I haven't missed that point, see my comment to heavyset. It's not possible to cover every topic in these posts. If you want a more extensive view of my thoughs on these matters then you could search through my long-winded boring posts on the opioid epidemic, oxycontin, Purdue and the Sacklers and the miscarriage of justice - and the abject failure of the FDA to stop the epidemic (there are many of them). Better still, just take my word that I'm well aware of the issues.
I will disagree with you over the matter of the 2%. This extra ethanol does make a considerable difference and has been shown to do so for a number of reasons some quite complex that I cannot do justice to here. However, I'll mention a quick one for starters: the extra few percent spitit is significant as it often masks the high level of acids in young wine (malic, latic, bytric, sorbic, tartaric, etc.) with the consequence that many people drink considerably more wine in one go. Thus, they not only get the extra 2% ethanol but also an addotional amount from the extra wine they've consumed (and remember this wine already 2% stronger).
The acid levels drops significantly in older wines that have been left to age so that problem doesn't happen with them. Winemakers now actively cultivate and promote this high-alcohol, soft-style wine and they've been very successful in doing so over the last 30 or so years. It saves huge inventories of wine from being stored by over three years or more (there's much saved moolah there).
This then actively discourages research into producing flavorsome wines with much lower alcohol (at present, reducing the ethanol content to 10% or lower makes the wine thinnish in character and it spoils easily). Much oenological research is needed to boost the body and flavor in low alcohol wines and at the moment there's precious little incentive to provide money for this research. It urgently needs government intervention and regulation to overcome the problem.
BTW, decades ago I worked in a vinyard/winery for a short while.
I will disagree with you over the matter of the 2%. This extra ethanol does make a considerable difference and has been shown to do so for a number of reasons some quite complex that I cannot do justice to here. However, I'll mention a quick one for starters: the extra few percent spitit is significant as it often masks the high level of acids in young wine (malic, latic, bytric, sorbic, tartaric, etc.) with the consequence that many people drink considerably more wine in one go. Thus, they not only get the extra 2% ethanol but also an addotional amount from the extra wine they've consumed (and remember this wine already 2% stronger).
The acid levels drops significantly in older wines that have been left to age so that problem doesn't happen with them. Winemakers now actively cultivate and promote this high-alcohol, soft-style wine and they've been very successful in doing so over the last 30 or so years. It saves huge inventories of wine from being stored by over three years or more (there's much saved moolah there).
This then actively discourages research into producing flavorsome wines with much lower alcohol (at present, reducing the ethanol content to 10% or lower makes the wine thinnish in character and it spoils easily). Much oenological research is needed to boost the body and flavor in low alcohol wines and at the moment there's precious little incentive to provide money for this research. It urgently needs government intervention and regulation to overcome the problem.
BTW, decades ago I worked in a vinyard/winery for a short while.