Skip to main content

Why the proposed ban on direct wine shipping would be harmful to public health

A number of convoluted laws came into place following prohibition, many of which are based on the same faulty reasoning that led to curbs on alcohol sales in the first place. Although wine remained somewhat available during prohibition (people took a lot of sacramental wine it seems), a ban on direct shipping to consumers remained for a number of years. These regulations varied from state to state, with many states allowing wineries to ship directly to their customers within the state, but gradually a system of reciprocity between states with such allowances developed and was confirmed in a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. An echo of prohibition rang out this year however with the proposal in Congress (H.R. 5034) to ban such sales.


Unsurprisingly, the bill was put forth by wholesalers, who would stand to lose by being bypassed. But rather than draw attention to the real reasons behind the proposal, the lobbying campaign in support of it trots out the same tired public health arguments that harken back to a bygone era. Children and minors will have easier access to alcohol, they say, and direct shipping encourages alcohol abuse. As if minors are going to order boutique wines from small producers, and wait a couple of weeks for it, all the while hoping it will be delivered while their parents aren’t home, and that the shipper won’t demand a signature from someone over 21 as clearly stated on the large heavy box also labeled “contains alcoholic beverages.” If you really believe that, I have to ask what you have been smoking.

So are there public health consequences to direct shipping? If there are, I would place them squarely on the benefit side. People who buy wine direct tend to be interested in the wine for its aesthetic attributes more than its anesthetic properties. There are cheaper and more convenient ways to imbibe. Drinking wine because you enjoy the particular qualities of the wine means that it becomes more like a food, part of a meal, a component of a healthy lifestyle.

More information and resources on this issue at http://freethegrapes.org/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Revisiting resveratrol: new findings rekindle anti-aging debate

Just when we thought the bloom was off the rosé for resveratrol, the anti-oxidant polyphenol from red wine with multiple anti-aging properties, along comes new research giving life to the debate. But first a bit of background: As I detailed in my book Age Gets Better with Wine , it is well-documented that wine drinkers live longer and have lower rates of many diseases of aging. Much or the credit for this has been given to resveratrol, though there isn’t nearly enough of it in wine to explain the effects. Nevertheless, I dubbed it the “miracle molecule” and when it was reported to activate a unique life-extension phenomenon via a genetic trigger called SIRT, an industry was born, led by Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, quickly acquired by pharma giant Glaxo. The hope was that resveratrol science could lead to compounds enabling people to live up to 150 years and with a good quality of life. But alas, researchers from other labs could not duplicate the results, and clinical studies disa...

Should wine labels make health claims?

Winemakers have been in a debate for some years now with the U.S. Department of Treasury's Alcohol, Tax and Trade Bureau (formerly the ATF, for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--yeah, that made a lot of sense) about ingredient listing for wines, particularly since the healthful properties of wine polyphenols such as resveratrol have been widely publicised. A couple of years back, an Oregon pinot noir producer gained approval for a fairly benign claim: "Pinot noir develops a natural defense against botrytis (mold) in our moist, cool climate - the antioxidant resveratrol." Since resveratrol is indeed produced in the skins of grapes subjected to certain environmental stresses such as mold, and Oregon's climate is certifiably moist, it seems a fairly harmless claim. However, the feds simultaneously disallowed placing the same wording on another vintage from the same producer, citing concern about making therapeutic claims on labels or creating "misleading" associa...