(Manfred Klimek / WELT am SONNTAG)
When we look at the vineyards in California or Oregon this autumn, we see nothing short of an astonishing scenario: around thirty per cent of the grapes are not expected to be harvested this year in the two main US wine-growing regions. Not because the weather would have prevented a suitable harvest, but simply because demand for wine is plummeting. One reason for this is certainly the loss of exports to Canada. But even without this external shock, the market would be under pressure. And because wine consumption is also dwindling in Europe, many grapes will be left hanging on the vines in Germany too – where the situation for winegrowers is even more dramatic than in other European wine-producing nations. So what used to be the very epitome of a way of life – wine culture – is now giving rise to a nihilistic question: do we even need wine anymore? When grapes are left to rot on the vines, this demonstrates not only an economic problem but also a cultural loss.
From the pleasure of wine to a risk to life and limb – that has been the new narrative since January 2024, because since autumn 2023 the World Health Organisation (WHO) has been recommending that people abstain from alcohol altogether. No level is safe, every glass of wine poses a risk – such as developing cancer immediately. This message has become deeply ingrained in public perception. Alcohol is suddenly no longer regarded as a luxury item, but exclusively as a cell toxin that inevitably leads to death.
No one disputes that alcohol causes illness, destroys livelihoods and shortens lives. But those who actually fall ill as a result of wine consumption make up a far smaller group than the public debate suggests. Unfortunately, there are no studies on this – but there are internal documents which, out of interest, I have had access to for years. Yet we all know that promoting moderate enjoyment is harder to communicate than morally charged bans.
Three major university studies contradict the WHO – they show that moderate wine consumption, as part of a healthy Mediterranean diet, can be linked to longer life expectancy and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. But these nuances are lost in the general clamour. Many editorial teams prefer to issue blanket warnings rather than investigate the facts.
And so a war of beliefs has broken out in journalism, which has been particularly evident over the last three weeks. First, the *Süddeutsche Zeitung*, at the same time as *Der Spiegel*, published a nuanced article emphasising the positive effects of wine (citing the three studies mentioned), then, just a few days later, another article appeared in the *Süddeutsche Zeitung*, this time in the science section, which claimed the opposite. No debate, no analysis – simply a new dogma.
This seems particularly grotesque when, just a few weeks earlier in the same paper, the Munich Oktoberfest was accompanied by photo spreads, celebrity round-ups and ‘Wiesn happiness’ columns – oans, zwoa, gsuffa – without a single word about the dangers of alcohol.
If beer remains part of folklore whilst wine becomes the bogeyman, then something is no longer right with the balance of the arguments. What remains is the outrageous statement by the Süddeutsche journalist, who writes: ‘Actually, the demise of the wineries is good news. Because it could prevent people from dying.’ Framing wineries as bringers of death – that seems to be the aim of this anti-wine campaign.
Whilst moral debates rage in Germany, the consequences are becoming apparent in California and Oregon: vineyards lie untended, grapes hang on the vines and barrels stand empty. Family-run businesses are losing income, harvest workers are losing their jobs, and entire regions are losing their lifeblood.
Perhaps this aggressive debate lacks the ability to distinguish between abuse and moderation, between intoxication and ritual. Anyone who reduces wine to its alcohol content has never understood it.
America’s wineries, which are left sitting on their grapes this autumn, are not only paying the price of a faltering market. They are also paying the price of a society that has forgotten that enjoyment need not have anything to do with excess – and that responsibility need not have anything to do with prohibition.