(Editorial team)
It is a moment one rarely experiences in wine journalism, or in journalism in general. A moment in which a publication does not taste, recommend or rave about wine – but attacks it. Head-on. On 14 April, Cicero magazine did exactly that. In an article on the WHO’s anti-alcohol strategy, a word appears that has so far rarely, if ever, featured in wine journalism: ‘lie’.
One must bear this in mind. Over the past three years, the tone of the debate between the wine world and the World Health Organisation has been asymmetrical. On the one hand, the WHO with its papers (which were never studies), its global campaigns, and its moral authority. On the other side, an industry that, at best, offered a muted rebuttal, but often failed to respond at all. And now, in a reputable, mainstream publication, an author writes that the WHO has “systematically ignored important scientific findings”.
The text itself is not a scientific paper. It is a guest column by the wine merchant Phillip Schwandner – and as such is, by its very nature, a statement of opinion and, needless to say, immediately open to challenge. But it is precise enough not to be dismissed as mere polemic. The author refers – as Wineparty has been doing since January 2025 – to recent studies that at least qualify, if not completely dismiss, the long-dominant narrative that every drop of alcohol is harmful. He draws attention to the so-called J-curve, that statistical observation that moderate consumption in certain age groups may be associated with lower risks than complete abstinence. And he asks why precisely these distinctions are hardly ever made in public discourse. A question we, too, ask constantly – and to which we receive only strange, evasive, daft, unjournalistic answers.
He calls the WHO’s strategy ‘Vision Zero’. A term that originates from road safety policy, where it stands for the complete elimination of fatalities. Applied to alcohol, this means: no safe consumption, no grey areas, no cultural context – only risk. It comes as no surprise that such a model meets with resistance. What is surprising, however, is that this resistance is now finally being articulated with such clarity.
What is interesting here is not so much the question of whether the author is right. Science will – if at all – only answer that slowly and inconsistently. What is interesting is that the tone is shifting. That a publication such as Cicero is prepared to publicly question the interpretative authority of a global institution. And not with the usual journalistic caution, but by using the term ‘lie’, which is deliberately provocative. The fact that this text was approved by the editorial board also means that, should a lawsuit arise, they will stand behind their author.
Of course, we must also read the text critically. It is selective, just as many contributions to this debate are selective. It juxtaposes studies without fully elucidating their methodological differences – which is precisely what so-called ‘serious journalism’ has been doing in this matter since 2023. It argues from a perspective that is fundamentally sympathetic to moderate wine consumption. But that is precisely where its significance lies: it highlights that this perspective exists – and that it has scarcely been given any space until now.
For what is truly remarkable is not the criticism of the WHO. It is the fact that this immensely harsh criticism is being published at all. That an established media outlet is prepared to question a dominant narrative which, in recent years, has been upheld almost unchallenged by politicians, the media and the public. And that it is taking a risk in doing so – the risk of being misunderstood, attacked, or torn to shreds on social media.
Perhaps a decisive turning point in the battle against/for wine. Not one study pitted against another. Not the question of whether a glass of wine is harmful or not. But a return to an open debate in which dissent is once again possible. A debate in which not every difference is immediately dismissed as trivialisation – as a provocation of an old culture which, in the opinion of many young female editors (including men), should disappear from everyday life as quickly as possible.
The damage of recent years remains. The oversimplifications, the exaggerations, the moralising of a complex issue – none of this will simply vanish. But with articles like this, something else is beginning: a harsh correction. Not a counter-narrative, not a new certainty. But a doubt. And doubt is, in the best sense, the beginning of understanding.