Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Wine drinkers should not have to pay punitive ‘sin taxes’ on their favourite
tipple. Wine is not sinful; it’s good for you, say California’s wine growers.

‘We’re not (pushing) crack cocaine or nicotine,’ says John De Luca,
president of the Wine Institute in California. Wine should be viewed as
a positive part of the diet, he says, pointing to research showing that
one or two drinks a day reduce the risk of heart disease. Most studies attribute
this effect to the alcohol itself, whether in beer, wine or spirits. However,
wine also contains several antioxidant compounds that might provide some
extra health-giving qualities.

Last month a 40-member delegation from the Wine Institute sang the praises
of their product to Congress. Wine makers are worried that Congress might
levy heavier taxes on alcohol to help pay for President Clinton’s ambitious
health reforms.

But stiffer taxes would have some important advantages, others argue.
When drink prices rise, all but the most entrenched alcoholics drink less,
says Willard Manning, an economist at the University of Minnesota. Those
towards the heavy-drinking end of the spectrum will certainly be healthier
for imbibing less. And as higher prices also reduce the incidence of drinking
and driving, fewer people will be killed on the roads.

Other critics note that even moderate drinking has its downside. ‘You
really can’t go and tell everybody to go ahead and have a drink or two a
day,’ says Sam Zakhari of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
The cardiovascular benefits should be weighed against the risk of damaging
something else, he says.

Even sceptics like Zakhari, however, agree with the Wine Institute that
research on the beneficial aspects of wine deserves more funding. ‘It is
a field that’s still in its infancy,’ says Zakhari.