By Rebecka Öberg
In alcohol policy, the same glass can be described in very different ways depending on whose interests are being served. For years, alcohol producers in Europe framed themselves as engines of growth, export strength, and competitiveness – claims that helped secure political access and regulatory privilege. But as alcohol consumption declines and public awareness of alcohol harm grows, this industry narrative is losing credibility and traction. In its place, the Big Alcohol now advances a new storyline: economic fragility.
The EU’s Wine Package marked a decisive moment in this shift. By successfully portraying wine as a sector under pressure, the wine industry made vulnerability – not population well-being or social development – the dominant frame shaping policy responses. This was not a neutral adjustment. It functioned as a strategic reframing that translated commercial pressure into political concessions. And it worked – for Big Wine, to the detriment of people and societies across Europe.
What followed indicates that the Wine Package was not an isolated case but a template. Across alcohol sectors, producers now consistently narrate their position through the language of downturn, uncertainty, and external threat – while sidestepping the structural drivers of declining demand and changing social norms.
The beer sector provides a clear illustration. In recent communications, Brewers of Europe presents falling production, declining hospitality sales, and market contraction as evidence of a prolonged crisis. The message to policymakers is explicit: without public “stability and support,” Europe’s brewing landscape faces further decline. Economic uncertainty becomes the lens through which policy demands are articulated, implicitly positioning public authorities as responsible for sustaining Big Beer’s viability.
The spirits sector advances a similar narrative. SpiritsEurope now frames its challenges as the result of a global economic slowdown, reduced consumer purchasing power, geopolitical tensions, and the “weaponisation of trade.” What this framing omits is just as telling. There is no recognition of long-term shifts in alcohol norms, declining consumption, or growing public demand for environments free from alcohol harm. Instead, the sector casts itself as a victim of forces beyond its control and calls for trade facilitation, competitiveness measures, and resilience policies. This is language that invites government action in their favour, while Big Liquor keeps blocking and decrying government action in the public interest.
The Cognac sector also shows how this narrative plays out in practice. Industry representatives describe a convergence of crises: trade disputes, inflation-driven cost pressures, and shrinking exports. Producers emphasise that the downturn is not driven by reduced demand for alcohol, but by geopolitical and economic headwinds. The resulting appeal for government action is framed around industry-centred claims of heritage, regional ecosystems, and long-term resilience – ignoring the harms that the products and practices of alcohol companies are causing to people, economies, societies, and the environment.
Taken together, the EU Wine Package did more than adjust wine rules in Europe. It validated a new Big Alcohol political strategy. When economic fragility secures policy support, more “half-empty glass” stories are likely to follow throughout 2026 and beyond.
The challenge for EU policymakers will thus be to start recognising this pattern, and to ensure that economic storytelling does not outweigh the evidence of harm and costs in the areas of public health, social justice, economic growth, and environmental sustainability. The glass may be half empty, but who gets to define what it contains remains a political choice.
About Our Guest Expert
Rebecka Öberg
Rebecka is European Policy Officer at Movendi Sweden and leads the Brussels office.
You can follow Rebecka’s work on LinkedIn.
