We continue today the publication of our experts’ interventions based on scientific studies. It is important to emphasize that what we report is not a personal opinion on the relationship between wine consumption and health, but report studies done internationally.
Generalizing the message “wine is bad for your health” absolutely carries several risks, both communicatively and culturally. While recognizing the intent to protect public health, equating wine (consumed moderately) with other high alcoholic beverages or abusive behavior risks unfairly stigmatizing a pivotal element of the food culture of countries like Italy, without achieving real educational benefits.
The risks of generalizing or stigmatizing communication about wine
From the point of view of scientific and communicative, launching messages that are too drastic-for example, suggesting that even a glass of wine is just as dangerous as hard liquor or a binge drinking episode – can be counterproductive. The public may perceive such statements as alarmist or ideological, reacting with skepticism or rejection.
The history of public health teaches that effective messages are those that are balanced and credible: if all alcohol consumption is portrayed as lethal, we risk losing the attention of those citizens who drink responsibly and who may mistakenly downplay even the true dangers of abuse, feeling unfairly blamed. In other words, too extreme a communication could trivialize the very risk it is intended to highlight, generating habituation in recipients or ideological contrasts. On the contrary, recognize differences and speak with scientific accuracy (e.g., “moderate consumption carries much lower risks than high consumption, and can fit into healthy lifestyles, but still alcohol is not a risk-free substance”) is more honest and more effective in encouraging informed choices.
In addition, there is an important cultural aspect. Wine, in Italy and the Mediterranean area, is not only an alcoholic beverage but represents history, local identity, conviviality and culinary traditions. Equating moderate wine consumption with a harmful “vice” tout court can be perceived as an attack on such traditions, creating social resistance.
The international front
On the international front, there is a split in positions: some experts support the line of “no level of alcohol consumption is safe”, particularly emphasizing the link between even small amounts of alcohol and increased risk of cancer (including common cancers such as breast cancer) who.int. These concerns are real and evidence-based (ethanol is classified by the IARC as a group 1 carcinogen, that is, definitely carcinogenic to humans (who.int). Other specialists, however, urge contextualizing the risk: for example, Significant brain damage appears with massive and prolonged abuse, typical of alcohol addiction, whereas “normal wine consumption, a glass now and then at dinner with friends, may not go so far as to do brain damage” as explained by Prof. Massimo Ciccozzi, an epidemiologist at the Campu Biomedico University in Rome (tg24.sky.it).
On cancers, epidemiologists also distinguish: the risk attributable to alcohol increases in a dose-dependent manner (who.int) and is dramatically higher in abusers, while at moderate levels the increase in absolute risk to the individual remains small. This is not to deny cancer risk even at low doses, but to remember that it should be weighted in the overall context of a person’s health profile. For example, for an individual at high cardiovascular risk, completely eliminating wine might slightly reduce his likelihood of cancer but at the same time deprive him of a factor (moderate red wine consumption) associated with cardiac protection (EHJ 2025). Mature health communication must therefore admit these nuances: presenting moderate wine as “poison” tout court would be perceived as a one-sided message and could alienate part of the public rather than educate them.
Downward homologation
Finally, there is a risk of downward homologation: comparing wine to cigarettes (as done by some commentators by proposing alarmist tobacco-like labels) ignores the fact that, while sharing the presence of harmful substances, there are substantial differences. In the case of tobacco, any level of consumption carries a high risk and there is no moderate use beneficial; in the case of wine, as seen, the pattern of moderate consumption is associated with very different risk profiles. Equating the two messages risks trivializing both. Those who can distinguish will find the similarity ridiculous and tend to ignore the warnings; those who cannot distinguish may even wrongly infer that “then smoking a cigarette once in a while is also okay.”. Avoiding the indiscriminate stigmatization of wine thus also serves to keep the focus where it really matters: on combating abuse and addiction, without unjustifiably eroding culturally ingrained moderate practices.
The vignette used for the opening is by Andrea Vallini, “Escape from Labels,” from the Spirito di Vino (eno)satire contest, edition 2023, Under 35 category, organized by the Movimento Turismo del Vino Friuli Venezia Giulia.
