Changes in alcohol consumption since 1990 (arranged by country, age and gender)

The non-drinker equivalence (NDE) is one measure of the relationship between alcohol consumption and health. It measures the level of alcohol consumption at which the risk of health loss for a drinker is equivalent to that of a non-drinker. For our purposes here, it can be used as a measure of change in alcohol consumption, if we measure NDE at different points in time.

One publication that does this is:

Population-level risks of alcohol consumption by amount, geography, age, sex, and year: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020.

It has a giant table that contains the number and proportion of the population consuming in excess of the non-drinker equivalence in 2020, and the percentage change in NDE since 1990. I will look at this percentage here, because it allows us to sub-divide the population and look at the data in various ways.

Data are shown in that table for the whole world plus separately for each of 20 sub-regions, and separately for males and females. There are also three age groups considered: 

• 15–39 years    roughly: Millennials + Generation Z (15–44 years)
• 40–64 years    roughly: Generation X (45–60 years)
• ≥65 years       roughly: Baby Boomers (≥61 years)

Here is my summary of the data from that table. The numbers refer to the percent change in NDE in the 30 years between 1990 and 2020, which for our purposes simply measures the change in alcohol consumption (as a proportion of the population consuming a specified amount of alcohol).

Looking at the Global data (row 1), you will note that there was a much bigger reduction among the two groups of younger people (for both sexes) than among the oldest group, although the latter group also reduced their consumption. So, alcohol consumption has generally been decreasing over the past three decades, and more so among younger people.

If we look at those separate regions that have had a consistent large decrease across all age/gender groups, it includes: 

High–income Asia Pacific; Southern Latin America; Oceania; and Central sub-Saharan Africa.

If, on the other hand, we look at those regions that have had a consistent increase across all groups, there has been:

Central Europe; Andean Latin America; Tropical Latin America; South Asia; and Eastern sub-Saharan Africa.

The biggest increases have been among:

• Tropical Latin America; and Andean Latin America
• Central Europe
• South Asia; and Southeast Asia among males
• Australasia among older people.

Among the youngest people, we have had the biggest reduction among:

High–income North America; and then Eastern Europe; Australasia; and Western Europe.

Among the oldest people, we have had few reductions, and they were mostly small. The biggest increases were among:

Central Europe; Australasia; High–income North America; and Southeast Asia males.

Clearly the world of alcohol consumption has been changing over the past three decades. However, there does not seem to be much consistency among those regions showing similar patterns of change among themselves; so I do not think that I can say much more here. However, it is worth noting that, in a similar manner, per capita consumption in litres of pure alcohol across the 10 markets surveyed by IWSR has fallen by 20% since 2000 (How is the moderation trend evolving?).

Moreover, we do have to accept the fact that Baby Boomers are getting too old to drink alcohol as much as before, or they are (sadly) dying. The subsequent generations do not look like they are taking up the slack (yet?). So, given the patterns noted above for the youngest generation, we might seriously wonder:

Why the wine trade should talk up its entry-level offering.

With older, high-spending, wine-loving consumers leaving the market, here Patrick Schmitt wonders whether the drinks trade should put more emphasis on inexpensive wines for a less affluent, younger generation. Indeed so.

Another official study indicating that alcohol is not necessarily a risk for cancer

I have written quite a few blog posts about the possible relationships between alcohol and particular health issues, particularly cancer, because this has become a big issue for a number of health organizations (see: Has WHO got it wrong with its new zero-alcohol policy?). My own reading of the primary literature is that wine is one of the least problematic causes of cancer, unless consumed in excess of the recommended doses. I have listed some of my relevant posts at the bottom of this page.

In this new post, I will point out another recent official publication from the USA that indicates there is a lack of evidence regarding a link between alcohol and cancer, in particular:

Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health (2025).

Here is the Introduction from the review:

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), which serves as the primary source of dietary guidance from the federal government, provides recommendations for dietary intake and healthful dietary patterns — including alcohol intake. DGA recommendations are informed by systematic reviews. The last review on alcohol and health conducted for the DGA focused on all-cause mortality in 2020; however, questions related to weight changes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurocognitive health, and lactation have not been examined since 2010.

Hence this new Review was produced. It is broken into a number of sections, each of which concludes with a set of Findings, and a set of Conclusions. Here I will list here a few of the relevant conclusions.

For the section on All-Cause Mortality, they have:

• Conclusion 3-1: Based on data from the eight eligible studies from 2019 to 2023, the committee concludes that compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality (moderate certainty).

This sounds very good to me — a small amount of alcohol intake lowers mortality.

For the section specifically about Cancer, they have several conclusions:

• Conclusion 5-1: The committee concludes that compared with never consuming alcohol, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer (moderate certainty).
• Conclusion 5-2: The committee concluded that, among moderate alcohol consumers, higher versus lower amounts of moderate alcohol consumption were associated with a higher risk of breast cancer (low certainty).
• Conclusion 5-3: The committee determined that no conclusion could be drawn regarding the association between moderate alcohol consumption compared with lifetime nonconsumers and risk of colorectal cancer.
• Conclusion 5-4: The committee concluded that among moderate alcohol consumers higher versus lower amounts of moderate alcohol consumption were associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (low certainty).
• Conclusion 5-5: The committee determined that no conclusion could be drawn regarding an association between moderate alcohol consumption and oral cavity, pharyngeal, esophageal, or laryngeal cancers.

Once again, this all seems pretty reasonable to me — a lot of the relevant commentary is about lack of evidence for any relationships, which situation the Review takes very seriously.

In support of this, the table above is from The IARC perspective on alcohol reduction or cessation and cancer risk (IARC = International Agency for Research on Cancer). It lists the biggest issues about the same cancer studies discussed by the Review, indicating that there is insufficient formal evidence regarding a link of alcohol to cancer, for several parts of our bodies. If there is insufficient evidence, then how are any of us arriving at any conclusions that problems exist?

Here are some of my previous posts from this year about this topic (in publication order):

1. Current medical evidence says that wine is not harmful in small doses
2. Recent study shows that alcohol does have an important benefit in older age 
3. Recent science reports suggesting that wine alcohol is usually safe to drink
4. Contrary to WHO, recent medical research shows that wine is safe for cancer
5. Medical research concerning heart disease indicates that wines are safe to drink
6. More medical results suggesting that wines are usually safe to drink

Increasing preference for wine consumption in northern Europe

I have recently looked at: Long-term (mostly negative) trends in Nordic alcohol consumption. In particular, I have looked at current wine sales in some of the Nordic countries, with their government-owned alcohol retail monopolies (they are not big wine producers):

• Sweden
• Norway
• Finland

This week I will show you that their consumption does now focus more on wine rather than the more traditional beer (and spirits). These data come from the Annual Database of National Beverage Consumption Volumes and Expenditures, 1950 to 2015.

This first graph refers to beer intake per person (up to 2015). As you can see, since 2000 beer consumption as a percentage of total alcohol intake per year has been less than 50% and decreasing in the three Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), whereas in Finland (the fourth Nordic country) it has remained fairly flat and just above 50%.

For wine, on the other hand (in the next graph), per person consumption has been increasing since the 1970s, although it took a bit of a blow in Finland in 2000 (the Covid pandemic).

This Finnish phenomenon can be seen in the third graph to be a result of a burst in spirits consumption at that time — apparently the Millennium seriously affected the Finns! Otherwise, Finland and Denmark have had a fairly constant per person spirits consumption for quite some decades, whereas Sweden and Norway have shown a decrease.

In my previous posts I had a look at which wine–producing countries now do well in the Nordic wine retailers, noting that they fit in line with other European countries; that is, the wine producers France, Italy, Spain, and Germany, plus the USA. This changing preference does match their accession to the European Union (EU), with its free trade within a single market (Denmark 1973, Finland 1995, Sweden 1995).

Norway is not a member of the European Union, but is associated with it through the European Economic Area (EEA), which allows it access to the EU‘s single market (Norway–European Union relations). It has contemplated joining the EU several times.

Climate change and its effect on grape cultivation

Modern viniculture currently has two major threats: changing attitudes by generations towards wine consumption, and changing vineyards in response to climate change. The latter is properly part of viticulture, and I will look at it here.

This topic was something that was long addressed by Dr Richard Smart, who died recently (Richard Smart: the man who changed wine):

Smart addressed the impact of climate change on wine regions, suggesting that some areas might become too hot for certain grape varieties, necessitating adjustments in vineyard management and variety selection. He consulted to vineyards to help them adapt by taking measures such as finding suitable new grape varieties for their regions.

He was absolutely right; and this is now of particular concern in Europe: Why Europe is the world's fastest warming continent. Two recent research publications by Elizabeth M. Wolkovich have been more specific, at a global scale. The grapevine characteristics included in her scientific analyses are shown in the first figure.

The more detailed of her two articles looks at Uneven impacts of climate change around the world and across the annual cycle of winegrapes (PLOS Climate 539):

    Anthropogenic [human affected] climate change has uneven impacts across the globe and throughout the year. Such unevenness poses a major challenge for human adaptation, especially for agricultural and other managed systems.
     Here, we use recent phenological models with a dataset of mean phenology for over 500 cultivars (varieties) to estimate climatic changes in growing regions across the globe for a major perennial crop that has been highly affected by climate change: winegrapes.
     We examine a suite of grower-relevant metrics, including temperatures during budburst, throughout the growing season and temperatures and precipitation surrounding harvest. We find that climate change has impacted all regions, especially for heat metrics across the full growing season (GDD [see the below graph], maximum temperature and days above 35°C). By far the largest shifts, however, are in European regions, where the number of hot days (>35°C) and maximum growing season temperatures are several standard deviations higher than before significant anthropogenic climate change.
     Climate change impacts have thus been highly uneven across the world’s winegrowing regions and the impacts are variable across the growing season.

The other paper is a review article: The problem of terroir in the anthropocene (Harvard Data Science Review, 7-2). She is particularly concerned about the way in which climate change effects the characteristics that we usually associate with wine terroir. Note also that the Anthropocene is a term used to refer to the period of time during which humanity has become a planetary force of change:

     Climate is integral to the concept of terroir. With anthropogenic climate change, the terroir of the world's winegrowing regions is changing, and will continue to change for decades or centuries.
     Here I show how variety phenology — the timing of major growth and reproductive events including budburst, flowering, veraison, and harvest — is a critical component of terroir and one that is becoming increasingly mismatched due to climate change.
     The clearest signal of this shift comes from the earlier harvests of wine grapes over the last several decades with harvests 2–3 weeks earlier in France and other regions. These earlier harvests have reshaped the climatic profile under which berries ripen, leading to wines with higher alcohol and shifted phenolic and aromatic attributes.
     But these shifts also hint at a major way to adapt viticulture to climate change — through matching variety phenology to the current and future climates of established winegrowing regions. Here I show how variety phenology — the timing of major growth and reproductive events including budburst, flowering, veraison, and harvest — is a critical component of terroir and one that is becoming increasingly mismatched due to climate change. I outline how growers and researchers alike can leverage current and new data to help develop a framework to shift varieties with climate change.

So, the purpose of these two articles is to point a practical way forward, which we would be best advised to heed. What cultivar we grow where (and thus we value the subsequent wine) will need to be re-evaluated, sooner rather than later.

Increasing trend for reservation versus walk-in winery tastings

Last week I had a look at How much we pay to visit wineries, within the USA. There is also the matter of whether we need to book a reservation for that tasting, or whether we can just walk in unannounced. I look at that this week.

First, I have noted that I originally developed my wine interest via walk-in wineries, in Australia in the early 1980s, because winery tastings were usually free and without appointment — we could just drop in during business hours. Indeed, we can still do that in some parts of Australia, even today in these very different times.

This is important because, as the recent 2025 Tasting Room Survey Report notes:

In such turbulent times, it is advised to focus on what's within one's control. For wineries across the United States, the single most important source of sales and engagement is the tasting room. In a flat, fragmented and fluctuating U.S. wine market, the tasting room crowds may not be as dependable as years past, but gleaning sales from the visitors who do make it to wine country is that much more important.

The recent Silicon Valley Bank 2025 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Report also tackles this same topic, on pages 32–45, when it notes for the USA:

The most meaningful change in tasting room service styles during the 2010s was moving from walk-in standing bars to seated by-reservation tastings. The change lessened visitation numbers but increased the average order value. The question today is whether the ‘experience arms race’ has reached its peak. Only 26% of wineries exclusively offer by-appointment tastings, while 8% are exclusively walk-in. With declining visitation, the largest group of wineries, 66%, is opting for greater flexibility and offering both service styles.

These data are shown in the first graph (above).

Obviously, the fees charged for reserve tastings are pretty much double those of the standard fee, as shown in the second graph. More sadly, those fees have been continually increasing over the past 5 years. As Per Karlsson commented on my previous post:

The SVB analysis is really interesting. In some ways it is worrying, it shows a trend towards moving wine more and more towards a beverage for the rich (perhaps it is already - in particular in the US).

This point is emphasized when we look at the tasting fees charged, compared to the suggested retail price (SRP) of the wines produced by that winery, which we do in the third graph (below). Clearly, the more you pay (wine) then the more you pay (tasting).

Also, the lower is the SRP then the more likely it is that the winery provides walk-in tastings, as shown in the final graph (below). All of this also relates to the U.S. wine-producing region, as Napa and Sonoma charge above average fees (both standing and reserve), with Oregon, Santa Barbara, Paso Robles, Washington, etc charging below average.

As was recently noted: In a slower market, physical spaces are your biggest asset. In the modern on-line world, younger generations are showing a strong trend towards valuing their experiences above all else. So, the tasting experience is very important for modern wineries — after all, it cannot become digital. It was important back in My Day, too, of course. However, almost every survey shows that wine sales are declining, in both volume and dollars, and will continue to do so. We therefore need to connect to potential customers, and a tasting room is one way to do that — even in these different times, wine should still be fun, as well as a learning experience.

How much do we pay to visit wineries?

Back in “my day”, last century in Australia, winery tastings were free and without appointment — we could just drop in during business hours. However, it was expected that you would want to buy some of the wine — after all, why else would you be there? So, day trips to the Hunter Valley, north of Sydney, or Mudgee, to the west, were all the rage on weekends. (My Day was also the time when Australian wine started to come to international attention.)

As evidence that I can still do this in some parts of Australia, here is a relatively recent picture of myself at Granite Hills winery, in Victoria, with Llew Knight the proprietor / winemaker. (I can highly recommend the wines.)

Another common way of selling direct-to-customer wines (in a country with a Three-Tier System, requiring a middleman for distribution, like the USA) is a winery club, which in many cases is built up from people visiting the winery, in the first place. It has been suggested, however, that the average length of club membership is not necessarily all that much (The tough questions wine clubs face).

So, my modern question is about the charging of a fee for visiting a winery. The recent Silicon Valley Bank 2025 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Report tackles this topic on pages 38—49, with regard to the USA. I will look at a few of the take-home messages here.

The basic reason for charging tasting fees is that after the 1980s:

“Tasting fees were first levied to discourage tasters who treated wineries like
their local pub. Charging tasting fees proved effective in discouraging those
who were taking advantage of the winery’s generosity and diminishing the
experience for others.”

The fees currently being charged in the USA are pretty steep, as shown in the next two graphs, for different years and then different regions.

That is a pretty continual increase over the years. Tasting fees seem now to be an essential part of a winery’s revenue model, rather than merely offsetting the cost of the wine poured (as it was, originally). Clearly, some regions are also doing much better than are others.

When asked: “In what circumstances do you waive tasting fees?” the US winery responses were:
    for joining a wine club (the most common option)
    for purchasing a specific number of bottles
    for purchasing a specific dollar amount 
    no reimbursement (14% in both 2023 and 2024).

Clearly, given current economic circumstances, we can also ask: “Has your winery reduced tasting room fees to improve visitation?” Answer: very few. For those who have done so, we can then ask: “If your winery lowered tasting room fees, has it improved visitation?” Answer: for about one-third it has improved, and one-third it has stabilized.

We will not, of course, ever see a return to “my day”. However, to return to my original point, this final graph shows just which US winery regions do manage to get some wine purchases from their visitors, and how much. Napa is currently doing very well for itself.

Useful official advice on alcohol and your health (EU brochure)

I have recently produced a series of posts about wine availability and consumption in the Nordic countries, pointing out that it is not actually restricted, as is sometimes claimed. However, various parts of the government in, for example, Sweden do take alcohol consumption really quite seriously, healthwise. The World Health Organization (WHO) would be impressed.

As one example, my local municipal council (region Uppsala) has a web page about health, for locals. As part of this information they produce a brochure on alcohol use, which I think is very informative for everyone. Here, I have provided a translation from the original Swedish text. The original PDF file is available at: Alkohol och din hälsa.

The document is claimed to have been “compiled by specialists in the field of alcohol and health in the Uppsala Region and Uppsala Municipality”. It was last revised in January 2019, although it is still very current. You would be well advised to look through it, for your own edification.

---

Region Uppsala

Alcohol and your health
How do you drink?

Alcohol affects health

Alcohol affects us in different ways. New studies show that no level of alcohol intake is completely risk-free. The risk of health problems increases the more you drink. How the body is affected by alcohol can vary. Even small amounts of alcohol can cause harm to children, adolescents, the elderly, and those with illness or medication. Alcohol should also be avoided during pregnancy, when caring for others, and before surgery.

Drinking alcohol often increases the risk of becoming addicted. Alcohol impairs judgment, thinking ability, and reaction ability. It can increase the risk of harming yourself or others in accidents. Being drunk always involves a risk.

Some examples where alcohol may be important:

• Sleep problems and headaches
• Depression and anxiety
• Reduced fertility
• Lowered immune system
• Poor wound healing
• Cardiovascular diseases
• Diabetes
• Psoriasis and skin problems
• Diseases and problems in the stomach, intestines and liver
• Cancer in the mouth and throat, gastrointestinal tract, breast and liver
• Dementia
• Brittle bones and gout
• In the event of accidents and relationship problems

Benefits of drinking less

You can have better general health and sleep. Your memory and ability to concentrate can improve and you can handle stress more easily. You also reduce your risk of developing various diseases.

Consider your own habits

• When do you drink beer, cider, wine or spirits?
• How often do you drink?
• How much do you drink at one time?
• How are you and others affected when you drink?
• What could you do if you wanted to drink less alcohol?

Risky alcohol use

Risky alcohol use involves drinking alcohol in a way that greatly increases the risk of physical, mental and social problems.

In Sweden, the term “standard glass” is commonly used to calculate how much you drink. A standard glass is the amount of drink that contains 12 grams of pure alcohol:

50 cl beer or cider (2.8–3.5%)
33 cl strong beer, strong cider or alcoholic soft drink (5%)
1 small glass (12 cl) wine (12.5%)
8 cl fortified wine (15–22%)
4 cl spirits, e.g. whiskey

A bottle of wine (75 cl) contains about 6 standard glasses.

Limits for hazardous alcohol consumption

Female: 4 standard drinks or more on the same occasion (for example, during an evening). 10 standard glasses per week (equivalent to just under 2 bottles of wine).

Male: 4 standard glasses or more on the same occasion (for example, during an evening). 10 standard glasses per week (equivalent to just under 2 bottles of wine).

Pregnant: For pregnant women, as well as children and young people, all use of alcohol is considered risky use.

Tips for those who want to drink less

• Write down how much alcohol you drink for a few weeks.
• Think about situations in which you can change your habits.
• Allow at least two days each week to be completely alcohol-free.
• Replace every other glass of alcoholic drink with water and thus halve the amount of alcohol you drink.
• Choose drinks without alcohol or with a lower alcohol content.

Did you know that …

• Alcohol contains a lot of calories, the higher the alcohol content, the more calories in the drink.
• One can of folk beer per day for a year is equivalent to approximately 19 full bottles of hard liquor.

How much do you drink?

Fill in how many standard glasses you drink per day during a week.

To compare different types of alcoholic beverages, use the standard glass measurement. For example, a standard glass is equivalent to:

Support for those who want to change their drinking habits

You can always turn to health care professionals for advice and support. There are prescription drugs that can reduce alcohol cravings. All health care clinics are confidential.

At the Alcohol Line there are counsellors who can provide information and support. Tel. 020-84 44 48 or info@alkohollinjen.se.

 

At alkoholhjalpen.se there are facts, tips and discussion forums. The services are free of charge and you can remain anonymous.

---

Brochures like this are part of the increasing pressure on alcohol consumption, in the modern world (after all: Mid-strength wines may win where no-alcohol failed). Indeed, there is explicit pressure for wine labels to have health warnings, similar to those for tobacco packages. Indeed, recently: Alaska introduces cancer warnings to bars and liquor stores. Even the USA officially links alcohol and tobacco, as the United States Department of the Treasury has the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, and the United States Department of Justice has the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sweden has not yet gone that far!

Long-term (mostly negative) trends in Nordic alcohol consumption

I have recently looked at current wine sales in some of the Nordic countries, with their government-owned alcohol retail monopolies (they are not big wine producers):

• Sweden
• Norway
• Finland

There is one final thing to look at, which is the long-term sales / consumption trends. This can be done using the data compiled by the Nordic Alcohol and Drug Policy Network (NordAN). To quote their website:

NordAN was established in September 2000 as a network of non-governmental, voluntary organisations that all worked to reduce the consumption of alcohol and other drugs, and who supported evidence-based alcohol and drug policy, and who did not receive contributions from the commercial alcohol industry.

They consider their work to be important because:

The Nordic [Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden] and Baltic [Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania] region has been an exciting laboratory for everyone interested in alcohol research and policy. With Nordic countries, we have a long and effective experience with WHO recommended alcohol policies, and with that one of the lowest alcohol consumption and harm rates in Europe.

So, I have reproduced here their graphs for the five Nordic countries, for total alcohol consumption not just wine, per capita. Unfortunately, they do not yet include the data for 2024, and for Iceland and Norway not even for 2023. Still, they do show the general trends since 2010.

Note, first, that the data for Denmark and Norway refer to sales, while the data for Finland, Iceland and Sweden refer to consumption, which is not necessarily quite the same thing.

Norway (in the first graph, above), shows a downward trend in sales from 2010 until 2015 (to 90% of the 2010 level), followed by a plateau until 2019, and a massive spike in 2020—2022, although the sales are now returning to the 2010 level. This peak coincides with the Covid-19 pandemic, of course, which spread rapidly from 2020. Presumably the Norwegians stayed at home a lot more, in a form of voluntary lock-down (cf. Bay Area drinking 42% more alcohol than usual while sheltering in coronavirus pandemic).

Denmark (in the second graph) shows a plateau in sales for most of the time, after a dip in 2012. There is then a spike in 2021, which may be related to that in the Norway data (July 2021 was the summer of the delta Covid variant). Note, also, that Denmark does not have a government-owned retail monopoly on alcohol sales, unlike the other Nordic countries. Apparently, Danish wine imports remained stable in 2024, although there was reportedly an increased concentration on wine producers from the EU (Italy, France and Spain accounted for 65% of Denmark’s total wine import volume, with Portugal and Germany making up another 25%).

Finland (in the third graph) shows a rapidly decreasing trend, so that 2023 is only 75% of the 2010 number. This cannot be good for the suppliers, although it refers to consumption not sales. However, this trend is definitely in line with current World Health Organisation policy (Recent science reports suggesting that wine alcohol is usually safe to drink), although compare with: The WHO is making a mistake about state-owned alcohol retailers.

Iceland (in the next graph) refutes these previous data by showing a rise (of 15%) in consumption from 2010 until 2015, followed by a plateau, with a spike in 2021. Note that the years 2015 and 2021 appear in several of these country patterns.

Sweden (in the fifth graph) has shown a very slow decline (of 15%) in consumption throughout most of the time. There is not much of a pandemic—related rise.

So, with the exception of Iceland, there is a general downward trend here, with apparent Covid-19 spikes to one extent or another. Indeed, as suggested by NordAN, with their relatively low alcohol sales / consumption, the Nordic countries can be worth looking at long-term. Other countries are also reporting drops, of course (eg. Ireland sees 4.5% drop in alcohol consumption), so that the global wine situation has been negative since 2017, as shown in the final graph (from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine, OIV). This is occurring because younger people are not drinking wine to the same extent as their forebears, worldwide (eg. The social role of alcohol is changing).

The relative consistency of each Nordic situation is certainly in distinct contrast to the situation elsewhere, especially in the USA (eg. Inside NYC’s wine retail apocalypse), where the multitude of retailer types yields a multitude of economic situations. Incidentally, The 7 happiest countries to live in apparently include: 1 Finland, 2 Denmark, 4 Iceland, 6 Norway, and 7 Sweden. Mind you, it has also been noted that the Top 10 most expensive countries to live in include: 2 Norway, 3 Iceland, and 5 Denmark. (NB: Iceland and Norway are not members of the European Union, but are members of the European Economic Area).

Finns do not like wine in their alcohol–retailer monopoly

I have recently reported that both Swedes (What countries are best represented in Sweden’s wine retailer monopoly?) and Norwegians (How well do wine-producing countries do in Norway’s wine retailer monopoly?) both actually do quite well, in terms of the availability of products in their respective alcohol–retailer monopolies. Here, I report that in some ways Finns do both better and worse.

The Finnish government-owned alcohol retailer is called Alko (= Alcohol). It was founded in 1932, and is the only company allowed to sell beverages with an alcohol content >8% in Finland. (NB. wine is typically 12%—14.5% ABV; regular beers are around 5—6% ABV, while stronger craft beers can have an ABV of 6—10%) There are 368 Alko stores and 143 order pick-up points, which is not too bad for a population 5.6 million people, with c. 80% 18 years or older.

So, first, note that normal retail shops can sell full-strength beers and light wines, unlike in Sweden or Norway (where they can sell only light beers). Second, note that there are somewhat more stores than in Norway, in spite of very similar population structures. So, the Finns do quite well, compared to other Nordic countries (I have not yet discussed Denmark in these posts).

The Alko web site indicates that the number of separate items is as shown in the first table. Note that the number is considerably less than in Norway (= 36,148), which is the obvious comparison. This is due, at least partly, to the fewer beers, as expected. However, all of the country numbers are considerably less, as well. Note that the USA does not do too well (see below). France does 50% better than Italy, which does 50% better than Spain.

The Alko web page has versions in Finnish, Swedish and English. The second one is due to the large number of alcohol-buying tourists, as there are daily tourist boats across the Baltic, from Stockholm to Helsinki.

The Alko web site says:
“Alko is a different kind of store. We are legally required to sell alcoholic beverages in a way that reduces the harmful effects of alcohol. Our role has remained the same since 1932 ... Alko's mission is to sell alcohol responsibly and to serve both our customers and Finland’s welfare society as best we can. Our extensive selection brings the whole world to our customers’ fingertips.”

If we take a look specifically at wine, then the Alko collection looks like the second table (click to enlarge). Note that each row simply lists the countries in decreasing order, stopping when it gets to the USA.

These numbers are terrible when compared to those for Norway, being about one quarter in all cases. Finns apparently are not much interested in vinous beverages. Perhaps they prefer low-alcohol versions, which are not necessarily in the Alko stores? Certainly, full-strength wine is not a major contributor to the Finnish economy (unlike its position in the USA: Wine is a major American economic engine).

Anyway, Finland supplies 1,131 alcohol products in the stores, which include: 496 distilled (44%), 340 beer (30%), 100 mixed drinks (9%), 91 fortified (8%), and 34 cider (3%). The large number of distilled beverages include: 166 Liqueur & Bitters, 161 Gin & Other Spirits, 127 Vodka & Spirits, 35 Whisky, and 7 Rum. Also, the 375 USA products include: 175 Red wine (47%), 78 distilled (21%), 70 white wine (19%), and 39 beer (10%).

So, in terms of wine availability, the Finns do not appear to do as well as either the Norwegians or the Swedes, in spite of all three having their government officially owning the alcohol retailer. Iceland also has a government-owned alcohol retailer, Vínbúðin (= The Wine Shop), which is apparently quite strict (Do strict alcohol policies really work?). The remaining Nordic country, Denmark, does not even have an alcohol monopoly system (see: Danish wine imports remained stable in 2024). Interestingly, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which are self-governing entities within the state of Denmark, do have such retail monopolies.

Finally, it is worth noting that: The Finnish retail alcohol market is being liberalised. Having a government-owned retail store is contrary to official European Union policy, and Finland is finally starting to follow this guideline (it joined the EU in 1995). Sweden was granted an exception for Systembolaget (when it also joined in 1995), but has not yet made any moves to change this. Indeed, the changed Finnish law is creating international tension (How easing of monopoly laws could shift Nordic alcohol markets).

In contrast to this, there is also this sort of attitude: WHO/Europe highlights Nordic alcohol monopolies as a comprehensive model for reducing alcohol consumption and harm. Alcohol consumption is recorded as being lower in the Nordic countries, and this is sometimes attributed to the psychological effect of the government monopoly ownership. This is, indeed, one possible part of Nordic societal attitudes.

One other thing that you may not know about Finland:

• Finland was the first nation in the world to give all adult citizens full suffrage, in other words the right to vote and to run for office, in 1906. Previously, all countries had given this right only to males (and sometimes not even then!).

How well do wine-producing countries do in Norway’s wine retailer monopoly?

I have recently produced a series of posts about wine availability in Sweden, pointing out that it is not actually restricted, as is sometimes claimed (The availability of older wine vintages in a wine monopoly; The broad availability of United States wine in Sweden’s wine retailer; What countries are best represented in Sweden’s wine retailer monopoly?).

Well, it turns out that Norwegians also do quite well when they purchase wines. Their government-owned alcohol retailer is called Vinmonopolet (= The Wine Monopoly). It was founded in 1922, and is the only company allowed to sell beverages with an alcohol content >4.75% in Norway (NB. wine is typically 12%—14.5% ABV; regular beers are around 5—6% ABV, while stronger craft beers can have an ABV of 6—10%). There are 331 Vinmonopolet locations, which is not too bad for a population 5.6 million people, with 4.5 million (80%) 18 years or older.

Their web site indicates that the number of separate items is as shown in the first table. Note that the USA does not do too badly, although this may change any time soon. France does twice as well as Italy, which does twice as well as Germany. It is worth noting at this point that Norway is not part of the European Union.

Their web site says:
“The primary goal of Vinmonopolet is to responsibly perform the distribution of alcoholic goods while limiting the motive of private economic profit from the alcohol industry. Equally significant is the social responsibility of Vinmonopolet, to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors and visibly inebriated customers.”

If we take a look specifically at wine, then the Vinmonopolet collection looks like the second table (click to enlarge). Note that each row simply lists the countries in decreasing order, stopping when it gets to the USA. Note also: Sparkling wine = atmospheric pressure of 5—6 atmospheres, while Bubbly wine = 1—2.5 atmospheres. Strong wine = fortified wine.

Clearly, red wine is preferred to white, and sparkling to rosé. The USA also has 260 beers, and 124 distilled spirits. Norway itself has 909 beers, 774 distilled spirits, 247 ciders, and 117 meads.

So, all in all, the Norwegians do just as well as the Swedes, in terms of wine availability, in spite of their government officially owning the retailer.

Other things that you may not know about Norway include (see also: 25 fascinating facts about Norway, and 14 Misconceptions tourists have when coming to Norway):

• The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo (the other prizes are in Stockholm, Sweden, since Alfred Nobel was a Swede) — this caused a sensation at the time of Nobel’s will, because Sweden and Norway formed a union at the time (1901), but Norway was arguing for independence (which it got in 1905)
• there is a small village called Hell (many tourists may be spotted snapping a photo of themselves in front of the station sign)
• skiing both modern (the Telemark ski) and ancient (4,000 year old rock carving) were invented in Norway
• the cheese slicer was invented in Norway, way back in 1925
• there are two versions of the Norwegian language — Bokmål is used by the vast majority of the country, while Nynorsk is more popular in rural areas.

What countries are best represented in Sweden’s wine retailer monopoly?

I have recently produced a couple of posts about wine availability in Sweden, pointing out that it is not actually restricted, as is sometimes claimed (The availability of older wine vintages in a wine monopoly; The broad availability of United States wine in Sweden’s wine retailer). This is in spite of the fact that the government owns the alcohol retail chain.

The point here is that government regulation of alcohol consumption is widely practiced around the world, including ownership of the alcohol-retail chain. For example, the history of Prohibition in the U.S.A. is intimately concerned with this topic. In that case, after ceasing the ban on alcohol retail of any sort, there were several subsequent suggestions of government control of alcohol sales, leading to the adoption of the current Three-tier System (A brief history of the three-tier system in America), in which distribution and retail must be carried out by separate companies.

Well, in Sweden’s case, there is an import/production group of companies, which is not hindered by the government, while the government formally owns the retail company (Systembolaget = The System Company). However, it seems to offer no impedance to how this company carries out its activities, in practice. This is all to the good for the (adult) populace, including me.

Import of wine is important in Sweden, because there are not a lot of local vineyards and wineries (Swedish wineries — who'd have thought it?). So, it is of interest to ask where most of the wines available in the shops do actually come from. That is what I have shown in this graph, based on the Systembolaget database, showing the number of individual wines (not their total volume), irrespective of vintage or bottle size. It shows 92.6% of the total of 16,386 available wines.

It can come as no surprise to any of you that the top three sources are the three biggest wine-producing countries in Europe, given that Sweden is part of the 27-nation European Union. So France (28.7% of the wines), Italy (25.0%) and Spain (11.6%) supply 65% of the Systembolaget wines between them. Perhaps slightly more surprising is that Germany (4.4%) and Portugal (3.5%) do not fare so well.

South Africa (4.5%) and the USA (4.0%) surprisingly do better than Australia (2.6%), which slightly bests Austria (2.4%). Given the current political ruckus, the US contribution may soon decrease, of course. South America also does not do so well (Chile 1.5%; Argentina 1.3%).

What I have left out of the graph is the contribution of both Sweden (2.2%) and Japan (0.6%). This is because they do not contribute much in the way of Vitis vinifera wines. Sweden does contribute 367 wines: 91 whites, 30 sparkling, 23 rosé, and 21 reds; but it also contributes 95 fruit wines, and 75 glögg (mulled wines). Japan contributes 94 wines, including 66 sake, and 22 fruit wines.

Anyway, this is enough for the current series of blog posts about wine retail in Sweden. However, things are likely to change at any time. For example, Georgia is currently a candidate country for joining the European Union, having applied for membership in March 2022 and officially been granted candidate status in December 2023. They seem to be keen to get their wines onto shelves around Europe (eg. Georgia backs UK growth with upped investment), presumably including Sweden.

The broad availability of United States wine in Sweden’s wine retailer

Recently I produced a post about wine availability in Sweden, pointing out that wine sales are not actually as restricted as is sometimes claimed: The availability of older wine vintages in a wine monopoly. There I noted that some of the currently available vintages in Sweden’s wine monopoly (called Systembolaget) date back to last century. Another way to look at the same issue, which may be of interest to many of my readers, is to consider the extent to which United States wine is available in that same wine monopoly. *

The obvious place to start is with simply how many different wines are currently listed in the Systembolaget catalog. It looks like this first figure.

Well, 672 wines is not necessarily a big deal to an American, but for a small European country it is pretty darned good. As expected, California (= “Kalifornien” in Swedish] dominates, with more than 80% of the wines, but Washington and Oregon also get a look in.

There are 471 red wines, 176 white wines, 12 rosé, 5 sparkling, 6 flavored / fruit wines, and 2 are mixed boxes. Of these wines, 112 are in the standard store assortment (ie. they should be in most stores, and their local supply is renewed), 197 are in the temporary assortment (ie. their supply is limited, and is not necessarily renewed), and 360 need to be ordered (ie. they are not in the shops, but will be delivered to your local store upon request to the importer).

Of these wines, 526 are in standard glass bottles, 88 are in lighter bottles, 28 are boxed wines (with plastic tap), 13 are in PET bottles, 11 are in cans, 5 are in cardboard packaging, and 1 is in a pouch. If you want even more details: 59 of the bottles have a screw cap, and 4 have a synthetic cork.

The wines are mostly relatively recent vintages, as shown in the next figure, but they do go back to 2009. The alcohol content is stated to vary from 7% to 19%.

In US dollars, the wines vary from $3.50 (187 ml) to $4.60 (250 ml) to $5.90 (375 ml) to $7.90 (750 ml), all the way up to $10,000. There are 180 wines (27%) retailing at $20 or less. The six most expensive packages are as shown next (NB: $US1 = 10 kronor). Note that the first item refers to a mixed box of 3 bottles (ie. $4,000 each bottle).

There are many different grape varieties available, as listed in the next figure. (Note that some of the names are actually synonyms).

If we consider what foods the wines are claimed to be suitable to accompany, then the list looks like the following figure. Note that Nut (“nöt” in Swedish) = Beef.

Finally, getting technical, if we define Lower carbon footprint as 0—400 g CO2e/l (carbon dioxide equivalents per liter) then 55 wines are stated to qualify; and we define Average carbon footprint as 401—650 g CO2e/l then 102 wines are stated to qualify; and Higher carbon footprint is 651—1475 g CO2e/l then 511 wines are stated to qualify.

So, all in all, I think that the Swedes do quite well in terms of wine from the United States of America. How long this lasts will be determined by how the current tariff ruckus is resolved, of course.

---

* The U.S. three-tier system was originally designed to prevent monopolies, indicating that Americans do indeed object to this business arrangement.

Issues when aggregating wine scores into an average

Wine competitions, and many web sites, involve summing assessors’ scores into a consensus “average” score for each wine. However, as an example for three assessors, the scores of:

5,5,5 have the same sum / average as 0,5,10

However, the former situation indicates complete agreement among the three assessors about the quality of the wine, while the latter situation is no different from random quality scores. Surely this difference matters?

This contradictory situation has long been ignored. Obviously, this issue does not matter when looking at a single critic’s review in a magazine, for example. However, it may matter enormously at sites like CellarTracker, which claim to represent the consensus of wine quality among many people. However, such sites seem not to have cared about this issue at all.

Recently, Jeffrey Bodington has looked at this situation in detail:

Wine Stars & Bars: the combinatorics of critic consensus
AAWE Working Paper no. 284

Here, I will summarize some of his ideas.

First, however, let’s make the situation clear. The following lines indicate increasing agreement around the same average of 5, with 3 assessor scores having a maximum of 10 each:

0,5,10
1,5,9
2,5,8
3,5,7
4,5,6
5,5,5

Furthermore, there can also be clusters of scores (e.g. some scores indicating poor quality and some indicating good quality, with nothing in between), such as:

1,7,7
3,6,6

The basic mathematical issues here are that (potentially) many billions of combinations of scores have the same sum (and therefore average), and that uncertain ratings can have many different sums. Mathematically, an observed wine rating is one draw from a (latent) distribution of all possible ratings that is both wine-specific and judge-specific.

The further practical issues for wine assessments are that: (i) sample sizes (number of assessments) are often small (especially in competitions); (ii) some wine judges are more reliable or consistent assessors than are others; and (iii) clusters of scores can happen, for example in the case of stylistically distinctive wines. These three situations mean that the issue discussed by Bodington can potentially have a big effect.

Bodington proceeds mathematically:

A weighted sum of judges’ wine ratings is proposed and tested that (1) recognizes the uncertainty about a sum and (2) minimizes the disagreement among judges about that sum. A simple index of dispersion is [also] proposed and tested that measures a continuum from perfect consensus (dispersion = 1), to ratings that are indistinguishable from random assignments (dispersion = 0), and then to distant clusters of ratings when groups of judges disagree (dispersion is negative).

To make sense of this for you, he then illustrates his ideas with a straightforward example. This involves the 10 white wines from the 1976 Judgment of Paris comparative tasting of French and American wines, with 9 assessors per wine. The sums of the blind scores are shown in the graph above. The blue bars indicate the distribution of all possible sums of 9 scores of 20 each (ie. a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 180). The black lines represent the sums for each of the 10 Judgment wines (as labeled). As shown:

... the sums of points for the top two white wines, Chateau Montelena and Meursault Charmes are calculated to be the same at 130.5. The respective ranges of points assigned to those two wines were 3.0-to-18.5 and 12.0-to-16.0 ...

So, the overall mathematical assessment is the same for the two wines, but there is clearly much more consensus among the judges for Meursault Charmes (scores 12-to-16 out of 20) than for Chateau Montelena (scores 3-to-18.5). Bodington thinks that this difference should be dealt with, and that is the purpose of his weighted sum and his index of dispersion.

These calculations are shown in the next figure, with the weighted sum shown horizontally (ie. increasing assessed quality of the wine) and the index of dispersion vertically (ie. increasing agreement among the assessors), and each wine represented by a labeled point.

Bodington notes:

Results for the dispersion index show that none are close to zero so they do not appear to be random results, and none are negative to indicate distant clusters. The weighted sum of points for highest-scoring Chateau Montelena has the second lowest dispersion index of any wine and the [other] wine Meursault Charmes has the highest index of any wine. Considering that finding, does it make sense to conclude that Montelena was better than Charmes?

In other words, the consistent critic judgements for Meursault Charmes should outweigh the relatively inconsistent ones for Chateau Montelena. This can be interpreted as indicating the “best” white wine at the Judgment of Paris.

This sort of situation can have a strong effect any time there is a relatively small number of wine assessments.

The availability of older wine vintages in a wine monopoly

Sweden has a single government-owned (but not controlled) alcohol retail monopoly, called Systembolaget (although Swedes often refer to it as Systemet = The System). Many non-Swedes see this as an affront to free trade, and that it obviously must be economically inefficient (e.g. “high taxes are also an issue in the Nordics, where sales are stifled by everything having to be sold through monopolies”).

I have written about this situation quite a number of times, pointing out that the situation is not really the way it is painted by outsiders (ie. sales are not stifled). For example:

• Which countries are dominated by only a few alcohol suppliers?
• Why are there wine monopolies in Scandinavia?
• The WHO is making a mistake about state-owned alcohol retailers

I have also written about the availability of wine under these circumstances, as many people seem to think that it must be restricted in some way, which it is not:

• Wine monopolies, and the availability of wine
• The availability of wines in government-owned retail monopolies
• The availability of older wine vintages in Sweden?

It is the topic of this latter post, about older vintages, that is of interest here. In that post, from 2024, I listed all of the available Australian wines at least 5 years since vintage, available in Systembolaget. There were 24 of them, vintage dated 2013–2018. This seems to me is not too bad a selection, from a single source country, and all of the wines should still be quite drinkable. However, people used to specialist wine shops might find that this selection is nothing to write home about, especially in countries like the USA, where specialty retail is expected.

Today I am going to look at all of the available wines vintage–dated prior to 2000 (ie. last century), irrespective of their country of origin.

The table below shows the results of my searching in the Systembolaget database. These are all table wines, not fortified wines (which can be much older, as their higher alcohol content preserves them). I have shown the Swedish (SEK) price for each wine. Note that US$ 1 ≈ 10 SEK, which makes the conversion easy.

So, there are 7 red wines and 6 whites. This may not impress connoisseurs; but for the Swedish national retail chain, where almost all of the alcohol sold is budget stuff for everyday drinking (the classic “wines for the table not the cellar”), it is as good as I would expect.

All of these wines should still be quite drinkable.

For example, the four Moulin Touchais wines come from a winery that specializes in a semi-sweet wine of great age; so many other old vintages have been available as well (see: Tasting the magical sweet wines of Moulin Touchais through the ages).

Similarly, the current release of the Xavier Vignon wine was not bottled until 2022, and it is widely available elsewhere (Wine-Searcher).

Also, although the company no longer exists, Richmond Grove long specialized in limited releases of its Watervale Riesling (e.g. in 2012 Chris Shanahan noted that the winery offered Watervale Rieslings from 1996 to 2011).

The Luis Pato wine was tasted in 2023 / 2024 by Wine Anorak, and given a score of 95/100.

A perusal of the Wine-Searcher database shows that the Giacomo Borgogno wine is widely available elsewhere. All of the other wines are also still available elsewhere (e.g. Bodegas Campillo, Fontanafredda, Jean Leon, Mastroberardino, Vajo dei Masi).

These wines are rarely actually in any of the Systembolaget retail stores, but are still in the importer / distributor warehouse. They can be ordered through the Systembolaget online order system, and arrive a few days later at my local store, where I collect (and pay for) them. This system works quite well.