Leggi l’articolo in italiano

Pietro Paganini‘s latest article, published in HuffPost, criticizes proposals to regulate wine and beer like tobacco. A simplistic approach that ignores the distinction between consumption and abuse, promoting prohibition rather than awareness.

Read the full article on HuffPost >>> or here below.

The idea that alcoholic beverages should be regulated like tobacco is spreading. In Europe and worldwide, proposals are emerging to limit their consumption, arguing that they are among the main causes of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which in turn are responsible for high mortality rates and healthcare costs.

Alarming labels such as “seriously harms health” or “causes cancer” on bottles and cans, specific taxes, strict restrictions, and even exclusive sales in authorized stores—already in place in Finland and Sweden (a clear violation of the EU single market rules)—are among the proposed solutions, following the classic “one size fits all” approach.

If adopted, these measures will have serious and unintended consequences, restricting individual freedoms and harming the economy, society, and culture. They are based on a simplistic and unfounded idea: that wine and beer are inherently harmful. In reality, the problem is not their consumption but abuse and its underlying causes. When included in a balanced diet, wine and beer can have positive health effects. However, those promoting these restrictions ignore the complexity of social reality: alcohol abuse has deep individual and collective causes that cannot be solved through bans and taxes as prevention tools.

This paternalistic and illiberal vision seeks to replace individual responsibility with top-down imposition. The state wants to decide what is right for citizens, enforcing restrictions instead of focusing on education and awareness. The result? More control, less freedom, and no real benefit. But there’s more: this simplistic and dogmatic approach avoids addressing the real causes of abuse, shifting the blame onto ancient products instead of the social, economic, and cultural conditions that drive excessive consumption.

If wine and beer disappeared from our tables, we wouldn’t have a healthier society—just a poorer one in every sense. Moderate consumers would lose a product with benefits for physical, mental, and social well-being. Those who abuse alcohol would replace it with other substances, equally or more harmful. The economy would take a massive hit: the wine and beer industries are pillars of many regions, deeply connected to geography, traditions, and culture. Eliminating them would mean erasing millennia of history.

Wine and beer have been part of the human diet for over 6,000 years. The Romans refined viticulture and spread its production throughout the Empire. Since then, life expectancy has increased, not decreased. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, recommended wine for wound disinfection and as part of a healthy diet. He stated that “wine is a useful drink for both the healthy and the sick. It should be consumed at the right time, in the right way, and in the right quantities, considering each individual’s constitution”.

Data contradicts the alarmist rhetoric, yet no one talks about it. Since 2010, harmful alcohol consumption and alcohol-related mortality have decreased by 20% globally. In the EU, binge drinking fell by 6.4% between 2014 and 2019. Among young people (ages 15–19), excessive episodic drinking dropped by 15%. Alcohol-attributable deaths in Europe decreased by 16.8% between 2010 and 2019. These numbers dismantle the emergency narrative underpinning the proposed restrictions.

As with all foods, the key is moderation. Aristotle saw it as a fundamental principle, and it is at the core of the Mediterranean diet. The guidelines of the Italian Ministry of Health recommend one glass per day for women and those over 65, and two glasses per day for men. The effects of alcohol vary from person to person, depending on diet, metabolism, and overall health. Imposing rigid rules without considering this complexity is a mistake. Furthermore, quality matters: harm is not only a matter of quantity but also of product characteristics.

Opposing the prohibitionist approach does not mean denying the problems associated with alcohol abuse. It means addressing them with data, science, and common sense. Bans and disguised preventive strategies—such as alarming labels—are not the solution. Knowledge is. Only through awareness can the true foundation of individual freedom be strengthened.

The solution is to promote a balanced lifestyle. Balance varies from person to person and is achieved through knowledge and awareness, not bans and restrictions. Educating citizens on moderation is the only sensible path that has been proven to deliver results.

Read Alimentazione + Scienza = Dieta Mediterranea>>>