Who to Listen to on Wine/Health … and Who to Ignore.

When reviewing any information on wine and health, it is important to understand who provided that information and why. There are reliable, unbiased sources … and there are groups that have a pre-conceived bias against alcohol (including wine). Here are my lists of who is a reliable source … who is not … and why.

Why I Categorize Sources as Good or Questionable/Dubious

Good sources: Generally, medical and public health experts are reliable sources, but only if they work at top institutions and have a history of producing sensible and neutral commentary or research. Unfortunately, some public health ‘experts’ fall into my second category below. It’s better if a report or advice is produced by a group of such experts with a diversity of views and expertise. Particularly, look at where the expert works and what their specialty is. Look to see if the advice is nuanced and recognizes the complexity of the issues. Drinking patterns and frequency are just as, if not more, important than overall consumption amounts. Social benefits are also important. One size fits all advice is usually wrong or misleading.

Questionable/Dubious sources: It’s important to identify if the guidance is coming from a person or group that has a history of anti-alcohol activism. You should be particularly wary if the guidance comes from a group who mostly or all have such a background. For example, experts that specialize in addiction or alcohol abuse are unlikely to provide neutral advice. Such folks would be the right people to ask about consumption advice for those with a history of alcohol abuse problems. However, they are not the right people to provide reasonable consumption advice for the vast majority who drink in moderation and do not “abuse” alcohol. It’s particularly concerning when an ‘expert’ has a long professional career built on anti-alcohol activity … if their entire career (and professional income) has been based on this, that should be a red flag for bias. Similarly, media coverage of the issues should be viewed with suspicion when it primarily quotes anti-alcohol advocates and their studies, particularly if the conclusions are simplistic.

Good Sources

1. National Academies Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) – USA

NASEM is a private, non-profit organization created by the US Congress to advise on issues related to science, technology and medicine. Recently, Congress authorized NASEM to advise on alcohol consumption and assembled a broad panel of 14 medical and public health experts to consider the issues. The credentials of that panel were top-notch including representation from some of the leading universities and hospitals across the US (e.g. Harvard, Cornell, Brown, Stanford, Johns Hopkins). That group issued a peer-reviewed report in 2025 that concluded with “moderate certainty” that those who drink in moderation have lower all-cause mortality than those who don’t drink at all. 

2. Harvard Chan School of Public Health – USA

Renowned US university that provides sensible guidance on alcohol and health issues. Here is their guidance on how to balance the risks and benefits of alcohol consumption: Harvard Alcohol Guidance

3. In Defense of Wine (Laura Catena) – USA

Laura Catena is a physician and part of a well-known winemaking family. Her site provides excellent and unbiased guidance on issues related to wine and health. She also provides some excellent analysis on the biased science and why some media coverage is also misleading. Site is here: In Defense of Wine.

4. Drinks Insider – Europe

If you really want to understand the issues and the politics on these issues, the place to head is the Drinks Insider site by Australian journalist, Felicity Carter, who is now based in Germany. Without doubt, she has done the most in-depth and balanced reporting on the issues including interviews with some of the anti-alcohol protaganists.

5. Wine in Moderation – Europe

Wine in Moderation is a social responsibility initiative launched in 2008 by the European wine industry. While it is supported by industry, it provides sensible and smart information and resources here: Wine & Health

Questionable/Dubious Sources 

1. Movendi International – Sweden

Movendi is essentially a temperance/prohibition organization, with a modern overlay. It was originally created in the 19^th century as the “Independent Order of Good Templars”, a fraternal organization dedicated to promoting temperance, which campaigned strongly (and successfully) in favour of Prohibition. You can read about its history on Wikipedia and on their own website. In an attempt to modernize its image, it later changed its name to the “International Organization of Good Templars” and then eventually to “Movendi International”.  

Today, their website has removed most references to its original name and downplays its anti-alcohol roots. However, the constitution of the organization still requires that members pledge themselves to a lifetime of abstinence from alcohol (and drugs). Indeed, the history section of their web site proudly states that the organization’s “dream” is that “the temperance cause really lies at the root of all social and political progression” … a rather stunning declaration when considered in light of other social and political issues. Movendi finances some of its activities by running a lottery in Sweden, which raises a question of hypocrisy: is gambling a more or less significant ‘sin’ than drinking in moderation?

2. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction (CCSA) – Canada

Unfortunately, Canada (my home) is also home to some of the most extreme anti-alcohol advocates and dubious science (most of which is funded by taxpayers). For example, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction (CCSA) produced a dubious report (see why here) in 2023 for Health Canada with a tragi-comic recommendation that drinking should be limited to 2 drinks per week (thankfully, not adopted by Canada’s government). In my view, this group should never have been asked to produce the recommendations. Most of the CCSA’s ‘expert’ panel were addiction professionals or anti-alcohol advocates. Every single one of the CCSA’s purposes which are set out in its governing statute relate to addressing “alcohol and drug abuse”. None of its mandate relates to general dietary issues or to lifestyle or to exercise or toward normal alcohol consumption that is not related to “abuse”. 

3. Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR) – Canada

This ‘institute’ is based at the University of Victoria, a smaller university in British Columbia, Canada. It has a long history of anti-alcohol activism backed by questionable scientific studies. Three of the authors of the CCSA Report (above) are based here. Those individuals are Tim Naimi (who is CISUR’s Director), Tim Stockwell (CISUR’s former Director) and Adam Sherk. Indeed, when I met two of them a few years back, it took them less than 3 minutes to tell me that their only research objectives were to explore the negative effects of alcohol consumption. All three have connections to Movendi. For example, in the list of scientific articles on the Movendi site under the section “Alcohol Or Health”, Tim Stockwell and Tim Naimi are listed as co-authors of all six Movendi scientific reports that have been produced in the past 10 years. 

In addition, six of the authors of the CCSA Report are also named as Researchers on the Canadian Alcohol Policy Evaluation (CAPE) project which is coordinated by CISUR. Those six individuals are Tim Naimi, Tim Stockwell, Adam Sherk, Mark Asbridge, Kevin Shield, and Kara Thompson.

The CAPE/CISUR project purports to provide “rigorous assessments of how well provincial, territorial and the federal government in Canada is implementing policies proven to reduce harm from alcohol use”. However, it is my view that the policies promoted by CAPE have not been proven to reduce harm, are extreme measures, and make little sense from a public policy perspective. 

This project has not received as much media attention as the CCSA Report. However, its recommendations would likely prove to be even more shocking for most people as they reflect a strong anti-alcohol agenda. For example, the CAPE/CISUR project advocates for the following:

• Increase minimum drinking age to 21, and restrict availability of alcohol to those under 25.
• Ban parents from allowing those under 21 from drinking in their own homes.
• Move to a 100% government monopoly system for alcohol retail.
• Increase minimum retail level markups to at least 100% on all alcohol products, which would dramatically increase retail prices. 
• Reduce the number of alcohol retailers.
• Reduce the hours of sale for alcohol to 11 am to 8 pm.
• Prohibit alcohol takeout and home delivery.
• Introduce or increase the taxation of alcohol from small producers such as estate wineries and craft distilleries.
• Eliminate U-brews and U-vins.
• Restrict all alcohol advertising and marketing.
• Introduce warning labels on all alcohol products.
• Increase taxpayer funding for all of the recommended measures including funding for “monitoring” programs such as their own CAPE project.
  

It is likely not a coincidence that there is considerable overlap between the CAPE/CISUR policy recommendations set out above and those contained in the various scientific papers created by Movendi and the CISUR authors. Both reflect a strong anti-alcohol agenda which is out of step with the values and approach of most people.

4. World Health Organization (WHO) – International

While the World Health Organization (WHO) has done some good work in the past on alcohol and health issues, their policy direction appears to have been hijacked recently by anti-alcohol advocates. Movendi has partnered with WHO on these issues, which on its own, is a disturbing development. How is it appropriate that a government funded international health organization should be working directly with an anti-alcohol temperance group? Unfortunately, any work from the WHO on these issues should be viewed with extreme suspicion.