An unhealthy fuss over wine

Is it fair to club wine with ‘intoxicating drinks’?

Article 47 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (of the Constitution of India) advises that “State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purpose of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health”.

I heartily endorse the directive, but think it is high time we publicly debated why state governments include wine and beer under the label of “intoxicating drinks”, and question why the authorities consider such low-alcohol beverages as being “injurious to health”.

 

There is increasingly evidence that wine is actually good for health: wines (particularly red wines) contain anti-oxidants (Resveratol) and fight cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and cholesterol. The aphorism “a glass of wine a day… keeps the doctor away” is something everyone should take to heart.

As such, having to declare on wine bottles, “Consumption of liquor is injurious to health” makes no sense. Wine is not liquor, and needs to be recognised as such. But why do authorities lump wine and beer along with spirits under the banner of ‘liquor’?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that in India, liquor shops are called either ‘Wine Shops’ or (in the north) ‘English Wine & Beer Shop’. No wonder that most people (particularly government types) equate wine with ‘liquor'. Perhaps this is also why rules & regulations (and duties & taxes) in most states do not differentiate between low-alcohol products like wine & beer (which are not harmful for one’s health), and spirits.

States have a peculiarly schizophrenic attitude to the alcoholic beverages industry: while they cannot do without the revenue (past efforts at prohibition brought several states to the brink of collapse), they prohibit advertising of brands of alcoholic beverages. Indeed, Delhi Excise even prevents stand-alone bars from displaying any bottles behind the bar counter — on the grounds that that is tantamount to ‘advertising’!

Most state governments also apply the same rules & regulations regarding licensing and distribution to all alcoholic beverages. This seriously disadvantages small players, since the up-front investments required tend to be significant. In Delhi, for example, an L1 licence costs Rs 5 lakh/year, you need to deposit Rs 2 lakh per brand as security, pay another Rs 53,000 per brand per year for label registration, and then convince the state excise that your prices in Delhi are the lowest in the land! No wonder of the 90-odd wineries in India, only six are represented in our capital — a bloody shame.

The situation is repeated in most states as local taxes and avaricious distributors gobble up as much as 66 per cent of the selling price of a wine. What is required is for taxes and licensing of wine (and beer) to be liberalised so that prices can drop to reasonable levels — this will stimulate sales.

Wines I’ve been drinking: Luca Cabernet Sauvignon, Luca Merlot, Luca Sauvignon Blanc, and Luca Muscat wines, at an amateur concert organised at a gated community in Gurgaon. The four cases on offer were lapped up in a trice, endorsing the drinkability of the wine, which is in the process of being rolled out across North India. Priced at between Rs 400 and Rs 500 in Delhi, the wines are well-made, with good fruit character, and well worth trying.

Balle Balle! (since in India we have no equivalent for ‘Cheers')

(Alok Chandra is a Bangalore-based wine consultant)