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.
If one asks Taiwanese why house prices are so high or why the nation is so built up or why certain policies cannot be carried out, one common answer is that “Taiwan is too small.” This is actually true, though not in the way people think. The National Property Administration (NPA), responsible for tracking and managing the government’s real estate assets, maintains statistics on how much land the government owns. As of the end of last year, land for official use constituted 293,655 hectares, for public use 1,732,513 hectares, for non-public use 216,972 hectares and for state enterprises 34 hectares, yielding
The March/April volume of Foreign Affairs, long a purveyor of pro-China pablum, offered up another irksome Beijing-speak on the issues and solutions for the problems vexing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the US: “America and China at the Edge of Ruin: A Last Chance to Step Back From the Brink” rang the provocative title, by David M. Lampton and Wang Jisi (王緝思). If one ever wants to describe what went wrong with US-PRC relations, the career of Wang Jisi is a good place to start. Wang has extensive experience in the US and the West. He was a visiting
The small platform at Duoliang Train Station in Taitung County’s Taimali Township (太麻里) served villagers from 1992 to 2006, but was eventually shut down due to lack of use. Just 10 years later, the abandoned train station had become widely known as the most beautiful station in Taiwan, and visitors were so frequent that the village had to start restricting traffic. Nowadays, Duoliang Village (多良) is known as a bit of a tourist trap, with a mandatory, albeit modest, admission fee of NT$10 giving access to a crowded lane of vendors with a mediocre view of the ocean and the trains
One of the challenges with the sheer availability of food in today’s world is that lots of us end up spending many of our waking hours eating. Whether it’s full meals, snacks or desserts, scientists have found that it’s not uncommon for us to be mindlessly grazing at some point during all of our 16 or so waking hours. The problem? As soon as this food hits the bloodstream in the form of glucose, it initiates the release of the hormone insulin. This in turn activates a switch present in every one of our cells, which is responsible for driving cell
RSS