|
Responsibly Communicating The Health
Benefits of Wine Throughout the mass
media, consumers are hearing about the
possible health benefits of wine
consumption. Wine marketers must walk fine
line in discussing the topic. Some outsiders
view the industry as a pariah and would
rather hear nothing of the subject. While at
the other extreme are those in the trade who
read any bit of positive news demonstrating
the health benefits of wine as a green light
to encourage everyone to lift a glass and
then some.
There’s a balance to be achieved: “The
commercial interest of the trade as a whole
is for alcohol consumers to drink regularly
but moderately into a very long old age… If
anyone in the trade believes that
encouraging maximum drinking per session is
more profitable…they are simply not
commercially literate” (Sutton 2006, p. 7).
Wineries must be judicious and
contemplate seriously the messages they send
to consumers. While Vally and Thompson’s
research shows that “wine triggers allergic
reaction in only a small percentage of
sulfite-sensitive asthmatics” (Van Zanten
2006, p.56), you wouldn’t want to own a
winery making the 10:00 o’clock news for
encouraging an unknown sensitive asthmatic
to imbibe for the health benefits. Likewise,
some potential alcoholics are not aware of
their sensitivity to the disease.
The Dangers of Touting the Benefits
Anytime the wine industry is too
enthusiastic in its promotion of the
potential health benefits of wine there is a
risk of fanning the flames of the
neo-prohibitionist fire. Many in the wine
industry dismiss prohibition as a quaint
relic of the past, yet neo-prohibitionist
forces are at work today.
While full scale prohibition will likely
never return in the United States,
fragmented prohibition exists throughout the
country, a consequence of giving every state
the right to establish its own alcoholic
beverage laws in exchange for repealing the
Volstead Act. There is a hodgepodge of
restrictions concerning days and hours of
sale, sales outlets, and the battle over
direct shipping from wineries to consumers.
“The legacy of Prohibition has made it
extremely difficult to promote and sell wine
across the country” (Anon 1999, p. 104).
I grew up in Pennsylvania where I could
only purchase wine in a state run store,
from civil servants who may or may not have
taken an interest in wine. And I could never
buy wine on Sundays. The lack of an open
market meant that a less than adequate
selection of wine from around the world was
the norm in all but the most urban State
Stores. It is this experience which informs
my view that wine marketers must tread
lightly so as to avoid a backlash.
“Neo-prohibitionists are seek to outlaw
direct wine sales via the Internet,
conjuring up visions of teenage rampages
fuelled by cases of Californian Zinfandel”
(Anon 1999, p. 104 ). The US alcoholic
beverage wholesalers lobby has been
complicit in this fear mongering by
maintaining the pretence of protecting
minors from purchasing wine. They state
that: “alcohol control systems provide for
controlled access to prevent minors from
obtaining alcohol; retailers engaged in
face-to-face transactions are better able
ensure minors do not purchase alcohol” (Wine
& Spirits Wholesales of America 2006). This
position is repeated in every news story
about direct shipping and as a consequence
many consumers have come to believe it.
Head in the Sand
Even when members of the wine industry
encourage moderate and responsible
consumption, the message is treacherous to
communicate: “We are not seen in that light
by the media and this is something that we
have to live with whilst doing our best to
encourage moderation” (Sutton 2006, p. 7).
Some argue that in the absence of
conclusive proof and with the danger of a
backlash, steering well clear of the issue
is the best option. It seems that an open
discussion or even the suggestion that wine
might be part of a healthy lifestyle is
tantamount to billboard adverts in the
schoolyard.
While doing nothing is a safer legal
option for the wine industry, it does not
take advantage of the benefits to be gained
by a responsible mention of the current
scientific findings.
‘Head in the Sand’ was the de facto
position of the U.S. Government for years.
“Since 1989, every bottle of beer, wine, and
liquor sold in the United States has carried
a two-part government warning that is by now
almost as familiar as the bar code: "(1)
According to the surgeon general, women
should not drink alcoholic beverages during
pregnancy because of the risk of birth
defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic
beverages impairs your ability to drive a
car or operate machinery, and may cause
health problems” (Peele 1999, p. 52).
In a major shift and a positive one for
wine producers, the USDHHS and USDA included
the following recommendation in the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans 2005: “Moderate
alcohol consumption may have beneficial
health effects in some individuals. In
middle-aged and older adults, a daily intake
of one to two alcoholic beverages per day is
associated with the lowest all-cause
mortality. More specifically, compared to
non-drinkers, adults who consume one to two
alcoholic beverages a day appear to have a
lower risk of coronary heart disease” (USDHHS
2005, pp. 43-44).
“The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans [later] eliminated language
referring to the recommendation of drinking
with meals. Furthermore, the recently
released U.S. Food Guide Pyramid does not
even include any prominent mention of
drinking in moderation or with meals” (Holmgren
2006, p. 72).
Consult Your Doctor
“There have been many hints from
pathologists’ autopsy studies as early as
1904 indicating an inverse relationship
between coronary atherosclerosis and the
presence of alcoholic cirrhosis or alcoholic
cardiomyopathy (de Lorimier 2000, p. 357).
The link between alcohol consumption and
benefits for the cardiovascular system
gained prominent awareness in America with a
piece on the news program, 60 Minutes in the
early 1990s. “The ‘French Paradox’ was the
discovery that despite their
foie-gras-scoffing, Gauloise-smoking
lifestyle, the French live longer and suffer
less heart disease than the Americans (Anon
1999, p. 104).
“The physician is often the person best
qualified to synthesize the relevant
information and give sound advice to his or
her patient. Prevention as well as treatment
of disease has always been a prime
objective” (Ecker & Klatky 2001).
Yet physicians, like wine makers and
marketers, walk a fine line. “Physicians
find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis
regarding alcohol consumption, conflicted by
information about benefits of moderate
drinking and the manifest misery which
alcoholism causes. Many decide simply to
ignore the subject. Others choose a "one
size fits all" course, advising reduced
drinking or abstinence because of alcohol's
potential for harm. Such approaches might
potentially be harmful to the health of some
individuals. They are inadequate in light of
current epidemiological data about health
effects of alcohol” (Ecker & Klatky 2001).
Representatives of the wine industry
adopted the ‘Consult Your Doctor’ approach
in its negotiations with the U. S.
Government. “[In 1999], the BATF [today the
TTB] finally approved the Wine Institute's
language, along with a label from
California's Laurel Glen Winery that urged
consumers to "consult your family doctor
about the health effects of wine
consumption" (Peele 1999, p. 53).
The label changes left the industry open
to accusations of being as mercenary and
self-serving as the tobacco industry.
“Although critics charge the labels are used
by the wine industry as a marketing tool to
sell more wine, De Luca [of the Wine
Institute at that time] said that’s not
true. Few wineries actually use the labels
and at least one government study found that
88 percent of consumers pay no attention to
the health labels, said De Luca” (Tesconi
2000, p. A5)
The storm did not abate and a moratorium
was imposed on the approval of wine labels
mentioning possible health benefits. It was
not until 2003 that the moratorium was
lifted on the TTB’s “approval of
health-related directional statements, such
as a wine label referring consumers to the
U.S. Government's "Dietary Guidelines for
Americans" to learn the health effects of
wine consumption or to their family doctors
for such information. The TTB determined
that wine, beer and spirits could carry
directional health statements, provided a
disclaimer is included such as ‘This
statement should not encourage you to drink
or increase your alcohol consumption" (Wine
Institute 2003).
Advocate a Healthy Lifestyle
In ‘Growing the Consumer Base’, Larry
Lockshin recapped an analysis he had done
for the Australian Winemakers’ Federation
Wine Marketing Reference Committee. In his
list of potential drivers of increased
global wine consumption, he included the
driver ‘health awareness’ under the heading
‘Lifestyle shifts in favour of wine’ (Lockshin,
2001, p. 78).
“It may be that the potential benefits of
moderate wine consumption with a balanced
food intake and healthy life-style are
inseparably intertwined” (van Zanten 2006,
p. 97).
“Emerging research has also discovered
that the pattern of drinking with food may
be of significant benefit. Holmgren also
noted the following important research
findings from the last year, which underline
the importance of consuming wine with food,
moderate wine consumption, a healthy diet
and a healthy lifestyle:
“A recent study from the State
University of New York at Buffalo found
that a woman drinking alone and not
eating is more likely to be causing
damage to her liver than a woman
drinking the same amount while dining
with a friend” (Holmgren 2006, p. 71).
“Moderate drinkers were found to be
in overall better health than
non-drinkers, according to a U.S. study
conducted by Oregon Health and Science
University, in collaboration with the
Kaiser Permanente, Centre for Health
Research in Portland” (Holmgren 2006, p.
70).
“Furthermore, the investigators
suggested they did not believe that
better health is a result of moderate
drinking, but that it has been reported
that moderate drinkers tend to lead
healthier and more balanced
lifestyles…In the most recent research
study published in the British Medical
Journal, the Mediterranean diet is
associated with longer life expectancy
among elderly Europeans. The
Mediterranean diet is characterized by a
high intake of vegetables, legumes,
fruits and cereals; a moderate to high
intake of fish; a low intake of
saturated fats but high intake of
unsaturated fats, particularly olive
oil; a low intake of dairy products and
meat and a modest intake of alcohol,
mostly as wine” (Holmgren 2006, pp.
70-71).
“Another recent study investigated
the single and combined health effect of
dietary and lifestyle factors in a
European population Adhering to a
Mediterranean diet, moderate alcohol
use, physical activity and non-smoking
were associated with a lower risk of
all-cause mortality” (Holmgren 2006, p.
71).
It’s Not Hard Liquor
Another approach that most new world
producers will not use in their press
releases, though will certainly benefit
from, is the ‘At least it’s not hard liquor’
campaign. “With the Chinese Government’s
campaign to promote the health benefits of
moderate wine consumption, against
grain-based alcoholic drinks, the demand for
low-alcohol red wine is on the rise in
China’s richer coastal areas” (Qin, 2004, p.
104).
The science is evolving
Just when wine marketers (and the author
of this paper) thought that enough evidence
has been accumulated, another study muddies
the subject. Assumptions and methodology
behind the studies showing a positive
benefit to wine consumption, such as in the
following study, are coming under fire: “In
a Danish study, the investigators concluded,
‘persons with stable patterns of light and
moderate alcohol intake had the lowest
all-cause mortality” (Holmgren 2006, p. 70).
“The long-held belief that moderate
drinking reduces risk of a heart attack is
based on flawed data and is most likely
wrong…’Our results suggest that light
drinking is a sign of good health, and not
necessarily its cause’, said epidemiologist
Kaye Fillmore of the UC San Francisco School
of Nursing” (Maugh II 2006, p. A11).
“The new findings…are an outgrowth of
ideas first proposed 15 years ago by Dr.
A.G. Shaper of the Royal Free Hospital
School of Medicine in London. In his studies
on heart disease and death, Shaper observed
that many people who abstained from alcohol
did so because of advancing age, serious
illness or the use of drugs whose effects
were altered by alcohol. He has warned since
then that counting such people as abstainers
in alcohol studies would bias the results
because their increased likelihood of
disease and death was unrelated to the fact
that they didn’t drink” (Maugh II 2006, p.
A11).
“Fillmore’s team identified 54 papers
that examined the health effects of
drinking…Only seven of the studies had only
long-term abstainers in that group…All seven
of those studies showed no benefit from
moderate drinking” (Maugh II 2006, p. A11).
Conclusion
Responsibly communicating the claimed
health benefits of wine is fraught with
difficulty even for the best intentioned
wine marketer. The science is still
evolving. While some people in the wine
industry want to sell wine on its health
benefits, others find it best to steer clear
of the subject for today. Yet there is fine
line that can be walked, which balances the
understanding that wine can be both
dangerous and beneficial at the same time.
Check out the following sources for
more information on the subject:
(i) Ambler, T. 1996,
‘Can Alcohol Misuse be Reduced by
Banning Advertising’? International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15: 2, pp.
167-175.
(ii) Anon 1999, ‘WINE SURVEY – The
disappearing drinker’, The Economist
(US), Vol 353, pp. 104-105.
(iii) de Lorimier, A. 2000, ‘Wine and
Health’, The American Journal of
Surgery, Vol. 180, pp. 357-361.
(iv) Ecker, R. & Klatsky, A. 2001,
‘Doctor, Should I Have A Drink? An
Algorithm for Health Professionals’,
Presented at the New York Academy of
Sciences conference, Alcohol and Wine in
Health and Disease, Palo Alto,
California.
(v) Holmgren, E. 2006, ‘Does The Pattern
of Drinking Matter?’, Wines & Vines,
Vol. 87(2), pp. 70-72.
(vi) Lockshin, L. 2001, ‘Growing the
Consumer Base’, Australian and New
Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol
16(3), May-June, pp. 77-78.
(vii) Maugh II, T. 2006, ‘Study
questions health benefits of drinking’,
Press Democrat, 30 March, p. A11).
(viii) Peele, S. 1999, ‘Bottle battle:
The latest fight over wine labels is
part of the ongoing struggle between
wets and drys’, Reason, October, pp.
52-54.
(ix) Qin, Y. 2004, ‘Australian Wine
Exports: Can They Prosper in China?’,
The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower
& Winemaker, no. 488, September, pp.
104-108.
(x) Sutton, B. 2006, ‘Balancing Moderate
Drinking with Social and Responsibility
Issues’, Alcohol and Health, Current
Evidence, Future Trends, AIM Forum,
March, hosted by the Wine and Spirit
Education Trust, Bermondsey, England.
(xi) Teconi, T. 2000, ‘Health labels on
wine still hot issue’, Press Democrat,
pp. A1 & A5.
(xii) U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and U.S. Department of
Agriculture 2005, Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 6th Edition, Washington, DC,
pp. 43-45.
(xiii) Unwin, T. 1992, ‘Images of
alcohol: perceptions and the influence
of advertising’, Journal of Wine
Research, 3(3), pp. 205-233.
(xiv) van Zanten, R. 2006, Wine and
Society, Study Guide, University of
Adelaide, Adelaide.
(xv) van Zanten, R. 2006b, Wine and
Society, Course Information, University
of Adelaide, Adelaide.
(xvi) Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of
America, ‘Direct Shipment of Alcohol to
Consumers’, [Online, accessed 3 March,
2006]. URL: http://wswa.org/public/policy/direct.html
(xvii) Wine Institute 2003, ‘Wine
Institute Commends Treasury Department’s
Decision to Lift Moratorium on
Health-Related Directional Statements’,
[Online, accessed 5 March, 2006]. URL:
http://www.wineinstitute.org/communications/statistics/ttb_moratorium.htm
.
|
