More medical results suggesting that wines are usually safe to drink

People seem to be becoming more mindful of their alcohol intake for health reasons. However, I have recently noted medical evidence that wine is usually safe to drink with regard to both cancer and heart disease, which are currently the two major causes of death in the Western world.

There are, however, many other health issues that we may encounter, and it is interesting to check out whether wine is troublesome there, as well. Indeed, commentators other than WHO (who have focused on cancer) have emphasized some of these alternative medical issues. Here, I will look at these other issues, noting that they are not necessarily a big deal, either.

At first, however, I will note that Risky drinkers underestimate their own alcohol consumption. Indeed, it is often difficult even for non-risky drinkers to estimate their own intake. This is because even Small changes in wine alcohols can make a big difference. The table below shows the blood alcohol concentration for an average 130-pound woman who consumes two 5-ounce glasses of wine over 1.5 hours. When I was a teenager in Australia, the slogan was “under .05 or under arrest”, as far as driving a car was concerned.

Alcohol     Blood alcohol
content     concentration
  12%          0.065%
  13%          0.073%
  14%          0.081%
  15%          0.088%

So, now being mindful of the volume of alcohol intake, we might start by looking at what is called All-Cause Mortality. In this regard, we can consider Is drinking wine in moderation good for health or not? We can quote from this science report:

Drinking alcoholic beverages is associated with various health effects in the population ... All these effects seem primarily to be associated with the amount of alcohol consumed; the role of the different alcoholic beverages, and of their minor components, in this regard is in fact not clearly defined ... the association with all-cause mortality is complex, and J-shaped, with a consumption window theoretically associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality, up to 25 g alcohol per day. However, this issue is the subject of intense scientific debate.

So, that does not really help us in much of a practical way. So, let's move on, in particular, to red wine itself. Here, we get information directly from medical experiments: Health effects of red wine consumption: a narrative review of an issue that still deserves debate. To quote from this comprehensive review of the recent medical literature (in 2023):

This review evaluated randomised controlled trials (RCTs), examining the recent literature on the correlations between acute and chronic RW [red wine] consumption and health. All RCTs published in English on PubMed from 1 January 2000 to 28 February 2023 were evaluated. Ninety-one RCTs were included in this review, seven of which had a duration of more than six months. We assessed the effect of RW on: (1) antioxidant status, (2) cardiovascular function, (3) coagulation pathway and platelet function, (4) endothelial function and arterial stiffness, (5) hypertension, (6) immune function and inflammation status, (7) lipid profile and homocysteine levels, (8) body composition, type 2 diabetes and glucose metabolism, and (9) gut microbiota and the gastrointestinal tract. RW consumption mostly results in improvements in antioxidant status, thrombosis and inflammation markers, lipid profile, and gut microbiota, with conflicting results on hypertension and cardiac function. Notably, beneficial effects were observed on oxidative stress, inflammation, and nephropathy markers, with a modest decrease in CVD [cardio-vascular disease] risk in five out of seven studies that evaluated the effect of RW consumption.

So, that sounds very promising. Diet is also of importance (Research shows wine enhances the impact of the Mediterranean diet):

This year [2024], for the seventh year running, the Mediterranean diet was ranked the healthiest in the world by US News & World Report ... Professor Ramon Estruch: “but if you put moderate drinking, especially wine, under the umbrella of the Mediterranean diet, the health effect is much higher. And if you practise exercise and so on, the effect is much better. But I think that the highest power of these is diet.” Indeed, the importance of diet has been emphasized elsewhere. For example, when studying Alcohol consumption patterns and mortality among older adults with health-related or socioeconomic risk factors, it was noted that: “Wine preference and drinking only with meals were associated with attenuating the excess mortality associated with alcohol consumption.”

Furthermore, red wine with the food can lower blood sugar faster, especially in combination with Mediterranean food (Vin, snus och ingen frukost? Här är professorns råd som vänder upp och ner på hälsomyterna [in Swedish]).

Regarding diet and sugar, diabetes itself is often of concern. However, it has been noted in a recent experiment (Alcohol intake, drinking pattern, and risk of Type 2 Diabetes in three prospective cohorts of U.S. women and men) that: “Light to moderate alcohol consumption, especially regular light drinking, was associated with a lower risk of Type 2 Diabetes in both men and women.” A much earlier (2009) summary of this pattern is illustrated in the graph above, with females at the top and males below (Alcohol as a risk factor for Type 2 Diabetes).

If you want to read another summary of potential issues then The Drinks Business (The scientific studies showing the health benefits of wine) has this overview:

Here, we look back through the years at the drinks business, and provide a comprehensive overview of the health benefits associated with wine from scientific studies that we have covered in the past several decades.

As I have noted before: There are NO scientific experiments saying: don’t drink alcohol. Much of the current “scientific” anti-alcohol noise comes from Tim Stockwell, as I explicitly discussed in that post, and his associated new-Prohibitionist organization Movendi International (aka the International Organisation of Good Templars). Felicity Carter provides an alternative perspective on this issue (The rise of anti-alcohol messaging and ‘neo-prohibitionism’). In the meantime, stick to wine (as opposed to other alcohols) and science says that you will be quite well off.

Tasting six Brunello di Montalcino, vintage 2010

Brunello di Montalcino is a red DOCG Italian wine produced in the vineyards surrounding the town of Montalcino, in the province of Siena, located about 80 km south of Florence, in the Tuscany wine region. Famous for being the DOCG with the longest ageing requirement and for its prodigiously tannic, age-worthy Sangiovese, Brunello di Montalcino is a gem among Italy’s fine wine regions.

Notes on the vintage

Decanter magazine

Brunello di Montalcino 2010 – the finest vintage yet?

The near-perfect growing conditions in 2010 have resulted in one of the finest vintages in a generation. The beautiful conditions produced first rate Sangiovese, which in the hands of skilled wine makers has resulted in the finest examples in a generation, better even than the highly-rated 2004 and 2006 vintages. 2010 really is something special.

The 2010 vintage provided perfect conditions throughout the year and is clearly exceptional. Generous rainfall enabled vital refilling of the reserves during winter and the spring continued this theme, bringing vigour to the vines, whilst the weather during the summer months was warm enough for optimum ripening and moderated by very few heat spikes which kept away the threat of over ripeness. The end result brought wines of depth and complexity, with good levels of acidity bringing freshness to the sumptuous fruit and ripe, assertive tannins. There is tremendous structure behind these wines which suggests a long, illustrious life ahead.

Brunello di Montalcino 2010 panel tasting results August 14, 2018

Rated as one of the top all-time vintages in Montalcino, many unheralded producers did very well in this tasting.

Jancis Robinson

Tuscany 2010

Much cooler than the hot 2009. A very wet winter continuing into a very wet spring was followed by a cool growing cycle. The heat that came in July helped to reduce the delay in ripening that was by then an estimated 15 days behind schedule. Sangiovese was harvested as late as the third week of October and many producers had to do several pickings to obtain regularly ripe grapes in the fermentation tanks. Montalcino, exceptionally, was drier than other parts of Tuscany and the long and slow ripening of the grapes resulted in what is considered an outstanding vintage with true ageing potential for years to come.

Wine Scholar Guild

Tuscany 2010

The growing season was quite warm, but not torrid in 2010, with average rainfall totals spread out throughout the year. Thanks to warm days and cool nights in the weeks leading up to harvest, the grapes were picked at excellent levels of ripeness. Despite the warm temperatures, acidity levels are higher than normal, giving these wines excellent aging potential. Look for 15-20 years of drinkability with the top wines.

Vintage charts

Wines to taste

Brief tasting notes

Bottles were opened 4 hours before tasting; all wines opened up in the glass when poured, suggesting that they could have been opened much earlier. The eight amateur participants rated all of the wines as excellent.

Val di Suga Montalcino

After discussion, voted third best. Opened up in the glass: forest floor, tar, resin / rubber, red berries, butter. Taste of fig, with citrus and earth aftertaste. Went well with the food at the end of the tasting (Mediterranean pie).

Fattoi

Cork very hard to remove. Strong berry / acid combination in the mouth; and took much longer to open up in the glass. Aroma of mint, salami, tar: and taste of jammy plum and citrus. Quite different to the other wines; and everyone agreed that it went best with the food at the end.

Col d'Orcia

Much less tannin / acid initially. After discussion, voted equal fourth best. Aroma of soil / wet leaves and pot pourri; rich taste of acid, plum and soil / cigar box, aftertaste of citrus and tannin.

Tenuta La Fuga

Darker colour. Less tannin / acid and milder taste initially, but opened up. However, much more elegant immediately, and voted as the best wine by all participants. Aroma grass / vegetation initially. Mild but elegant taste, notably liquorice, plum, leather, tannins.

Fattoria dei Barbi

After discussion, voted equal fourth best. Mild initially, pine needles, but opened up to aroma of plum, vanilla, pine / resin; taste of resin / kerosene initially, followed by very fruity plum.

Castiglion del Bosco

Hardly any pale rim, and much darker throughout; less tannin / acid, but keeps it — clearly destined for a long life. After discussion, voted as second best. Started with least taste initially, but later much stronger fruity flavours, notably plum.

Afterword

When dealing with a comparative wine tasting, we might consider how the Ancient Greeks viewed time. They had two words for time: Chronos and Kairos. Chronos refers to the quantitative or measurable passage of time. Kairos refers to a qualitative assessment of the right time, the opportune or perfect moment. Clearly, when deciding when to open a bottle of wine we consider Chronos, but we are also hoping for Kairos. A good wine tasting gets both concepts right.

Medical research concerning heart disease indicates that wines are safe to drink

The main point that I made in the previous blog post (Contrary to WHO, recent medical research shows that wine is safe for cancer) was that the WHO's recent attack on drinking alcohol has focused on cancer as a cause of health problems, and that this has been shown by medical evidence not to be true for wine.

I also pointed out that cancer is only the No.2 cause of deaths, whereas No. 1 is heart disease, as shown in the first figure below (from Leading causes of death in the US, 2019—2023). Indeed, the WHO Cardiovascular diseases 2023 reports an estimated 17.9 million deaths each year, making up 32% of total global fatalities.

So, the thing we should be most interested in is what is known technically as Cardiovascular Disease, the No. 1 cause of deaths in the USA for many years. That is what I will do in this post, noting that it also is fairly safe as far as wine is concerned.

I will proceed in the same manner as last time. As before, it is important to first note that wine is not the same as other forms of alcohol intake, especially in terms of the medical effects. Then we can proceed to look at a recent research publication (17 June 2023) that compiled the results from 25 medical research studies concerning the effects of wine on people in relation to heart disease (Association between wine consumption with cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis). This has made it clear that heart disease is not often associated with wine intake, as opposed to other forms of alcohol or other health issues.

So, this publication (Nutrients 2023, 15:2785) was based on a search of the medical literature, in which 7 suitable studies were found from the 1980s/90s and 18 from the 2000s. The studies were from nine countries, including Australia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The study looked separately at cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary heart disease (CHD).

The detailed summary of the publication is this:

Background: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was: (i) to examine the association between wine consumption and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and coronary heart disease (CHD), and (ii) to analyse whether this association could be influenced by personal and study factors, including the participants’ mean age, the percentage of female subjects, follow-up time and percentage of current smokers.

Methods: In order to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched several databases for longitudinal studies from their inception to March 2023. This study was previously registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021293568).

Results: This systematic review included 25 studies, of which the meta-analysis included 22 studies. The pooled RR [Relative Risk] for the association of wine consumption and the risk of CHD using the DerSimonian and Laird approach was 0.76 (95% CIs: 0.69, 0.84), for the risk of CVD was 0.83 (95% CIs: 0.70, 0.98), and for the risk of cardiovascular mortality was 0.73 (95% CIs: 0.59, 0.90).

Conclusions: This research revealed that wine consumption has an inverse relationship to cardiovascular mortality, CVD, and CHD. Age, the proportion of women in the samples, and follow-up time did not influence this association. Interpreting these findings with prudence was necessary because increasing wine intake might be harmful to individuals who are vulnerable to alcohol because of age, medication, or their pathologies.

The situation is now quite clear. Wine is no more dangerous for increasing the risk of heart disease than it is for increasing the risk of cancer. It is worth also noting that a more recent, much smaller, set of medical data (Urinary tartaric acid as a biomarker of wine consumption and cardiovascular risk: the PREDIMED trial) suggests that “∼3–12 and 12–35 glasses/month of wine, were associated with lower CVD risk [HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.38; 1.00), P=.050 and HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.27; 0.95), P=.035, respectively].” This reduction in risk has previously been reported in the generalist literature (New evidence on the relationship between moderate wine consumption and cardiovascular health).

The WHO stated attitude in their 2023 publication in The Lancet that: “no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established” (Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption) is therefore even more mysterious than I noted last week, flying as it does in the face of two sets of comprehensive medical evidence.

Mitch Frank, editor of Wine Spectator, thinks that this “is part of a movement trying to paint all alcohol as dangerous by making broad, oversimplified claims”(Cherry-picked science? the confusing narrative around wine and health). In that same article, wine writer Dave McIntyre says that the current anti-alcohol movement, which in his recent coverage he dubs The New Prohibition, is trying to shift consumer messaging away from drinking responsibly to not drinking at all. Frank also calls attention to a major new scientific report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (National Academies publishes findings on alcohol and health) which found that moderate drinking is linked to lower death rates compared to not drinking at all. This finding is expected to help shape U.S. dietary guidelines for 2025–2030.

Contrary to WHO, recent medical research shows that wine is safe for cancer

One of the main points that I made in my previous blog post (Recent science reports suggesting that wine alcohol is usually safe to drink) was that the World Health Organization's recent attack on drinking alcohol has focused mainly on cancer as a cause of health problems. Other commentators, however, have emphasized alternative medical issues, which may be less troublesome.

You should read that previous post to set the scene. This obviously has a big effect on the wine industry, affecting wine sales especially among the young people.

In this new post, I will take a more recent look specifically at cancer in relationship to wine consumption. I will look at the range of the other health issues next week, noting that they are also not necessarily as big a deal as has been made out. So, we can all continue to safely drink wine (in moderation).

First, however, it is worth mentioning that there actually is a good reason for the WHO’s focus on cancer. If we take the USA as but one example, we can see that Cancer has been recorded as the No. 2 cause of death, behind Heart disease, as shown in the first figure (from Leading causes of death in the US, 2019—2023). So, anything that potentially increases cancer risk is worth looking at, as far as health is concerned.

However, it is also important to note that wine is not the same as other forms of alcohol intake, especially in terms of the medical effects. Indeed, a very recent research publication (31 January 2025) compiled the results from 42 medical research studies concerning the effects of wine on people in relation to cancer (Consumption of red versus white wine and cancer risk: a meta-analysis of observational studies). This has made it clear that cancer is not associated with wine intake, as opposed to other forms of alcohol or other health issues.

So, this publication (Nutrients 2025, 17:534) was based on a search of the medical literature, in which 8 studies were found from the 1990s and 34 from the 2000s. There were 24 studies found from the US / Canada and 18 in Other regions, which are quite respectable sample numbers. The organs studied for cancer included: skin, lung, kidney / urinary tract, colon / rectum, prostate, ovary, and female breast.

The detailed summary of the publication is this:

 

Objectives: While alcoholic beverage consumption increases cancer risk, red wine has been touted as a healthier option. To address this unexplored question, we conducted a meta-analysis to summarize evidence from observational studies.

 

Methods: A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE through December 2023 identified studies examining wine and cancer risk. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for an association between wine intake and overall cancer risk.

Results: A total of 20 cohort and 22 case–control studies were included. Wine intake was not associated with overall cancer risk (n = 95,923) when comparing the highest vs. lowest levels of consumption, with no differences observed by wine type (red: summary RR = 0.98 [95% CI = 0.87, 1.10], white: 1.00 [0.91, 1.10]; Pdifference = 0.74). However, white wine intake was significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer among women (white: 1.26 [1.05, 1.52], red: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.16], Pdifference = 0.03) and in analyses restricted to cohort studies (white: 1.12 [1.03, 1.22], red: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.96, 1.09], Pdifference = 0.02). For individual cancer sites, there was a significant difference in associations between red and white wine intake only in skin cancer risk [6 studies, white: 1.22 (1.14, 1.30), red: 1.02 (0.95, 1.09); Pdifference = 0.0003].

Conclusions: We found no differences in the association between red or white wine consumption and overall cancer risk, challenging the common belief that red wine is healthier than white wine. Our significant results related to white wine intake in subgroup analyses warrant further investigation.

The situation is now quite clear. The WHO's 2023 publication in The Lancet that: “no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established” (Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption) has two limitations. First, it pools all alcohol types together, rather than looking at wine separately — and wine is very different in terms of its health effect. Second, it does not take into account the 2025 publication concerning the effect of wine on cancer — this points out that the medical studies do not find any important effects of wine consumption on human cancer.

As a final point, it is also worth noting the comments about WHO made by Ramon Estruch:

When it comes to the WHO declaration, Prof. Estruch has some scepticism about the methods used. 

 

First, the declaration was based on the Global Burden of Disease work, and he says the results were confounded because the general consumption of alcohol across the world was dropped into the mix, and the specific way that alcohol is consumed is extremely important.

“Context is very important in the effects of alcoholic beverages,” he says. “Drinking gin outside of meals is not the same as drinking wine with meals. The frequency of consumption is also important.”

He says another problem was that some studies considered weekly consumption of alcohol, rather than daily consumption. “It’s not the same. If you have one drink, seven days a week, it’s not the same as seven drinks in one day. That’s binge drinking.”

Recent science reports suggesting that wine alcohol is usually safe to drink

We are all well aware that back in 2023 the World Health Organization (WHO) published in The Lancet a statement that “no safe amount of alcohol consumption for cancers and health can be established” (Health and cancer risks associated with low levels of alcohol consumption). No evidence was explicitly provided in this publication, but half a dozen references are cited in support of the claims that: “The overall risks and harms resulting from alcohol consumption have been systematically assessed and are well documented.”

I thought that it might be interesting to gather together references to publications that refute these claims, or at least suggest that they are exaggerated; and that is what I have done here and in the next post.

At first, I will start by pointing out that a reply to the above publication was published in The Lancet a couple of months later (Alcohol and health: all, none, or somewhere in-between?):

The risks and harms associated with alcohol are well documented, and the substantial harms of heavy or binge drinking are not debated. But health benefits of lower levels of alcohol intake have been widely reported. Many studies have shown that low or moderate amounts of alcohol (particularly red wine) can reduce risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and even death — possibly due in part to a tendency to reduce systemic inflammatory mediators. These benefits might be limited to adults older than 40 years ... Potential benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption have also been reported among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dire warnings like these seem to have become commonplace (a similar statement about alcohol and cancer was issued by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2017) and have the potential to be ignored by many people as undesirable and unattainable. WHO correctly argues that no studies have addressed whether the potential benefits of alcohol on cardiovascular disease and diabetes outweigh the risks with regard to cancer, and that the harms of alcohol fall disproportionately on disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. In view of these truths, a why-risk-it approach might seem sensible. But interpretation of the seemingly conflicting reports requires consideration of many factors, including the varying levels of alcohol intake considered light to moderate, competing risk factors for disease, choice of comparator groups, and the known pitfalls of self-reported alcohol consumption. It is also important to put the results of these studies in the context of absolute levels of risk (versus relative risk) associated with alcohol intake, which are generally quite small.

So, even at the time, the WHO’s pronouncement was questioned, because it focused on cancer rather than any other health characteristics (of which there are many!). And, of course, alcoholism itself is not good for you, by definition.

However, organizations that advocate for more stringent policies around the sale and marketing of alcohol are gaining momentum (What do neo-prohibitionists really want?). In fact, it has been suggested that the influence is entering US politics (Source says Feds will declare “no amount of alcohol” is healthy). So, we need to take this seriously.

Now we might look at some other publications, that review the topic. These also refer to things other than cancer, and in particular they focus on wine as opposed to other forms of alcohol. I will look at an overview paper here, and then continue next week with some more details.

We should start with defining low (1–7 drinks/week) and moderate (8–21 drinks/week) wine drinkers, as designated in the best of the recent review articles (Moderate wine consumption and health: A narrative review). These researchers note:

Although it is clearly established that the abuse of alcohol is seriously harmful to health, much epidemiological and clinical evidence seem to underline the protective role of moderate quantities of alcohol and in particular of wine on health. This narrative review aims to re-evaluate the relationship between the type and dose of alcoholic drink and reduced or increased risk of various diseases, in the light of the most current scientific evidence. In particular, in vitro studies on the modulation of biochemical pathways and gene expression of wine bioactive components were evaluated. Twenty-four studies were selected after PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar searches for the evaluation of moderate alcohol/wine consumption and health effects: eight studies concerned cardiovascular diseases, three concerned type 2 diabetes, four concerned neurodegenerative diseases, five concerned cancer and four were related to longevity. A brief discussion on viticultural and enological practices potentially affecting the content of bioactive components in wine is included. The analysis clearly indicates that wine differs from other alcoholic beverages and its moderate consumption not only does not increase the risk of chronic degenerative diseases but is also associated with health benefits particularly when included in a Mediterranean diet model. Obviously, every effort must be made to promote behavioral education to prevent abuse, especially among young people.

So, wine is not the same as other forms of alcohol. If you want to get technical: “the beneficial effects of wine are mostly derived from its polyphenolic content, and this represents the crucial difference between wine and other alcoholic beverages.”

We also need to get clear what we mean by “a drink”. We might try this definition (Why do medical experts define moderate drinking as one to two glasses of wine per day?):

In the United States, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) recommend that men consume no more than two alcoholic beverages per day, and that women consume no more than one. Those U.S. Dietary Guidelines issued by the federal government also serve as guidelines for medical professionals when they define moderate drinking.

However, exactly how much alcohol constitutes one “drink” varies from country to country, as do dietary guidelines. In the U.S., one “drink” is defined as containing 14 grams (0.6 fluid ounces) of pure alcohol, which equates to 12 ounces of beer (5 percent alcohol by volume), 5 ounces of wine (12 percent ABV) or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits (40 percent).

In Europe, a standard glass is often taken to contain 12 grams of alcohol, instead. This is: 50 cl standard beer, 33 cl strong beer, 12 cl wine, 4 cl of liquor (Dags för “alkoholfri operation“ [in Swedish]). By risky use of alcohol these scientists then mean: >14 standard glasses / week for men and ≥5 standard glasses at one time for men, and >9 standard glasses / week for women and ≥4 standard glasses at one time for women. This Swedish paper then discusses how much you should reduce these before hospital operations.

That might be enough science for one week. Next week I will look some more at where those glasses can safely go, according to research.

Search popularity versus the price of Australasian wines

I have sometimes looked at this topic: The relationship of wine price to wine-quality scores. However, that mostly involves the professionals (who provide the scores), not the public (ie. the rest of us). So, today I thought that I might look at web-search popularity of wines, instead. I have previously done this for: The world’s most expensive wines! However, that situation is not for most of us either!

Recently the idea has been raised that Australia and New Zealand might become a single wine zone (Reimagine the border of New World wine regions). Indeed, there is already a joint Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Directory (2025 Wine Industry Directory released).  So, this might be an interesting topic for looking at search popularity. (I have previously looked at their wine production and consumption: Australia and New Zealand wine comparisons). Are these areas equally as popular for the web searches for their wines?

The article cited above on unification notes:

Given this year’s joint tasting event, the wine industry is curious to see the possibility of Australia and New Zealand becoming a unified wine zone. In the evolving landscape of New World wines, Australia and New Zealand have emerged as prominent players in the New World wine landscape, each offering distinct and high-quality wine profiles. While collaborative marketing efforts have gained momentum, it's essential to understand the unique characteristics that define their wine industries.

To compare the similarity of any two regions, Wine Searcher is a good place to choose data, since it is dedicated to accumulating a database of both the price (see: Average Wine Prices) and the search popularity (see: Wine-Searcher Technology) of wines. It claims to base the data on 240 million searches of its database by consumers each year.

Wine Searcher publishes annual Top lists of its data, and the recent ones of relevance here are:

• The world's most wanted Australian wines of 2025
• The world's most wanted New Zealand wines of 2025.

I have plotted these two sets of data (10 wines for each country) in the first graph, with each wine represented by a point, located with its Search rank horizontally and Average Price vertically.

As you can see, there are three Australian wines where the price stands out from the main bunch of wines, both Australian and New Zealand. These are: Henschke Hill of Grace Shiraz, Penfolds Grange Bin 95, and Penfolds Bin 707 Cabernet Sauvignon. Otherwise, there is no particular relationship between search rank and price — popular wines for search are neither the cheapest nor the most expensive wines, for either country.

Equally importantly, though, all of the Australian wines are more popular in search terms than are all but two of the New Zealand wines, which are: Kumeu River Maté's Vineyard Chardonnay, and Cloudy Bay Sauvignon Blanc. The Australian wines thus appear to be much better known. This is in spite of The rise and rise of New Zealand wine.

The article about unifying the Australian and New Zealand wine zones does note differences between the two countries:

Australia's wine industry is renowned for its diversity, with climates and terroirs that create a rich variety of wine styles. The country has developed a comprehensive appellation system featuring over 60 designated wine regions, producing wine in every state ... Today, Australia ranks among the world's largest wine exporters.

Renowned for its aromatic Sauvignon Blanc, New Zealand is a leading wine-producing nation, acclaimed for its cool-climate Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Bordeaux-style blends, and Syrah. Located in the Pacific Ocean, 2,000 kilometres (1,300 miles) southeast of Australia, its 10 major wine regions span two main islands, with Marlborough as the most prominent.

So, Australia is a much bigger and more diverse wine-producing region. Indeed, it has previously been noted that New Zealand should be doing more to emphasize its own unique place in terms of quality (New Zealand Pinot finds its place):

In 2023, New Zealand was the sixth largest exporter of wine in the world by value; by volume it was the 11th. The US remains its number one market, largely due to its thirst for Sauvignon Blanc ... Eric Asimov, perhaps bravely, furthered that New Zealand needs to do more to promote its product and engage more with sommeliers and importers ... He concluded that by promoting its own tremendous story, New Zealand Pinot Noir will then find its place in the world.

On the other hand, it has also been suggest that: The next great Chardonnays are from New Zealand. In particular:

New Zealand has been producing Chardonnay for decades, but quality examples of this wine are on the rise from both islands ... In fact, it was the most-planted variety in New Zealand in the 1990s. Sauvignon Blanc may now rule when it comes to quantity, but the quality of Chardonnay is on its own steep incline.

Interestingly, in self-deprecating style, it has also been suggested that fine wine is perhaps not what New Zealand should be emphasizing (Leading NZ producer to move away from fine wine). Two Felton Road wines are in the list of the top ten most-searched wines (8: Felton Road Bannockburn Pinot Noir; 9: Felton Road Block 5 Pinot Noir). However, their producer has noted:

“The whole notion of fine wine is based around over-priced snobbery,” declared Felton Road owner and vigneron Nigel Greening during a panel discussion at the Pinot conference held in Christchurch between 11–13 February ... From here on, he added, Felton Road is “uncomfortable belonging to the fine wine sphere.”

Mind you, the same article also notes:

Felton Road is no stranger to fine wine. One of Central Otago’s leading producers, it commands impressive prices globally for its organic and biodynamic wines. One of just a handful of producers to make Pinot Noir exclusively from Bannockburn, New Zealand’s latest GI, which became a protected region on 1 February 2022, Felton Road also crafts premium Chardonnay and Riesling from three vineyards in this coveted spot on the South Island.

So, as a conclusion, pay attention from now on — an increase in New Zealand web searches for wines will indicate that you are doing so. But look for the affordable stuff (see US imports here: Can you tell the difference between Australia and New Zealand wine?).

As a final aside, we could look at the critics scores for the 40 Most Popular American Products (ie. the most-searched-for wines). Here, in this second graph, we can see that there is a very distinct increasing relationship between score and price. Personally, I could not afford any of the wines with scores >91 points. This is not true for either the Australia or New Zealand wines (graphed above), where I could afford most of the wines with these scores.

Current opinions and trends in the US wine market

The wine industry is having a hard time at the moment, what with: Geopolitics, trade wars and Gen Z. After all, according to Gallup Polls (Alcohol consumption increasingly viewed as unhealthy in U.S.): 59 % of 18–34 year-olds admit to drinking alcohol (decreasing continually this century), but 69 % of 35–54 yo (keeping steady), and 58 % of 55> yo. It might thus be time in this blog to stand back a bit, and look at the actual wine drinkers themselves.

Wine lovers are not part of an elite. Not every car driver needs to own a Rolls Royce or a Lamborghini, and not every resident needs to inhabit a roof-top apartment or a cliff-top mansion. Similarly, not every wine-drinker needs to consume an exclusive vintage. These are all status symbols for the rich.

Too much of the wine literature focuses on “the best” (intended for “true wine lovers”), not simply the above-average (The price of exclusivity: how wine lost its everyday appeal). Wine is often made into the star, a thing that people need to revere (“wine speaks to us”), rather than being created simply for pleasure. So, wine is not an elitist pursuit (not status), nor is it an unhealthy one – in both cases provided it is conducted in moderation.

Good wines are not inaccessible to my peers, provided we know where to look for them. The returns will re-pay even a small amount of effort. All we need is that the bottle contents should match the price, and choosing the latter thus chooses the former — the younger people need to be told this, and especially this. Even cheap wine can be interesting, depending on its origin; however, quality does cost money, and must be paid for.

So, now seems like a good time to look at some market trends in the United States wine industry. In the past, consumers have traditionally gone through their 20s into their 30s, and then they have naturally transitioned to wine — this doesn’t seem to be happening now. Mind you, it is repeatedly said that the modern trend is to drink less but drink better.

That said, we could start with the change in average bottle price 2013–2024, as shown above (from: Sovos ShipCompliant and WineBusiness Analytics 2025):

In 2024, the average price per bottled shipped increased by 6% to a record $51.20. The continued slowdown in the rate of price increases, which declined from 7% in 2023, 9% in 2022 and 12% in 2021, reflects a broader easing of inflation. However, this increase remains well above the pre-pandemic average annual change — we are told that this is preferentially because the volume of sales of cheaper wines is now declining, rather than the more expensive wines are increasing (2024 Beverage Alcohol Year in Review).

That said, we can also look at the sales growth of premium wineries 2000–2024, as shown above (from: Silicon Valley Bank State of the US Wine Industry Report 2025). This shows a distinct downwards trend, indicating that even the expensive wines are selling much worse, through time. There have been, however, two distinct dips and one peak.

What we have is an obvious set of evolving social norms (What if we didn't turn into our parents?), and a growing focus on health and wellness, rather than on the fanciness of the wine itself. We can see this by looking at various parts of this report: Colangelo Partners U.S. Wine Market Trends and Challenges. I will do this now.

We can start by looking at what people think about wine’s effect on their health and well-being, for the different age groups, as shown above. Wine is seen to have a notable effect for all groups, but it is the oldies (my group!) who detect the biggest effect, especially on their well-being.

Looking in more detail, we can see what these effects are thought to be, as shown above, for the three groups. Apparently wine is not really part of a healthy diet, although it has been historically important, and it does go with food (wine is always best consumed with food, otherwise you risk becoming an alcoholic). The older people are apparently much more amenable to wine consumption.

In terms of actions, the younger people do express their intent to participate in Dry January, and have done so in the past, as shown above. The older groups are much less keen (and I would definitely fit into my oldest age group). By comparison, apparently 55% of a survey of French consumers declared a willingness to abstain from alcohol in January, but ultimately only 18% declared that they had succeeded (The growth of NOLO in France). There are, of course, good reasons for not drying out your January (Yes, you can drink without guilt).

More seriously, some people have taken the recent WHO guidelines earnestly, as shown above, especially among the younger people. We older people, of course, do not (Harvard researchers and leading statistician stand up to the WHO), and things are not so simple (The complex case of moderate drinking). However, as Louis Pasteur famously noted: “Wine is the most healthful and most hygienic of beverages.”

Finally, it is worth noting other risky behavior apparently carried out, for the various age groups, as shown in the table above. It seems to me, given this, that wine is the least of their likely health problems. Eating junk food cannot be good for you; and coming from Australia, as I do, we know to put on sunscreen, or at least wear a hat (the sun is a bigger cancer risk than either red or white wine: Red vs. white wine: New study finds little difference in overall cancer risk).

Anyway, that is what some of the opinions in the wine market in the USA look like just now. Interest in wine is declining (Wine sales slipping in US as more Americans leave alcohol behind); and at the entry level, quality wines are disappearing (The cost of premiumisation). Younger people have also been starting to look more closely at ready-to-drink (RTD) concoctions based on wine (The wine-based RTDs we are too embarrassed to talk about).

We have also apparently been failing to communicate that we enjoy wine (Rediscovering the fun in wine), except perhaps through the non-educators on TikTok or Instagram (The role of wine influencers). Instead of Dry January, we have Come Over October and Share & Pair Sundays. Or, as the French campaign of 1933 noted: “Drink wine, live joyfully”. Moreover: Wine industry leaders look on the bright side; and indeed the 2024 California Grape Crush Report shows the lightest crop in 20 years, which will help address the current over-supply of U.S. wine.

Given all of this, we have apparently been making too much wine for quite some time, but we have only recently woken up to this idea (The 2025 wine industry wake-up call). We need to either reduce vineyard area or create wine demand (eg. Young adults find restaurant wine lists uninspiring). Not only do younger people tend to drink less than older ones, they lean toward lighter wines, they buy less for status and more for taste, and they are more open to new products (Year of the Snake bites for China wine).

We could perhaps take a hint from the Champagne houses, which have focused on making and offering products that their target consumers will enjoy and want to buy again, rather than trying to educate consumers about wine as a complicated accompaniment to food (Robert Joseph). That is, we need to see the importance of embracing curiosity and telling the story of wine (Alecia Moore: Pink). We also need to refocus from the concept of physical health to one of emotional wellness — from wine we get flavor, enjoyment, culture (With its health halo dimmed, wine needs new ways to win over drinkers). Hint: make consumers smile and they are more likely to engage with your brand (Tim Akin). All of these points were emphasized and amplified at the recent Unified Wine and Grape Symposium (Stressed and worried, young people need wine).

So, as a finish, this might also be “an opportune time to talk to buyers and experts about what they think wine, and wine enjoyment, might look like in the next 50 years” (The future of wine: what might the next 50 years have in store?). Presumably, given the interest shown above in diets, one of the most obvious innovations will be ingredient and nutrition labels for wine, as in the European Union (Notes of...fish bladder?!) and increasingly in the USA (Wineries promote transparency by adding ingredients lists). More seriously, some countries either already have cancer warnings or are considering them (Should Australia mandate cancer warnings for alcoholic drinks?).

Recent study shows that alcohol does have an important benefit in older age

This post is about alcohol, dementia and old age. There is a new research report that concludes that the occurrence of dementia is the lowest among people with moderate alcohol consumption, and the risk is higher among those who never drink or who drink excessively.

But, to set the scene, my wife spent a Monday recently in a hospital, being examined some of the time, but mostly just sitting there waiting (I kept her company). I then did exactly the same thing myself on the Tuesday (and she accompanied me). In my wife’s case they said: “It will be okay”, and so far they have been right. However, in my case they gave me some pills to take 3 times per day, every day for the rest of my life. These are the outcomes of getting older — back in the old days we didn’t make it, to get any older, but these days we slowly undergo physical and mental degeneration for quite a long while.

In this regard, old age is acknowledged to be the most important predictor of the syndrome known as dementia (a general decline in cognitive abilities affecting one's ability to perform everyday activities). Therefore the number of people living with this condition is expected to grow, along with the number of old adults. It should be obvious, then, that detecting this as far ahead as possible will help us (family, friends, colleagues, community, society) cope with the situation as best we can.

To this end, a recent report appeared:

Identifying early predictors of cognitive impairment and dementia in a large

nationally representative U.S. sample. Rand Research Report 2024 RR-A3207-1

It’s relevance to us in this blog should be obvious: alcohol is often implicated in cases of dementia. Well, this report makes it clear that alcohol does indeed play a potential role, but not in the way you may have suspected — there is good news aplenty.

Let’s start with what this study is, since we know that it is not a scientific experiment. It is simply a survey in which people answer questions and are measured in various ways. So, it is the quality of the surveying that matters, in terms of its size and how well it represents the intended population. According to the authors:

The data for this study come from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a United States nationally representative, biennial longitudinal survey of adults over age 50. The first wave was conducted in 1992 with a target population of the cohorts born in 1931 through 1941. Older cohorts and a younger cohort (born in 1942 through 1947) were added in 1998 [cohort = wave], so that the 1998 study represented the population born in 1947 or earlier. Since 1998, refresher cohorts of 51- to 56-year-olds have been added to the HRS every six years to maintain a population representation of adults ages 51 and older. The sample includes about 20,000 individuals per wave; more than 45,000 individuals have participated in the HRS since its inception.

This sounds pretty darned good to me — better than most such surveys. Their objective is clear:

In this report, we aim to identify predictors of dementia and cognitive impairment for individuals in the United States up to 20 years in advance using the cognition and dementia measures from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

So, the HRS already has within it “a validated probabilistic measure of dementia and cognitive impairment that was developed in prior research”, so that each person has been evaluated for cognitive ability. The HRS then:

allows us to evaluate the predictive power of many potential dementia risk factors, such as demographics, socioeconomic status (SES), labor-market measures, lifestyle and health behaviors (such as exercising and smoking), subjectively reported and objectively measured health, genes, parental health, cognitive abilities, and psychosocial factors (such as personality traits, social activities, and loneliness). We estimate how these factors predict cognitive impairment and dementia of individuals two, four, and twenty years after age 60.

So, that idea should be clear, from this here figure. The authors used their fancy univariate and multivariate analyses to try to work out how each of 181 potential risk factors, measured now, relates to developing dementia at a later age: “dementia prevalence among persons approximately age 80 according to their observed characteristics when they were about age 60”.

The report itself is quite readable, and you should consult it if you are interested in learning about all of the relevant factors they detected. For example:

In terms of explained variation, an individual’s baseline cognitive abilities, health, and functional limitations were the strongest predictors of dementia, whereas parental health, family size, marital history, and demographics were the weakest ones.

However, here we are interested in alcohol, which does make a suitable appearance:

Alcohol consumption is also predictive of dementia incidence; the incidence and prevalence of dementia are the lowest among those with moderate alcohol consumption, and the risk is elevated among those who never drink or who drink excessively. We found the same patterns in both sex groups and in all three dementia models that we considered.

This remarkable observation is shown in the next graph. This graph shows the males in the left pair of graphs and the females in the right pair. The top pair shows the effect of moderate exercise, for comparison, and the bottom pair shows the effect of alcohol intake. Each individual graph shows five possible situations (horizontally), and the rate of dementia associated with it (vertically).

So, to take exercise for men, as an example you should be familiar with: as the incidence of exercise decreases from left to right, the incidence of dementia increases. Or put around the other way, as exercise increases dementia decreases. You do not have all be told that exercise is good for you, but here it is one clear example.

Now look at alcohol. For both men and women, the highest incidence of dementia is among people who do not drink alcohol at all. For both men and women, the lowest incidence of dementia is among people who do have only one drink (or a couple of drinks) at a time. However, further increasing alcohol intake beyond this does increase the incidence of dementia — remember, five drinks at one time is a whole bottle of wine!

So, what people have been saying for years, that a little bit of alcohol is good for you, actually turns out to be true in this study.

The authors are moderate but clear:

Alcohol consumption is predictive of dementia incidence; the incidence and prevalence of dementia are the lowest among those with moderate alcohol consumption, and the risk is elevated among those who never drink or who drink excessively. We found the same patterns in both sex groups and in all three dementia models that we considered ... The lifestyle and health behavior predictors are noteworthy because they are modifiable risk factors and can be controlled by the individual.

Based on their whole analysis, they note:

We found strong associations between the outcomes and several modifiable risk factors. Therefore, our results suggest that there might be scope for slowing cognitive decline and dementia among at-risk people through behavioral changes and interventions. Such lifestyle modifications could be achieved by individuals taking the initiative to make such necessary changes, and public policy could also play an important role.

Our results suggest that it might be beneficial for maintaining cognitive health to exercise at least sometimes, even if it is only light physical activity, such as walking. Consuming alcohol in moderation, working longer, and engaging in hobbies and novel information activities after retirement are also associated with a lower risk of developing dementia. Similarly, maintaining good physical health is associated with reduced dementia incidence, which suggests that adopting a healthy lifestyle might be beneficial not only for general health but also for brain health ...

All these findings point toward the importance for policymakers and other stakeholders to promote healthy behaviors in the population and to strengthen individuals’ access to quality health care.

To this latter end, getting the bureaucrats’ alcohol-consumption ideas right is important. It seems that the World Health Organisation, and a number of other national and international bodies, have not yet got it right, as they have recently come out strongly against alcohol. The basic issue is that we cannot do proper scientific experiments (where we manipulate people’s behavior) to study the relevant social situations critically. All we can do is look at large databases, of which the one discussed here seems to be an important one.

The WHO is making a mistake about state-owned alcohol retailers

Last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a new report:

Nordic alcohol monopolies protect public health

This continues the current WHO anti-alcohol campaign, apparently heading back towards the days of Prohibition, or something like it. Their online announcement will give you an idea of their tone:

• WHO highlights Nordic alcohol monopolies as a comprehensive model for reducing alcohol consumption and harm

WHO has released a new report highlighting the Nordic alcohol monopolies as an effective model for reducing alcohol consumption and harm. Unlike commercial alcohol sales systems, these state-owned monopolies operate with a public health mandate, restricting availability and limiting the influence of private profit interests. Countries like Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the Faroe Islands have maintained relatively low alcohol consumption levels, despite being part of a region historically known for heavy drinking and related harms.

So, their basic point is that retail alcohol monopolies can be an effective way to reduce alcohol consumption and harm. By removing the private profit motive of sales, monopolies often have:

• fewer outlets
• shorter hours of sale
• no advertising and promotion.

I should comment on this because I seem to be the only person regularly blogging about the wine industry, and who actually has personal experience of a state-owned Nordic / Scandinavian alcohol retailer. Also, I should compare this with the situation in the USA and Canada.

The WHO claim is that they have compiled some data that support their current agenda against alcohol. One example is shown in the graph below, looking at alcohol per capita consumption (APC) in the various countries. The Nordic countries have smaller APC than most of the other European countries.

However, the WHO have not looked at how the “government monopolies” actually behave, in practice. They may once have behaved the way WHO imagines, but that was decades ago. My own experience is of Systembolaget in Sweden, for the past quarter of a century (I also have experience of Australia), where the Swedes are dedicated to providing excellent customer service.

My own personal experience of Systembolaget includes:

• it is not closely supervised by the government, but acts as an independent retailer that just happens to be owned by the government (eg. it has recently expanded its opening hours)
• if you can import it then they will sell it, although you may have to order it (and wait a few days for delivery) rather than them always stocking it on their shop shelves
• if you can pay for it then they will sell it to you, unless you are clearly intoxicated at the time or are under-age
• they have plenty of easily accessible shops
• only when the importer runs out does supply of a product end.

Systembolaget currently lists as being available nationally: 15,251 wines, 4,067 beers, 5,272 spirits, 419 cider etc, and 170 alcohol-free drinks. This is hardly a limit on supply, for a country of 10.5 million people.

I have written quite a few blog posts on this situation, including the following:

An explanation of the situation:

Why are there wine monopolies in Scandinavia?

Product availability:

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

The prices of alcohol:

Why is wine often cheaper in Sweden than elsewhere?
Is Scandinavia currently the most attractive wine export market?

Availability of alcohol from elsewhere within the European Union (EU):

Sweden is not actually restricted to a government alcohol retail monopoly

Similarity to alcohol availability elsewhere in the world:

Why does the world have Three-Tier systems for alcohol supply?

Not everything is necessarily perfect, of course:

My annoyances with my alcohol monopoly

While on the point of alcohol sales in the rest of the EU, looking at the above graph, I would ask the obvious question: what about Croatia, Malta, Cyprus, and especially Italy and Greece? It is not like these countries don’t produce lots of alcohol, including wine, beer and spirits, and sell them both nationally and internationally. The locals apparently consume less alcohol per person than the Nordic countries, according to the graph, without government ownership of retail. Also, Denmark should be noted in this list as a Scandinavian country, but their government does not own the alcohol retail.

More to the point, there was a research report published last year (Classifying national drinking patterns in Europe between 2000 and 2019), which looked at drinking patterns within the different countries of Europe four times this century, and the changes in drinking behavior during that time make a mockery of the one-time-only analysis of the WHO.

Finally, this whole issue undervalues the fact that, as alternative examples, both the USA and Canada also have states and provinces with partial or complete government ownership of alcohol retail. This is mentioned in the report as an alternative to Prohibition but not elaborated upon; and it hardly differs from the Nordic countries.

For Canada you can read: Alcoholic drinks in Canada. For the USA, you can read Alcoholic beverage control state, which lists the relevant states:

Alcoholic beverage control states, generally called control states, less often ABC states, are 17 states in the United States that have state monopolies over the wholesaling or retailing of some or all categories of alcoholic beverages, such as beer, wine, and distilled spirits.

Mind you, the United States continues to be the top global market for wine consumption, and for the USA there is pressure on the current retail situation:

Retailer DtC wine shipping: the time has come
Poll: NYers want wine in grocery stores

So, WHO’s anti-alcohol campaign seems to have led to some mis-understanding about the real situation among the countries of both Europe and North America. Unfortunately, they may not need to continue their campaign for long, because APC has been decreasing in many markets worldwide, no matter what the retail structure (What’s driving wine’s structural decline?). Nevertheless, Current medical evidence says that wine is not harmful in small doses.