“Half of Mankind is done in By alcohol and nicotene. Yet the rest, enjoying neither, Does not live much longer either.” So runs an eloquent verse inscribed on a pub wall in the village of Oberndorf, near Salzberg. Since it was written, indeed quite possibly by Joseph Mohr, the local parish priest who penned ‘Silent Night’, man’s attitude to the usage of these common stimulants and pleasures has developed somewhat. Unfortunately too many people still choose to lump together all forms of drinking with the smoking of tobacco, cannabis and the majority of human vices, known and otherwise. There are clearly two liquor markets – premium and commercial, and they have to be treated differently. The teetotallers only ever refer to ‘alcohol’, as if the wine enthusiast and the beer or spirits addict are to be discussed in the same term. Society doesn’t swallow that, for it doesn’t make sense. Never, as Brian St Pierre says in last May’s issue of the highly-respected English magazine Decanter, do they refer to ‘wine’, ‘beer’ or ‘spirits’. This is clearly discriminatory to wine, seeing that it openly ignores those medically-recognised benefits associated with a sensible consumption of wine. Of the alcohol-related road accidents in California last year 90% had to do with beer, 8% with spirits and a mere 2% with wine. The Australian Wine & Brandy Co-operative Producers Association states that “It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that the reduced death rate attributed to alcohol may be related to increased wine consumption, most of which has been due to increased sales of table wine in soft packs.” The AWBCPA adds that studies in New Zealand, the US and Australia all indicate that beer and its consumers are implicated in road traffic accidents to a greater degree than beer’s share of the consumption of all alcoholic beverages, citing research by DE Berger and JR Snortum (1985) which states “…it is interesting that wine consumption has played a negligible part in producing illegal blood-alcohol analyses in several samples of drivers…” and that “…wine consumption shows an inverse relationship to self-reported automobile accidents after drinking…Our data have shown wine drinkers to be the most responsible of the three beverage groups in their attitudes and behaviour concerning drinking and driving.” The Australian wine industry faces similar pressures to those confronting the wine industry around the world, although they emanate from a different source. Petaluma’s Brian Croser, President of the Australian Winemakers Forum, is convinced that most of the anti-alcohol propaganda to reach the local media stems from those health groups and bureaucracies immediately involved in anti-drug research, which have conveniently chosen to lump all alcoholic beverages, wine included, alongside the more harmful and damaging substances currently illegal in Australia. Croser believes the wine industry is able to put a strong enough case that despite that the last ten years have seen an overall increase in Australia’s wine consumption per capita, there has been a decreased incidence in the harmful effects of alcohol throughout society. “The wine industry would strongly support any research conducted to establish or deny the causal effect of wine in this correlation”, he states, saying that the convenient approach taken by legislators in Australia that “alcohol is alcohol is alcohol” is misleading, and qualifications clearly need to be taken in the case of wine. In his annual general report to the member of the Australian Winemakers Forum, Brian Croser states that “to discriminate against wine is to reject the implication that wine is the most benign of the alcoholic beverages – not because of its strength, but because of the circumstances and quantity in which it is consumed on an individual occasion – with food or in a civilizing environment of a restaurant or home.” Born-again Christians and those representing the more extreme and fundamental factions of the Christian church and a multitude of peripheral religions decry all drinking, seemingly without biblical justification. After all, Christ’s first reported miracle was to convert some 168 gallons of Canaan water into wine – because he was a guest at a wedding reception which had run out of wine! Some party. Legend has it that Joseph awoke late the following morning with a rather pained head. On asking Mary for a glass of water she asked ‘Are you sure?’. ‘Absolutely. Just don’t let that Jesus near it’, came the reply. The ninth chapter of Genesis describes Noah’s immediate activities on descending once more to terra firma, after the floodwaters had subsided. First he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunken, after which he lay ‘uncovered within his tent’. Had not his judicious sons placed a rug over him he would likely have caught pneumonia and not lived to the ripe age of nine hundred and fifty years. And may I remind those connected with the tobacco industry that Noah did not light up a cheroot as well. Wine is clearly an integral part of man’s existence. It is true that we haven’t quite mastered our control of all alcoholic beverages over the last five thousand years, but the antics of an outspoken few shouldn’t interrupt the enjoyment of those who drink wine in moderation every day, enjoy it and lead perfectly normal, responsible and healthy lives. John Betjeman records a typical encounter with an abstainer. “Someone had brought a guest to the high table who was a confirmed teetotaller. At the end of the dinner he was offered a glass of port, and proclaimed in a loud voice ‘I would rather commit adultery than drink a glass of port’. Then, the ancient and revered head of the house broke the silence by saying ‘And who wouldn’t?’ I don’t know whether this is an argument in favour of or against abstinence.” In a personal mission, Californian winemaker and promoter Robert Mondavi, whose work has been integral to the acceptance of wine in the United States and in the development of its wine industry, has decided to emphasise the role of wine in our lives with a cultural defence against the groups that threaten to destroy not only him and his industry but a lifestyle for millions. He has assembled a remarkable panel of scientists and cultural critics, experts in topics ranging from medicine and biology to sociology and religion, whose collective beliefs were that when taken in moderation wine enhances life and offers many positive physiological and metaphysical benefits. By emerging in this manner, with all guns firing, Mondavi has arrived at a dramatically different way of defending wine’s place in society. Those he has gathered around him include Maynard Amerine, the United States’ premier wine scientist; Hugh Johnson, the renowned English wine writer; Solomon Katz, the Professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania; Mark Keller, the Editor Emeritus of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol; Keith I. Marton, the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Pacific-Presbyterian Medical Centre in San Francisco; Angelo Pellegrini, the Professor of English at the University of Washington; Paul Saltman, the Professor of Biology at the University of California (a prominent dietician) and Nina A. Wemyss, from the Cultural Affairs Department of the Robert Mondavi Winery. The campaign was launched at its first Symposium on October 5 in San Francisco, when the panel addressed over two hundred guests. All those listed spoke at the symposium, which is to the first of six to be presented in the U.S. and internationally during this calendar year. Its theme can be summarised by this statement from Mondavi: “Wine is the only beverage that feeds the body, soul and spirit of man and at the same time stimulates the mind. It’s been part of the civilized way of life for more than 6,000 years. It is my intention to tell the full story about the benefits and detriments of wine”. “Wine has been part of the human experience since the beginning of civilization. It has been used as a religious sacrament, as the primary beverage of choice for food and as a source of pleasure and diversion. Common sense tells me wine will be with us indefinitely. Now it is up to us to educate ourselves about what wine really is”. It is interesting to note some of the key issues raised at the symposium. Marton said that “…we have plenty of evidence that the moderate consumption of wine is not harmful”, and went on to add that the use of wine has been “over-medicalised” and that the decision to consume wine is a matter of personal preference. He defined moderate consumption of wine as about two glasses per day. He said that although there is evidence to support that people who consume excessive amounts of alcohol daily have a greater risk of developing cancer, there is “no evidence or only miniscule evidence” to suggest one or two glasses of wine a day are harmful. Paul Saltman, author of The California Nutrition Book, said that wine is unique in that it imparts substances such as iron and copper that are essential to the diet. “Wine is a food, not a mind-altering drug forced on people to solve their problems of stress and despair”, Saltman told the group. In the cold hard light of medical evidence it’s hard to pin genuine health-related accusations on a moderate wine drinker. It is well recorded that a level of around three glasses per day for men, and two for women, is actually of tangible benefit to both, and helps them live happier and longer. However we are aware of the hazards; and if we’re not, it’s clearly a question of education. Some of us may even wrongly attribute unusual medical problems to an intake of alcohol, as Fernand Point suggests in Blue Trout and Black Truffles. ” My knees hurt me,’ he said. ‘They claim I have water in my knees. Ignorants! How can it be water when I drink only Champagne?” Dr Graeme Burtuch, of the Cathcart Ridge Winery, has prepared a document in which he lists why a moderate consumption of wine will benefit most people. In it he illustrates and cites evidence that wine reduces the incidence of coronary disease, prolongs life, provides rare, but significant levels of vitamins and minerals, increases mineral adsorption and aids digestion, relieves tension, will neither induce brain damage nor upset pregnancies and births when taken in moderate amounts. It must be stressed that of course Dr Burtuch recognises how much damage alcohol can cause if taken to abusive levels. No-one in the wine industry would seriously question that proposition. Does the tobacco industry admit as much with its products? And how often does premium wine cause these serious problems? When was the last time you saw a desperate alcoholic swigging a bottle of Yarra Valley chardonnay from a paper bag? Yarra Valley wineries now distribute a bumper sticker saying “Yarra Valley Wine. Drink Less, Drink Better’. The Australian wine industry as a whole has launched a “Enjoy Wine in Moderation’ campaign, which now appears on many wine containers. How do Brown Brothers’ radio advertisements, for example, which helped to educate people about the different varieties of wine and their consumption, create the sort of damage the anti-alcohol lobby and the AMA is up in arms against? I applaud those ads, for they encourage the laudable trend to drink less, but to drink better. The United States, and California in particular, is suffering the burden brought on by anti-alcohol interests more than anyone else. It seems as though some would re-introduce Prohibition there, conveniently forgetting the absolute disaster that it was. The situation in California is far worse than here, but history shows that sooner or later we seem to catch on. The two major lobby groups in the United States are the Mothers Against Drink Driving (MADD) and the Committee for Science In the Public Interest. MADD is quite modern in comparison to its partner, and takes a moderate view towards drinking rather than a total anti-alcohol stance. In actual fact they do not represent the greatest threat to the wine industry. The Committee for Science In the Public Interest is infinitely more sinister, to use the phrase of Mike O’Reilly, the Director of Export for Robert Mondavi Wines. “The message of the CSIPI is that wine itself is essentially unhealthy. It doesn’t take a moral stance on wine like some of the anti-alcohol groups here, but spreads a message that wine will actually damage your health. It refuses to debate issues in public, and carefully uses the media to get its message across”, says O’Reilly. “They’re coming in via the back door, and linking us to the anti-drug problem”. Its two major successes to date have been the inclusion on all wine labels of the poison warning “Sulfites will kill you”, which the wine industry has since managed to reduce to “Contains Sulfites”. These warnings indicate the likely presence in wine of the sulphur compounds used in wine as a preservative against oxidation and spoilage, which have been used in winemaking since the year dot. To date there have only been six recorded deaths in the United States attributable to an excess of sulphur dioxide in food, most of which have been extremely severe asthmatics. Wine is only one of the foodstuffs using sulphur, and the wine industry does not object to the use of this statement on labels, provided the public is able to understand the warnings. Professor Saltman poses the question why the wine industry must put warnings on its product while other food industries do not. We now have food additive numbers on Australian wine labels, covering the same ground. The wine industry’s only objection to their use is that the same government which demanded their placement on labels has yet to fulfill its part of the deal and inform the public what they mean. I frequently meet people who ask why additives have suddenly been used in wine, for many of them had until that stage stopped drinking wine for precisely that reason. That, however, is another story. The main success of the anti-alcohol lobbies in the United States has been in the adoption of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known to the headline writers as Proposition 65. This legislative absurdity, which has been passed through Congress, identifies carcenogenic foodstuffs. In actual fact, of the 13,000 or so known to man, only a few would pass the test. It requires that a hazard notice 12.7 cm square be displayed at each restaurant table very in California. Where ten or more people attend a gathering where alcoholic beverages are served, whether a wine educational tasting or a christening party, one of these malignant warning signs must be prominently posted for all to see. The penalty is a trifling $2500 per day per person “exposed to the hazard”, and private citizens can fatten their bank accounts by reporting violations. It takes Operation Noah to an extent to which Noah himself would have to object. The reason for this is urethane, which is a natural by-product of fermentation. There is one part urethane per millilitre of wine, and 10,000 parts are poisonous to guinea-pigs and humans. In actual fact, there is much more urethane found in strawberries than wine, but seeing this is a natural product (i.e. not a product of fermentation), they slip happily through the net. Proposition 65 began as the Safe Water Act, aimed to guarantee the purity of water drunk by US citizens. Fine and noble start – no problems here. But seeing that water is used in the cleaning of wineries, to wash down equipment and to pump lines clean, the authorities started questioning the ultimate pureness of the wine, and hence the urethane concern. Quite ridiculous, isn’t it? So soon you can expect all bottle of alcoholic beverage in the United States to carry warning labels against cancer, because some scientific wizzkid with the brains of Einstein and the social perception of a nuclear accident discovered that if you gave a guinea-pig a thousand times a normal human intake of alcohol, the poor thing could develop cancer from urethane. In addition, from November 18, 1989, and all wine bottled in the United States must carry a 43-word statement issued by the US Congress reminding would-be consumers that alcohol contributes to the sudden infant death syndrome and can impair one’s ability to operate heavy machinery and drive a car. As you can imagine, “we are bottling day and night right now”, says Mike O’Reilly. I’ll bet he’s not alone. Wine is under seige in Australia and the United States, not to mention Europe. It stands wrongly accused and is able to mount a defence on sound medical, moral and cultural grounds. The insensible forces of restriction and Prohibition are gathering on all sides. I wish them confusion and cold tea.
