Lack of transparency of EU's new wine proposals will cause a hangover

The European Union proudly calls itself the world’s most ambitious project for democracy. Yet, when it comes to the new “EU Wine Package”, these democratic ideals seem to have been quietly set aside.

The proposal — a broad reform of the rules for how wine should be produced, marketed, and labelled across the EU — is moving forward with unusual speed and limited transparency.

In a Union that often reminds the world of its commitment to fairness and accountability, this process reveals a troubling imbalance between public interest and private influence.

First, the EU Wine Package has advanced without a single assessment of how the boost of the EU wine industry will affect public health.

This is extraordinary in an union that routinely demands environmental, economic, or gender impact assessments for almost every other policy proposal.

This omission matters.

Alcohol remains one of the leading preventable causes of disease and premature death in Europe, costing national health systems hundreds of billions of euros each year.

Yet the EU has made no effort to study how this new proposal might worsen the costs — or how one could instead promote healthier patterns of consumption. When evidence is ignored in favour of expediency, it becomes difficult to claim that decisions are made in the public interest.

Furthermore, the European Parliament will not even hold an open debate on the file.

Procedural shortcut

On Wednesday (5 November), the Agriculture Committee adopted both the Wine Package and granted itself a direct mandate to negotiate with the Commission and the Council — skipping the plenary entirely.

This procedural shortcut is justified as a matter of “urgency.”

But the urgency is not about protecting citizens’ health; it is about avoiding political friction.

A policy that influences production, labelling, and trade across all member states will thus be decided without the voices of most elected representatives ever being heard. For a Union that teaches others about democratic accountability, this closed-door approach sends the opposite signal.

Third, and perhaps most troublingly, public health organisations in civil society have been excluded from the process altogether.

While industry representatives were invited to multiple high-level meetings with the commission and its services, health and consumer groups have been rejected from taking part.

No meeting minutes have been shared, no stakeholder consultation has been opened, and no opportunity has been given for independent experts to present data or perspective.

For those who work to reduce alcohol-related harm, this silence has been deafening. The message it sends is unmistakable: the interests of producers matter more than the wellbeing of citizens.

If the European Union wants to defend its title as the world’s most ambitious democratic project, it must hold itself to the same standards it asks of others.

That means opening the doors to debate, applying consistent rules of evidence, and ensuring that every voice — not just those backed by powerful interests — can be heard.

Democracy, after all, is not measured by how quickly a decision passes, but by who gets to take part in it.

The Wine Package may be only one policy, but it represents a larger issue: whether Europe’s institutions still belong to the people they were built to serve.

Every month, hundreds of thousands of people read the journalism and opinion published by EUobserver. With your support, millions of others will as well.

If you're not already, become a supporting member today.