(Manfred Klimek)
Some movements begin as a corrective and end as a campaign. And there are campaigns that keep escalating until they eventually implode. The Sober and Dry movement, which has been arguing against wine consumption with remarkable vehemence since January 2023, seems to have reached precisely this point. What began as a health policy initiative quickly developed into a morally charged discourse in which nuance was all but absent. A glass of wine was suddenly no longer a cultural asset, but a risk. And risk meant: abstinence.
Dry January 2026 has now shown for the first time that this narrative is losing momentum. There has been less participation, less media coverage and, above all, a striking reluctance on the part of those – mostly left-liberal – editorial teams that have acted as amplifiers of this message in recent years. In Germany, the UK and the US, a sense of weariness has become apparent – not with regard to the issue of health, but to the way in which it has been and continues to be discussed.
The decisive turning point, however, came from a quarter that had long been ignored: the research community. Several new studies have emerged that contradict the blanket assumption that even small amounts of alcohol are inherently harmful. What is crucial here is not so much the existence of these studies – such studies existed before – but the fact that, this time, they were actually read. And more importantly: that they were taken into account in editorial decision-making processes. Suddenly, the debate returned to what journalistic standards should actually be: balanced consideration, context and cross-checking.
This shifts the focus: away from the simplistic message, towards a more complex perspective that once again brings together the realities of life, consumer culture and individual responsibility. And this is precisely where a second, perhaps even more important factor comes into play: the editorial teams themselves. In many organisations, there seems to be a waning willingness to champion a line of argument that was increasingly seen less as journalism and more as socio-political intervention. The loudest voices of recent years – often younger colleagues with clear stances and a wide reach – are losing influence. Not because their positions have been refuted, but because their tone no longer carries weight.
Added to this is an aspect that has so far been scarcely discussed openly: the personal connection some of these figures have to the issue. In several cases, it has become clear that particularly aggressive stances on alcohol were not infrequently fuelled by their own early experiences. Whilst this is understandable from a human perspective, it is problematic from a journalistic point of view when personal history is elevated to a general norm.
A clear sign of this shift is a recently prominently featured article on ZEIT ONLINE, which fundamentally questions the system of anti-alcohol communication. Just a year ago, such an article would have been almost unthinkable. Today, it marks a kind of tipping point: the criticism no longer comes from outside, but from within the media themselves.
All of this suggests that in 2027 we will not see a continuation of the campaign logic we have seen so far. Neither in Germany nor in the leading Anglo-Saxon media is there currently any sign of the energy that would be necessary to continue the discourse with the same intensity as before. The movement is losing momentum not abruptly, but gradually – through differentiation, through fatigue, through the resurgence of journalistic standards.
And yet the conclusion remains ambivalent. For the damage has been done. Over the years, an image was painted that no longer viewed wine as part of a cultural practice, but as a problem. This image does not simply disappear with the waning of the campaign. It lingers in the background, as a point of reference, as a source of uncertainty, as latent scepticism.
At the same time, there will be no reckoning. No corrections, no self-critical reflections, no legal disputes over a failure to carry out counter-investigations. Not because there is no cause for it, but because the price seems too high. The fear of public backlash, of waves of digital outrage, of the judgement of a boundless audience is greater than the need for clarification.
What remains is a shambles of exaggerated claims, oversimplified narratives and a debate that has undermined its own credibility. Wine will survive this. The question is rather how long it will take for the discourse to find its footing again.