I agree wholeheartedly with your post. We at Hedges Family Estate, despite being a certified Biodynamic® property, have seen a slow and painful decline in the wholesale market. The available consumers who understand moderation, who understand "drink less but better" are dwindling in numbers. When I see the younger generation fascinated by screens and missing the greater points of life (like actual reality), we are in dire shape. The realities that we all knew growing up are changing, some for the better, but some for the worse. Alcohol is now the target. And wine has been lumped in with Vodka shooters, cheap tequila, Everclear, and all the other highly potent forms of Alcohol. This must be true because in the spirits world, it's all about brands. Brands are what drive social media. But idealistically, in the wine world, our brands are based on geography, the environment and historical culture. Less flashy for sure, but certainly much more intelligent. Perhaps its time we start to draw the line between contextual drinking (wine) and drinking to get a buzz (spirits). We need to differentiate ourselves from the greater beverage world and tell WHO that you cannot make assumptions on wine being bad for you when they lump all Alcohol as detrimental. Yes, quantity of alcohol ingestion is key, but wine is not meant to be drunk fast. Wine is food. Wine is life. Wine is all the things we associate with civil society. One thing to note: As soon as you're born, you start dying. Oxygen, just like in wine, is the slow inevitable killer. Some (wine and humans) make it longer than others. Lifestyle and genetics play a big role. But what we need to do is scream to the world that wine in moderation is an attribute to a balanced lifestyle. Think Blue Zone diets. But yet again, the prohibitionists are set to muddy the waters, so as to confuse this younger generation. I mean, what is the point? Perhaps WHO should all tell us not to be born? Fast food is thriving. Sugar is thriving. Kim Kardashian is thriving. Fossil fuels are thriving. Yet, wine is dying. I think if you posed this comparison to any reasonable person, they would see the light. The big question is how? What platform is needed to reduce this poison of miss information? I mean let's be honest here: Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine, not spirits...:) Perhaps under the context of the current War in Gaza/Israel, WHO should be talking about how religious beliefs can be detrimental to your health! But I don't think that will happen...
Christopher. YES! You are correct in every aspect. But the key here is SHOUTING. No one is making this case, let alone shouting. The shouting has to begin and it has to be an industry-wine and industry-funded effort. Thanks for your comments. I hope they are read and taken to heart.
Yes, the shouting will help, and perhaps it will work in time. I don't even know who the leaders are in this industry. What do the people at Wine America or any other group even talk about? Do we have general wine lobbyists? Non of this is clear. And I've been in this industry for decades. Its stratified and complex and confusing. We need a president of the USA Wine Industry and we need them to get on stage and start shouting! Start with commercials, super bowl......anything.
I feel your pain. Part of the problem here is the disjointed nature of the industry due to the enforcement of the three tier system. Producers, distributors and retailers keep their counsel separate for the most part. But there is precedent for industry wide efforts. However, the effort will require initiative by individuals. In your neck of the woods the WA Wine Institute along with Chateau Ste. Michelle should an must be part of the effort.
Certainly they are. To your point earlier, a united front, a global outreach is what is needed. Its amazing that a position of power and communication, such as WHO, can, with one sentence, begin the dismantling of a beverage. Sadly we all know who WHO is. Excellent for pandemic emergencies, terrible for beverage regulation.
No level of car driving is safe for our health. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drive, the higher the risk — or, in other words, the less you drive, the safer it is.” Fill in your own examples. The point is that everything has some risk. The question is do the benefits outweigh the risk. Just because there is a risk, it doesn't mean you should completely stop doing the action
This issue is something I first published in the 2000 SVB State of the Wine Industry Report and the successive releases after that.
Because wineries are licensees and, under that license, unable to make health claims, I realized someone else had to step up and help. So, three other industry analysts and I donated more than two years of work and gained nearly unanimous consent that there was a demand problem from a steering committee consisting of 35-40 top people in the wine business, many of whom work in roles and companies you mention in your article. The firm belief was some action was required to reverse the trend.
A feasibility study was completed, and money was raised to start a USDA Marketing Order - with a part of the stated goal being to have a person available to direct legislators and media to unbiased research that is being increasingly cut out of the conversation. The research is out there. We need to support the narrative.
Once we announced the endeavor and successful fundraising, some who were aware of the initiative but remained on the sidelines intervened and, within a matter of weeks, convinced the steering committee that it wasn't in the industry's best interest.
I am pragmatic. Without the support of the major players in the industry, there is no hope for anything like what you are suggesting. There is a difference between what we should do and what can be done. Sadly, in the US, there will be no collaboration. It's every winery for themselves.
It’s good to hear from you, Rob. Let me be clear that what I know must happen is not a wine drinking promotion order a la Wine Ramp, but an effort to beat back the anti-alcohol, anti-wine effort being promoted by governmental and NGOs that, if successful, will significantly reduce consumption.
Tom - It's been quite an interesting seven months for me, but thankfully everything is going well now.
WineRAMPs mission, as originally constructed, was to promote wine as a category. Because wine in the 1990s owned the mantle of being a healthier choice compared to other alcoholic options, a portion of the WineRAMP mission was to provide solutions to counter the massive anti-alcohol marketing campaign emanating from the WHO that is clothed in the guise of science.
While a big solution would be great, that in particular was the position that was most controversial with some wineries concerned about the legal implications of supporting such a plan. If the industry could support the effort, simple directional improvement would be a good start. My idea for WineRAMP was to have a few people collect all the topical scientific studies and use those people as a resource for politicians and the press. This would help to balance out the story or debate and provide a more accurate representation of the facts.
Actions have consequences. I try to explain to folks the consequences of the Feds telling us that, now, it's 2-5 glasses a wine that is healthy. Imagine what that message will do after 20 years. do a search on Google for "2 drinks a day for men". There are a HUGE number of hits and it has had an impact. What would "2-5 drinks. week for men" do? Now...Imagine the "No Safe Amount" message spreading. Wine needs people talking to the folks who make decisions and armed with studies. It needs papers being published. It needs a media campaign on the subject. This isn't rocket science and the shortsightedness of some is gonna cause lots of pain.
In short, we need a “Got Wine?” campaign created by the big producers who have a lot of marketing $. But here’s the problem with that - a lot of the big guys also have Beer and Spirits in addition to wine. And guess which category is the least profitable? Yep. So when they spend their marketing dollars, it’s on those more profitable categories. So it is up to ALL of us to pull together and put your plan into action. Count me in!!
Much of the neo-prohibitionist movement has been driven by the Canadian Addiction Foundation's report, which was based on cherry-picked literature reviews. One glaring omission were observational studies such as the one published in Cambridge Press in Feb 2022 comparing types of drinks consumed and mortality rates. It was based on 350,000 studied subjects in the UK Biobank. The findings were that two glasses of wine per day leads to optimum health outcomes. However, no such correlation exists for beer, cider, and distilled alcohol. The only drinks with better outcomes are two other phenol-rich beverages: coffee (4 servings) and black tea (6 servings). As this study hadn't made its 2 year path into the literature reviews, it was either unknown or ignored by the Report authors. https://www.cambridge.org/.../005276CE44010E3FDFCC5736368...
The metabolized polyphenols in food and drink are highly beneficial to our health. The reality is that wine drinkers are being mislead about its scientifically proven benefits, and are potentially switching to other alcoholic drinks that are truly unhealthy
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. We at Hedges Family Estate, despite being a certified Biodynamic® property, have seen a slow and painful decline in the wholesale market. The available consumers who understand moderation, who understand "drink less but better" are dwindling in numbers. When I see the younger generation fascinated by screens and missing the greater points of life (like actual reality), we are in dire shape. The realities that we all knew growing up are changing, some for the better, but some for the worse. Alcohol is now the target. And wine has been lumped in with Vodka shooters, cheap tequila, Everclear, and all the other highly potent forms of Alcohol. This must be true because in the spirits world, it's all about brands. Brands are what drive social media. But idealistically, in the wine world, our brands are based on geography, the environment and historical culture. Less flashy for sure, but certainly much more intelligent. Perhaps its time we start to draw the line between contextual drinking (wine) and drinking to get a buzz (spirits). We need to differentiate ourselves from the greater beverage world and tell WHO that you cannot make assumptions on wine being bad for you when they lump all Alcohol as detrimental. Yes, quantity of alcohol ingestion is key, but wine is not meant to be drunk fast. Wine is food. Wine is life. Wine is all the things we associate with civil society. One thing to note: As soon as you're born, you start dying. Oxygen, just like in wine, is the slow inevitable killer. Some (wine and humans) make it longer than others. Lifestyle and genetics play a big role. But what we need to do is scream to the world that wine in moderation is an attribute to a balanced lifestyle. Think Blue Zone diets. But yet again, the prohibitionists are set to muddy the waters, so as to confuse this younger generation. I mean, what is the point? Perhaps WHO should all tell us not to be born? Fast food is thriving. Sugar is thriving. Kim Kardashian is thriving. Fossil fuels are thriving. Yet, wine is dying. I think if you posed this comparison to any reasonable person, they would see the light. The big question is how? What platform is needed to reduce this poison of miss information? I mean let's be honest here: Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine, not spirits...:) Perhaps under the context of the current War in Gaza/Israel, WHO should be talking about how religious beliefs can be detrimental to your health! But I don't think that will happen...
Christopher. YES! You are correct in every aspect. But the key here is SHOUTING. No one is making this case, let alone shouting. The shouting has to begin and it has to be an industry-wine and industry-funded effort. Thanks for your comments. I hope they are read and taken to heart.
Yes, the shouting will help, and perhaps it will work in time. I don't even know who the leaders are in this industry. What do the people at Wine America or any other group even talk about? Do we have general wine lobbyists? Non of this is clear. And I've been in this industry for decades. Its stratified and complex and confusing. We need a president of the USA Wine Industry and we need them to get on stage and start shouting! Start with commercials, super bowl......anything.
I feel your pain. Part of the problem here is the disjointed nature of the industry due to the enforcement of the three tier system. Producers, distributors and retailers keep their counsel separate for the most part. But there is precedent for industry wide efforts. However, the effort will require initiative by individuals. In your neck of the woods the WA Wine Institute along with Chateau Ste. Michelle should an must be part of the effort.
Certainly they are. To your point earlier, a united front, a global outreach is what is needed. Its amazing that a position of power and communication, such as WHO, can, with one sentence, begin the dismantling of a beverage. Sadly we all know who WHO is. Excellent for pandemic emergencies, terrible for beverage regulation.
No level of car driving is safe for our health. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drive, the higher the risk — or, in other words, the less you drive, the safer it is.” Fill in your own examples. The point is that everything has some risk. The question is do the benefits outweigh the risk. Just because there is a risk, it doesn't mean you should completely stop doing the action
Tom -
This issue is something I first published in the 2000 SVB State of the Wine Industry Report and the successive releases after that.
Because wineries are licensees and, under that license, unable to make health claims, I realized someone else had to step up and help. So, three other industry analysts and I donated more than two years of work and gained nearly unanimous consent that there was a demand problem from a steering committee consisting of 35-40 top people in the wine business, many of whom work in roles and companies you mention in your article. The firm belief was some action was required to reverse the trend.
A feasibility study was completed, and money was raised to start a USDA Marketing Order - with a part of the stated goal being to have a person available to direct legislators and media to unbiased research that is being increasingly cut out of the conversation. The research is out there. We need to support the narrative.
Once we announced the endeavor and successful fundraising, some who were aware of the initiative but remained on the sidelines intervened and, within a matter of weeks, convinced the steering committee that it wasn't in the industry's best interest.
I am pragmatic. Without the support of the major players in the industry, there is no hope for anything like what you are suggesting. There is a difference between what we should do and what can be done. Sadly, in the US, there will be no collaboration. It's every winery for themselves.
It’s good to hear from you, Rob. Let me be clear that what I know must happen is not a wine drinking promotion order a la Wine Ramp, but an effort to beat back the anti-alcohol, anti-wine effort being promoted by governmental and NGOs that, if successful, will significantly reduce consumption.
Tom - It's been quite an interesting seven months for me, but thankfully everything is going well now.
WineRAMPs mission, as originally constructed, was to promote wine as a category. Because wine in the 1990s owned the mantle of being a healthier choice compared to other alcoholic options, a portion of the WineRAMP mission was to provide solutions to counter the massive anti-alcohol marketing campaign emanating from the WHO that is clothed in the guise of science.
While a big solution would be great, that in particular was the position that was most controversial with some wineries concerned about the legal implications of supporting such a plan. If the industry could support the effort, simple directional improvement would be a good start. My idea for WineRAMP was to have a few people collect all the topical scientific studies and use those people as a resource for politicians and the press. This would help to balance out the story or debate and provide a more accurate representation of the facts.
Actions have consequences. I try to explain to folks the consequences of the Feds telling us that, now, it's 2-5 glasses a wine that is healthy. Imagine what that message will do after 20 years. do a search on Google for "2 drinks a day for men". There are a HUGE number of hits and it has had an impact. What would "2-5 drinks. week for men" do? Now...Imagine the "No Safe Amount" message spreading. Wine needs people talking to the folks who make decisions and armed with studies. It needs papers being published. It needs a media campaign on the subject. This isn't rocket science and the shortsightedness of some is gonna cause lots of pain.
In short, we need a “Got Wine?” campaign created by the big producers who have a lot of marketing $. But here’s the problem with that - a lot of the big guys also have Beer and Spirits in addition to wine. And guess which category is the least profitable? Yep. So when they spend their marketing dollars, it’s on those more profitable categories. So it is up to ALL of us to pull together and put your plan into action. Count me in!!
Much of the neo-prohibitionist movement has been driven by the Canadian Addiction Foundation's report, which was based on cherry-picked literature reviews. One glaring omission were observational studies such as the one published in Cambridge Press in Feb 2022 comparing types of drinks consumed and mortality rates. It was based on 350,000 studied subjects in the UK Biobank. The findings were that two glasses of wine per day leads to optimum health outcomes. However, no such correlation exists for beer, cider, and distilled alcohol. The only drinks with better outcomes are two other phenol-rich beverages: coffee (4 servings) and black tea (6 servings). As this study hadn't made its 2 year path into the literature reviews, it was either unknown or ignored by the Report authors. https://www.cambridge.org/.../005276CE44010E3FDFCC5736368...
Also here is a blind study showing that there is no measurable difference between red wine and denatured red wine in health outcomes. https://www.frontiersin.org/.../10.../fnut.2022.890066/full
The metabolized polyphenols in food and drink are highly beneficial to our health. The reality is that wine drinkers are being mislead about its scientifically proven benefits, and are potentially switching to other alcoholic drinks that are truly unhealthy
👍