Thanks, Dave, for keeping our focus on the resurging anti-alcohol movement. This is why we decided 30 years ago not to disband Women for WineSense after Morley Safer of 60 Minutes interviewed researcher Serge Renaud over a leisurely lunch in Beaune about The French Paradox. The good news about wine defeated the neo-prohibitionists. Today’s zero tolerance campaign is more insidious, and more easily spread.
The comparison to LNT is spot on. I don't think anyone (at least not reasonably) is arguing that NSL is inaccurate or wrong. I just think the resulting recommendation is the issue. No different than saying LNT means don't go outside, don't get X-rays, don't stand near a microwave. Alcohol is (even mildly) poison. But so is a lot of things that we enjoy as part of being a human who will eventually die regardless.
As a former subscriber to the WP, I always enjoyed your wine columns and commentary.
Best of luck on your new WineLine!
As former managing editor of Market Watch Magazine and Impact Newsletter from M. Shanken Communications until 2000, I formerly commissioned your WP predecessor, Ben Giliberti, and later interviewed Karen Page and Andrew Dornberg when I contributed to dailybeast.com in the aughts.
All by way of saying I very much appreciated your recent Part 1 & 2 column on alcohol consumption, its pleasures and its dangers. Well-written, clear and balanced.
I want to agree with you about alcohol, but perhaps not about government communications concerning radiation. The consequences of being wrong about the latter seem higher than the former.
Two points that may or may not be important. Given how wildly dissimilar people are (in terms of genetic makeup, metabolism, immune system, etc), there's really no such thing as "no safe level" in general terms, which I suppose is part of what you're saying by calling for moderation as a reasonable compromise.
The other issue is one that I find intriguing. A huge component of the Prohibition movement, the first time around, was religious. It's a mode of thinking that has resonated throughout American history: because doing certain things violate the religious beliefs of some people (alcohol, abortion, dancing on Sunday, whatever), then nobody should be allowed to do them, making them de facto converts in a sense. But where is the neo-Prohibitionist fervor coming from now? We may disagree with the Surgeon General, but he does have a dog in the hunt: he's technically responsible for the health of the nation at large. What about everyone else, though? What are the motivations of many others who are anti-alcohol? Obviously I don't know, and someone else may or may not, but it's something I wonder about.
I've been asking regular consumers (those not in the business) about how they feel about the Surgeon General's Warning, at social events in Culver City, CA; most comment "nobody cares!" and say it is all a part of the pendulum swinging back and that it has not influenced a change in habit. Everyone is surprised that it has any traction.
It may not get any traction, because it really isn’t news to anyone that overconsumption of alcohol can kill you. But it adds to a chorus that is getting louder and more persistent. The metaphor is too cute by far, but which straw breaks the camel’s back?
Check out "The Very Good News About Wine", Tony Edwards, Third Eye Media 2023. An excellent summary of the medical evidence from scientific studies about alcohol and health.
There is zero chance of ramming your car into a tree when you abstain from driving it. Soon as you hit 1mph or more, the risk increases by an infinite amount. When it comes to driving your car let’s be clear between the relationship of being still vs moving at any speed: No safe level.
Agreed - and we can say this about myriad things: Crossing streets, sunbathing, eating beef, etc. My only concern is that if we dismiss their argument too casually, it will just keep gaining traction.
A valid concern. Merely illustrating absurdity is a good start that can open the way for real engagement. The next obviology is “alcohol”, as compared to beer liquor or wine. Not all alcohol is consumed the same way, or for the same reasons. You can drive a car, a motorcycle or an 18 wheeler but they don’t play the same role.
I have yet to hear anyone ask us to set up a row of frozen shot glasses and cut lime wedges for Barbara’s Albariño.
Leon Adams always said the term "beverage alcohol" played into the hands of those in the booze biz who resented the moderate tax status wine got and deserved. Wine is an alcoholic beverage composed mostly of water, vitamins and mineral.
The New Prohibition has an advantage in that its target - imbibers - are, always have been, and probably always will be divided. Think back on Jefferson's famous quote that "No nation is drunken where wine is the favored beverage," or some such -- that's an anti-whisky comment. The French Paradox said wine has health benefits, but that ain't gonna get the spirits or beer folks on our side, so the argument became moderate consumption of alcohol has benefits. We talk of wine's 8,000-year history, its importance in culture and religion, but that leaves out those who prefer beer or spirits.
Wine has always had an inclusivity problem, I guess, and this perhaps is just another example of it.
I hear what you are saying but let the beer (also historically considered on the moderate side) and whiskey people make their own cases about their own beverages. Jefferson is correct that, while people can get drunk off of wine, it is not glorified like whiskey has been in America via those gun slinging cowboys.
As a student, I was watching an American movie in France. The guy swaggers up to the bar and says "Gimme a shot of redeye" and the subtitle was "Donnez-moi un verre de vin rouge s'il vous plait."
Seems to me the spirits community has lots of history and high class products to promote that go into amazing cocktails. And we wine folks should say vive la difference.
Thanks, Dave, for keeping our focus on the resurging anti-alcohol movement. This is why we decided 30 years ago not to disband Women for WineSense after Morley Safer of 60 Minutes interviewed researcher Serge Renaud over a leisurely lunch in Beaune about The French Paradox. The good news about wine defeated the neo-prohibitionists. Today’s zero tolerance campaign is more insidious, and more easily spread.
Nice article, Dave.
The comparison to LNT is spot on. I don't think anyone (at least not reasonably) is arguing that NSL is inaccurate or wrong. I just think the resulting recommendation is the issue. No different than saying LNT means don't go outside, don't get X-rays, don't stand near a microwave. Alcohol is (even mildly) poison. But so is a lot of things that we enjoy as part of being a human who will eventually die regardless.
Dear Dave,
As a former subscriber to the WP, I always enjoyed your wine columns and commentary.
Best of luck on your new WineLine!
As former managing editor of Market Watch Magazine and Impact Newsletter from M. Shanken Communications until 2000, I formerly commissioned your WP predecessor, Ben Giliberti, and later interviewed Karen Page and Andrew Dornberg when I contributed to dailybeast.com in the aughts.
All by way of saying I very much appreciated your recent Part 1 & 2 column on alcohol consumption, its pleasures and its dangers. Well-written, clear and balanced.
Just sending a fan note.
David Lincoln Ross
Thank you, David! I appreciate the kind words.
I want to agree with you about alcohol, but perhaps not about government communications concerning radiation. The consequences of being wrong about the latter seem higher than the former.
Very thoughtful work here.
Two points that may or may not be important. Given how wildly dissimilar people are (in terms of genetic makeup, metabolism, immune system, etc), there's really no such thing as "no safe level" in general terms, which I suppose is part of what you're saying by calling for moderation as a reasonable compromise.
The other issue is one that I find intriguing. A huge component of the Prohibition movement, the first time around, was religious. It's a mode of thinking that has resonated throughout American history: because doing certain things violate the religious beliefs of some people (alcohol, abortion, dancing on Sunday, whatever), then nobody should be allowed to do them, making them de facto converts in a sense. But where is the neo-Prohibitionist fervor coming from now? We may disagree with the Surgeon General, but he does have a dog in the hunt: he's technically responsible for the health of the nation at large. What about everyone else, though? What are the motivations of many others who are anti-alcohol? Obviously I don't know, and someone else may or may not, but it's something I wonder about.
Felicity Carter offers some insight on that question: https://www.drinksinsider.com/p/the-public-health-lobby-is-coming
I've been asking regular consumers (those not in the business) about how they feel about the Surgeon General's Warning, at social events in Culver City, CA; most comment "nobody cares!" and say it is all a part of the pendulum swinging back and that it has not influenced a change in habit. Everyone is surprised that it has any traction.
Highly recommend also reading Derek Thompson's article in The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/moderate-drinking-warning-labels-cancer/681322/
It may not get any traction, because it really isn’t news to anyone that overconsumption of alcohol can kill you. But it adds to a chorus that is getting louder and more persistent. The metaphor is too cute by far, but which straw breaks the camel’s back?
Check out "The Very Good News About Wine", Tony Edwards, Third Eye Media 2023. An excellent summary of the medical evidence from scientific studies about alcohol and health.
I’d like to place an order for one of those decanters, please. :)
Hahahaha
There is zero chance of ramming your car into a tree when you abstain from driving it. Soon as you hit 1mph or more, the risk increases by an infinite amount. When it comes to driving your car let’s be clear between the relationship of being still vs moving at any speed: No safe level.
Agreed - and we can say this about myriad things: Crossing streets, sunbathing, eating beef, etc. My only concern is that if we dismiss their argument too casually, it will just keep gaining traction.
A valid concern. Merely illustrating absurdity is a good start that can open the way for real engagement. The next obviology is “alcohol”, as compared to beer liquor or wine. Not all alcohol is consumed the same way, or for the same reasons. You can drive a car, a motorcycle or an 18 wheeler but they don’t play the same role.
I have yet to hear anyone ask us to set up a row of frozen shot glasses and cut lime wedges for Barbara’s Albariño.
Leon Adams always said the term "beverage alcohol" played into the hands of those in the booze biz who resented the moderate tax status wine got and deserved. Wine is an alcoholic beverage composed mostly of water, vitamins and mineral.
The New Prohibition has an advantage in that its target - imbibers - are, always have been, and probably always will be divided. Think back on Jefferson's famous quote that "No nation is drunken where wine is the favored beverage," or some such -- that's an anti-whisky comment. The French Paradox said wine has health benefits, but that ain't gonna get the spirits or beer folks on our side, so the argument became moderate consumption of alcohol has benefits. We talk of wine's 8,000-year history, its importance in culture and religion, but that leaves out those who prefer beer or spirits.
Wine has always had an inclusivity problem, I guess, and this perhaps is just another example of it.
I hear what you are saying but let the beer (also historically considered on the moderate side) and whiskey people make their own cases about their own beverages. Jefferson is correct that, while people can get drunk off of wine, it is not glorified like whiskey has been in America via those gun slinging cowboys.
As a student, I was watching an American movie in France. The guy swaggers up to the bar and says "Gimme a shot of redeye" and the subtitle was "Donnez-moi un verre de vin rouge s'il vous plait."
Seems to me the spirits community has lots of history and high class products to promote that go into amazing cocktails. And we wine folks should say vive la difference.
I guess the neo-prohibitionists are going to rewrite the Bible as well. For these folks, Jesus was simply too much into wine.
They've already done it. Wrote something on alternative facts about Jesus and wine https://henryjeffreys.substack.com/p/did-jesus-drink-wine
Nice piece, Henry! Gotta love those revisionist evangelicals. They can be very creative.