To say yes to that glass of wine or beer, or just get a juice? That’s the question many people face when they’re at after-work drinks, relaxing on a Friday night, or at the supermarket thinking about what to pick up for the weekend. I’m not here to opine on the philosophy of drinking, and how much you should drink is a question only you can answer. But it’s worth highlighting the updated advice from key health authorities on alcohol. Perhaps it will swing you one way or the other.
It’s well-known that binge-drinking is harmful, but what about light to moderate drinking? In January last year, the WHO came out with a strong statement: there is no safe level of drinking for health. The agency highlighted that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, including breast cancer, and that ethanol (alcohol) directly causes cancer when our cells break it down.
Reviewing the current evidence, the WHO notes that no studies have shown any beneficial effects of drinking that would outweigh the harm it does to the body. A key WHO official noted that the only thing we can say for sure is that “the more you drink, the more harmful it is — or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is.”
Photo: AFP
It makes little difference to your body, or your risk of cancer, whether you pay £5 (US$6.50) or £500 (US$650) for a bottle of wine. Alcohol is harmful in whatever form it comes in.
Countries have started adopting this position in their national guidance. For example, last year Canada introduced new national recommendations saying that abstinence is the only risk-free approach, and noting that two drinks (approximately four units) a week is low-risk. This was a change from 2011 when the guidance allowed a maximum of 10 drinks (about 20 units) and 15 drinks (about 30 units) for women and men respectively. The NHS has adopted the language of “no completely safe level of drinking,” with the guidance not to drink more than 14 units, or about six glasses of wine/pints of beer a week.
What about red wine? Wasn’t this supposed to be good for us? Two decades back, studies emerged that hinted that red wine could benefit the heart, especially as part of a Mediterranean diet. However, some of these studies didn’t control for the fact that red wine drinkers were more likely to be educated, wealthy, physically active, eat vegetables and have health insurance. In 2006, in a new analysis that controlled for health-affecting variables, the benefits of drinking red wine weren’t found. Since then, increasing evidence has shown that even one glass of wine a day increases the risk of high blood pressure and heart problems.
The alcohol industry has been savvy here and funded studies that — surprise, surprise — show the benefits of moderate drinking. This is a lesson in why you should always look at who funds the study, and whether there’s a conflict of interest. The muddying of studies by commercial interests (a tactic that was also famously used by the tobacco industry) led to statements, like from economist Emily Oster, that having one drink a day during pregnancy is safe. This has been debunked: fetal brain imaging in 2022 showed that even one alcoholic drink a week during pregnancy harms the baby’s developing brain.
To summarize, there’s widespread consensus that alcohol poisons our bodies. This isn’t a moral judgment: it is what large-scale epidemiological studies have shown. This should inform government policies such as health warnings on alcohol labels, bans on multi-buy promotions, restrictions on marketing and advertising, and greater awareness of the health risks of drinking. Yet, we have to be careful not to descend into puritanism. We live in a democracy where people have the freedom to drink and make choices about their health.
And I’ll admit that even though I work in public health, I continue to have a drink from time to time. Each day, we humans make decisions over the risks we take, and those of us who work in public health have to remember that not everyone is concerned only with living longer; feeling satisfied in how we live each day is also important. We eat that doughnut or bag of crisps, even though we know it’s not great for us, just as we drive long distances on motorways knowing there’s always the risk of a fatal traffic accident. And with alcohol, for many people there’s happiness in sharing a bottle of wine or grabbing a few pints with friends.
There’s no moral judgment in how people choose to live their life and the choices they make. But, yes, drinking carries a health risk, and it’s worth us, and governments, finally acknowledging this fact, even if we’d prefer not to think about it.
The US war on Iran has illuminated the deep interdependence of Asia on flows of oil and related items as raw materials that become the basis of modern human civilization. Australians and New Zealanders had a wake up call. The crisis also emphasizes how the Philippines is a swatch of islands linked by jet fuel. These revelations have deep implications for an invasion of Taiwan. Much of the commentary on the Taiwan scenario has looked at the disruptions to world trade, which will be in the trillions. However, the Iran war offers additional specific lessons for a Taiwan scenario. An insightful
The problem with Marx’s famous remark that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, the second time as farce, is that the first time is usually farce as well. This week Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chair Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made a pilgrimage to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) “to confer, converse and otherwise hob-nob” with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials. The visit was an instant international media hit, with major media reporting almost entirely shorn of context. “Taiwan’s main opposition leader landed in China Tuesday for a rare visit aimed at cross-strait ‘peace’”, crowed Agence-France Presse (AFP) from Shanghai. Rare!
April 6 to April 13 Few expected a Japanese manga adaptation featuring four tall, long-haired heartthrobs and a plucky heroine to transform Taiwan’s television industry. But Meteor Garden (流星花園) took the nation by storm after premiering on April 12, 2001, single-handedly creating the “idol drama” (偶像劇) craze that captivated young viewers across Asia. The show was so successful that Japan produced its own remake in 2005, followed by South Korea, China and Thailand. Other channels quickly followed suit, with more than 50 such shows appearing over the following two years. Departing from the melodramatic
Sunflower movement superstar Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) once quipped that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could nominate a watermelon to run for Tainan mayor and win. Conversely, the DPP could run a living saint for mayor in Taipei and still lose. In 2022, the DPP ran with the closest thing to a living saint they could find: former Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中). During the pandemic, his polling was astronomically high, with the approval of his performance reaching as high as 91 percent in one TVBS poll. He was such a phenomenon that people printed out pop-up cartoon
RSS