WHO’s wine tax push misses the real problem

WHO’s latest call for higher alcohol taxes risks targeting the wrong problem with the wrong tool. A broader, evidence-based approach is needed to address alcohol harm without punishing responsible consumers or undermining cultural and economic heritage. The post WHO’s wine tax push misses the real problem appeared first on The Drinks Business.

May 23, 2025 - 11:15

WHO’s wine tax push misses the real problem

WHO’s latest call for higher alcohol taxes risks targeting the wrong problem with the wrong tool. A broader, evidence-based approach is needed to address alcohol harm without punishing responsible consumers or undermining cultural and economic heritage. Man Pouring Last Drops of Wine from Bottle. WHO’s latest call for higher alcohol taxes risks targeting the wrong problem with the wrong tool. A broader, evidence-based approach is needed to address alcohol harm without punishing responsible consumers or undermining cultural and economic heritage.

It is difficult not to admire the ambition of WHO/Europe in its recent release advocating for higher alcohol taxes. The premise seems sound: affordability equals consumption and consumption equals harm. But beneath the gloss of graphs and toolkits lies a flawed and, frankly, outmoded assumption: that taxation alone can meaningfully solve the complex issue of alcohol-related harm. There’s a troubling oversimplification at play here. Alcohol consumption is falling, especially among the younger generations, even as alcohol-related deaths hit record highs. This paradox ought to give policymakers pause. It suggests that price is not the primary lever we should be pulling. Instead, the crisis lies in untreated dependence, poor access to care and entrenched deprivation.

MUP and muddled metrics

Scotland’s experiment with minimum unit pricing (MUP) is often cited as a triumph of public health. WHO, too, champions such measures, citing Lithuania’s 7% drop in per capita alcohol consumption and a 27% rise in excise revenue after raising taxes in 2017. Yet real-world results remain mixed. In Scotland, a recent evaluation of the MUP scheme found that those with alcohol dependence continued drinking but spent more on alcohol, leading to greater financial hardship. The conclusion? Problem drinkers do not behave like economists predict.

Wine: scapegoat or symbol?

There’s also a cultural dimension here that cannot be ignored. WHO’s report points out that “only 29 of 53 Member States levied any form of excise tax on wine.” This is treated as a policy gap. But wine, particularly in Europe, is more than alcohol; it is heritage, identity and conviviality in a glass. Wine is rarely the drink of choice for problem drinkers, and yet, it is the target of disproportionate scrutiny. Excise taxes, WHO rightly argues, are efficient fiscal tools. They can be tweaked, indexed and modelled to yield projections of reduced harm and increased revenue. But even WHO’s own data belies the neatness of its conclusions. Yes, Georgia, Germany and Portugal saw modest consumption declines under simulated tax increases. But these are simulations, not lives. Public health is not only about metrics. It’s about humanity, something rarely found in a line chart. And let us not forget the economic ecosystem at stake. The UK’s wine and spirits industry generated over £76 billion in 2022, supporting more than 400,000 jobs. Tax hikes hurt not just consumers but producers, importers and hospitality workers, a sector still reeling from the pandemic and now weathering a cost-of-living crisis.

A plea for proportion

If the WHO truly seeks to “protect future generations from harm,” then it should look beyond the Treasury. Mental health services are stretched and education programmes lack reach. Yes, price matters. But so does place, purpose and people. Let us invest in services, in science and understanding. Let us champion moderation, not moralism.