The European Commission’s new “Wine Package” is a troubling paradox: while public awareness of alcohol harms grows and consumption declines, Brussels is doubling down on subsidies for a troubled, health-harming industry. Instead of protecting public health, the Commission proposes – among other things – QR codes over real warning labels – offering consumers illusions instead of information. Behind this new proposal lies the powerful influence of Big Wine, whose lobbying has turned EU institutions into defenders of private profit over public interest. This proposal raises fundamental questions about the EU’s commitment to fairness, health, and its own core values, write Rebecka, Otto, and Emil.

By Rebecka Öberg, Otto Nermo, and Emil Juslin

Exposing the EU’s Wine Paradox

Something curious is happening in Brussels.

The European Commission is proposing a package of measures to support the European wine industry. Among other things, the support package for Big Wine is geared to help the wine industry adapt to climate change. But the Commission also wants more investment to be made in developing wine-related tourism.

A working group at the Commission has been working for the past three months on the issue of the wine industry’s declining profitability. Recently, they presented the final proposal.

The Commission also proposes that wine packaging should be marked with QR codes for those who want to know more about wine’s nutritional content and risks.

It’s a paradox.

QR codes have been shown to be completely useless with regard to consumer information. The Commission is proposing something that Big Wine likes but that has no benefit for European consumers. Printing health warnings in plain text and with pictures on the packaging would be much more important – and is something the European Commission planned to do as part of its Beating Cancer Plan.

The EU – long a champion of free trade and competition – is now actively subsidising the wine industry through its new “Wine Package”. As a political union that otherwise counteracts market distortions and state aid, the decision to pour taxpayer money into a health-harming sector raises an unavoidable question:

Why is the wine industry currently treated as an exception?

Three Exceptions Big Wine Receives From the European Commission

We see three major gifts or exceptions the Commission is making for Big Wine:

Firstly, these subsidies contradict the EU’s own principles of economic fairness. While other industries must compete on a level playing field, wine producers – now facing decreasing demand from increasingly health-conscious populations – are receiving direct financial support, shielding them from normal market forces. 

The surplus produced by the EU wine industry is staggering. In 2024, 12 liters of wine for every EU citizen remained unsold.

This shows that the wine industry is completely out of step with people’s preferences in the EU. Big Wine’s supply is vastly outpacing public demand.

12 L
Wine production out of step with people’s real preferences
In 2024, the EU wine industry produced 12 liters of wine per capita too much.

Wine-producing countries wield serious influence in EU policy making. Wine-producing countries, such as France, Italy, and Spain, hold significant leverage in Brussels and have historically shaped agricultural policies to their advantage. The result is a system where subsidies are not merely about supporting struggling farmers but also about protecting national economic interests, even when they contradict broader market principles and harm people and society overall.


Secondly, this approach stands in stark contrast to the EU’s treatment of other products that are harming people’s health. Indeed, while tobacco and unhealthy foods are facing increasing regulation and advertising limits, the EU Commission is currently trying to stimulate the production, sales, and consumption of wine – a toxic, carcinogenic, dependence-producing beverage.

Instead the wine industry receives an exception here, too. The proposal vaguely expresses ambitions to develop marketing laws for the industry. We cannot yet see what this means in practice, but the risk is that it will become easier to market wine. But this would contradict people’s preferences and public health standards that recommend protecting people from alcohol marketing.

Thirdly, the political motivations behind this policy deserve scrutiny. Wine-producing countries hold considerable influence in Brussels, and their lobbying power has historically shaped EU agricultural policy. But should a trade union built on liberal economic principles be bending to these interests at the expense of fair competition and public health?

The paradox is reinforced by the lobbying power of Big Alcohol. As detailed in the report Uncorking Big Alcohol in the EU, the alcohol industry has successfully embedded itself within EU decision-making structures, ensuring favorable policies that protect its own profitability. This means that, despite declining demand and increasing awareness of alcohol’s health risks, the industry continues to receive subsidies that distort the market and contradict the EU’s stated commitment to free and fair competition.

We are concerned about the effects of this Commission proposal on people’s health in the European Union. The Commission’s Directorate for Agriculture and Food has completely failed to take any other aspects of the wine industry into account: such as public health and safety, but also the environmental damage from wine production.

WHO reports clearly show that alcohol fuels disease and premature death. Why has no impact analysis been conducted to form a solid and evidence-based foundation for this proposal?

New IOGT-NTO, Movendi International Report Exposes Alcohol Industry Interference in European Union
Big Alcohol’s Growing Woes: A Systemic Crisis and the Industry’s Aggressive Response

Big Wines Big Woes

The wine industry has faced multiple setbacks in recent years. Big Wine is facing serious woes. Among other things, alcohol consumption is declining, which is reflected in the industry’s profit and loss account. In addition, people in Europe are becoming increasingly well-informed about the harmful effects of alcohol on health.

Big Wines multiple woes and growing crisis also makes them more aggressive: the alcohol industry is deploying all the tools at their disposal – to increase demand even against people’s preferences and to avoid regulation.

Through heavy lobbying, they have gotten the Commission to work for the wine industry instead of the people of Europe.

But Article 2.1 of the Lisbon Treaty – Europe’s “Constitution” – stipulates:

The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

The Treaty of the European Union

Clearly, with this proposal the European Commission is not living up to its “constitutional” role because it places the private profit interests of the wine industry over the public interest in health promotion and disease prevention.

The EU Commission’s new Wine Package is more than a challenge to public health and democratic accountability – it is a test of the EU’s commitment to its own economic philosophy. If free trade and fair competition are truly guiding principles, Brussels must reconsider whether propping up the wine industry aligns with its own foundation.

The Commission’s proposal will be discussed in the EU Parliament in the coming months. We’re sure that such a bad, paradoxical, and contradictory proposal will be challenged and that a final decision could take time.

About Our Guest Experts

Rebecka Öberg

Rebecka is European Policy Officer at IOGT-NTO and leads the Brussels office.

You can follow Rebecka’s work on LinkedIn.

Otto Nermo

Otto is European Liaison Officer at IOGT-NTO’s Brussels office.

You can follow Otto’s work on LinkedIn.

Emil Juslin

Emil is Head of the Alcohol Policy Department at IOGT-NTO.

You can follow Emil’s work on LinkedIn.