid), and diabetes mellitus, there is mixed research about the potential protective effect on disease occurrence and mortality for people who consume relatively low amounts of alcohol and who do not engage in binge drinking (i.e., consuming 5 or 4 or more standard drinks [each with 14 grams of ethanol] during one drinking occasion for males and females, respectively) (25). However, Mendelian randomization studies, including those using advanced methodologies, find no protection at low levels of consumption for ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke, or diabetes mellitus (26-28).
· Alcohol use is associated with increased mortality for seven types of cancer (colorectal, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus [squamous cell type]). Increased risk for these cancers begins with any alcohol use and increases with higher levels of use. Women experience a much greater risk of an alcohol-attributable cancer per drink consumed.
The Canadian (CCSA) report asserts:
· Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada. However, the fact that alcohol is a carcinogen that can cause at least seven types of cancer is often unknown or overlooked. The most recent available data show that the use of alcohol causes nearly 7,000 cases of cancer deaths each year in Canada, with most cases being breast or colon cancer, followed by cancers of the rectum, mouth and throat, liver, esophagus and larynx. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, drinking less alcohol is among the top 10 behaviours to reduce cancer risk.
· After cancer, heart disease is the second leading cause of death in Canada. For many years, the commonly held belief that drinking in moderation offered protection against coronary artery disease has been widely publicized. Research in the last decade is more nuanced with the most recent and highest quality systematic reviews showing that drinking a little alcohol neither decreases nor increases the risk of ischemic heart disease, but it is a risk factor for most other types of cardiovascular disease, including, hypertension, heart failure, high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation and hemorrhagic stroke.
The CCSA report in particular focuses on alcohol-caused mortality:
· Based on the systematic review of the published literature on the risk relationships between alcohol use and disease and injury occurrence, this study estimated that for people in Canada, the lifetime risk of death and disability attributable to alcohol use increases as the amount of alcohol use increases. As the lifetime risk of mortality and morbidity is similar for males and females, one guideline for alcohol consumption can be used for Canada. According to established definitions of acceptable risks and based on the risk thresholds of 17.5 YLLs attributable to alcohol per 1,000 and 100 lifetimes, risk thresholds for alcohol use should be set at either two or six standard drinks per week respectively, for both females and males in Canada.
What is wrong with the claims of anti-alcohol groups?
The above sounds very concerning, if you are a moderate wine lover in good health. Here we review the objections of medical science’s respected groups and individuals. Many of the findings and conclusions by the authors of the respective reports (note again that there is significant cross-population between the two) have been refuted by highly respected scientists and organisations in North America and elsewhere. All of the objections referenced below stem not from an ideological standpoint, but from observed methodological inconsistencies or deliberate blurring/omissions, which in turn skew the conclusions of the two reports.
Considering heart disease, the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) makes the following observations:
· Current scientific data clearly indicate that, in comparison with abstainers, individuals who report the regular consumption of small to moderate amounts of an alcoholic beverage, when consumed with food markedly reduces their risk of coronary heart disease, type II diabetes mellitus, and total mortality. (“Critique 261”)
Dr. Laura Catena, comment letter of January 31, 2025 to HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion:
· In the ICCPUD Report Summary, the only positive findings reported for moderate alcohol drinking are a reduction in ischemic strokes and in diabetes. Their data (page 20) does show a reduction in the risk for ischemic heart disease, but it is not considered a finding, because it is not statistically significant. However, had the ICCPUD scientists used correct statistical methods and not cherrypicked studies, they would have most likely found a reduction in heart attacks among moderate drinkers, like most past and recent studies have.
· It [Zhao study relied on by ICCPUD] stands in contrast to many other contemporary studies in highly reputable journals such as the Lancet, the Journal of the American College of Cardiologists and Circulation, which show an association between moderate alcohol consumption and cardioprotective effects.
· Furthermore, the Zhao study is co-authored by Tim Naimi, a member of the ICCPUD panel. The study has a major methodological flaw that reveals faulty statistical analysis. This study applies a mixed-effects model to analyze dose-response data points. Mixed-model regressions are flawed when applied to meta-analysis, and instead the authors should have analyzed their data with the gold standard Greenland and Longnecker (1992) method for dose-response meta-analysis. This oversight leads to invalid standard errors, overly wide confidence intervals, and improper meta-analytic weighting – the accuracy of their findings should be questioned.
· Lastly, despite these methodological flaws, the study actually finds consistent relative risks for low- and medium-volume drinkers, with values close to 0.80, indicating a possible protective effect of alcohol against coronary heart disease. However, the authors misinterpret their own findings, incorrectly suggesting that higher-quality studies contradict this association when, in reality, their estimates remain statistically consistent with previous research. Perhaps a cardiovascular specialist would have picked up on this error, but the ICCPUD SRP didn’t have one.
On the causal relationship to various cancers, especially in connection with mortality and reducing risk:
· A close examination reveals that risk elevation for some cancers start – and remain – at exceedingly low levels, and which may be better explained by other factors. In the words of Professor Dan Malleck, a medical historian specializing in drug and alcohol regulation and policy, “For example, the report states that your risk of larynx cancer increases by 100 per cent after 3.5 drinks per week, but it doesn’t tell you that larynx cancer was diagnosed in only 0.0197 per cent of Canadians and is largely related to smoking.” (Toronto Life interview March 9, 2023, cited in a previous WineDrops post)
Dr Harry Rakowski: New drinking guidelines based on majorly flawed study (National Post Op Ed, Feb 6, 2023):
· Almost 6,000 studies were reviewed and only 16 reports had adequate data to include in their mathematical risk modelling. Only three studies looked at cancer risk with data sufficient to influence a more restrictive change to guidance. The recommendations are based on pooled data from multiple studies that had somewhat similar methods. Only lower quality, that is to say observational studies were included, since higher quality trial data isn’t available. People typically self reported their level of alcohol consumption and it is reasonable to assume that many undercounted their consumption. Thus the data for risk for each additional drink a week may lack accuracy.
· The major flaw in the study was the focus only on alcohol consumption as a risk factor, thus leading to a confirmation bias. If you only look at alcohol risk that is all you will find. There was no controlling for differences in variables known to affect cancer risk, such as diet, obesity, smoking, exercise and family history.
Dr Laura Catena:
· Several studies have reported reduced rates of hematological malignancies, thyroid cancer and kidney cancer among alcohol drinkers. Although I object to the ICCPUD’s modeling methodologies because they are likely to magnify observational data errors, it is unclear why they only modeled harmful effects of alcohol on cancer but not its potential positive effects.
· Reports increased cancer rates which are much higher than those previously reported for moderate alcohol drinkers. Their study selection criteria and data methodology are not clearly described or transparent Therefore, it is hard to know whether they took into consideration confounders (such as weight, diet, income level, and other possible confounders) when reviewing the data. Their data does not adequately distinguish moderate from heavy consumption.
· Does not include data on reduced cancer rates for hematological, thyroid, and kidney cancers, which have been reported in several previous studies for alcohol drinkers.
· ICCPUD uses faulty modeling methodologies that can compound and exaggerate observational data errors.
We leave the last words on whether moderate wine consumers should succumb to the fear promoted by the anti-alcohol movement, with utmost respect to Dr. Laura Catena, fourth generation vintner in Argentina, and 27 year Emergency Medical Physician in California. I highly recommend reading her comparison of the NASEM and ICCPUD reports to develop Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025, and additional materials on her website: In Defense of Wine:
My perspective on wine and health has evolved alongside scientific research. Today, we find ourselves at a point of equipoise, where light to moderate alcohol consumption, presents both benefits and risks. As UCSF cardiologist Dr. Greg Marcus says, “The evidence for health and harm is fairly equal.”
While heavy drinking is undeniably harmful, studies on the Mediterranean Diet, which includes moderate wine consumption, indicate potential reductions in heart disease, dementia, and cancer risks. For people over 40, moderate drinking may offer cardiovascular benefits, as noted in The Lancet (2022). For me, the heart benefits outweigh the slight cancer risk—a decision made in consultation with my doctor.
Conclusion
A few positive points to ponder from this exploration:
· People who regularly drink wine, especially of the “Zillennial” demographic, are increasingly thoughtful about their wine consumption.
· They are hearing not only the negative messages that inflate risks to health from merely moderate wine consumption, but also positive messages about its enhancement of life’s enjoyable moments.
· The wine market is a mature sector, worldwide. The exuberant vineyard expansions and elevated wine production of the 2010s is over, and a rebalancing – at lower levels of production aligned with demand, is underway.
· This retrenchment is painful – very painful – for some businesses that are growing, making, distributing, selling or serving wine.
· However, the wine sector should take heart: there are positive signs from consumers, who are developing a more nuanced appreciation of how wine fits into their lifestyles, especially in terms of assessing personal risk and benefit.
Here we can finally loop back to the sub-title of this post, and the real title of a heartening piece on Wine Searcher also published today (May 1, 2025):
Drinking Wine Really is Good for You (!)
“The science keep piling up: wine is good for your health, no matter what the temperance lobby says. The wine industry should pop open some bubbly today: both to celebrate its best news in a while, and because drinking sparkling wine is good for your heart.
A study published this week in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology identified the three top ways people can reduce their risk of a sudden heart attack – and number three is to drink more sparkling and/or white wine.”
Cheers – we can drink to that!
*If you worry that the term “infiltrating” is extreme, it’s worthwhile to read this correspondence by the founder of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in Ohio in 1874, who references (on page one of her July 1909 letter) in which she states, “These Templars had been trained to work behind a pass-word with parliamentary skill, had filled various offices as Secretary, Treasurer, Chairman…” In other words, neo-Prohibitionists of today are simply adapting a playbook written almost exactly 150 years ago.
If you wish to receive all WineDrops posts, please join the mailing list here: https://winedrops.ca/contact.