Monday, January 23, 2017

Seems Moderate Drinking is Coming Under Scrutiny Again

     January marks the 98th anniversary of the ratification of the 18th Amendment, more commonly known as Prohibition. While Prohibition is remembered as one of America’s greatest failed experiments, today we’re seeing something of a revival of prohibitionist thinking among the public health community who have begun to attack even moderate alcohol consumption in earnest.   I found this article to be very interesting and a really good read.
     There is long-standing consensus about the negative health and social impacts of excessive alcohol consumption. But for decades there has also been widespread agreement about the health benefits from a regular glass or two of your favorite beer, wine or spirit.   Studies tout that the moderate consumption of alcohol can lead to a healthier heart, a reduced likelihood of Type 2 Diabetes, and protection from the common cold.   Most notably, moderate drinking has been shown to decrease all-cause mortality.        This “health halo” has provided a d├ętente between public health officials and the beverage alcohol industry. Both groups condemned excess and touted moderation. Alcohol companies have spent billions advising the public to “drink responsibly,” while the USDA proclaimed that moderate alcohol consumption can have health benefits.
     But in 2016 this system started to break down as a handful of researchers began pushing dubious science suggesting that even small amounts of alcohol could increase the risk of various cancers.  But before you swear off the occasional glass of wine at dinner, consider that there may be more driving the sudden anti-alcohol-even-in-moderation narrative beyond disinterested science.   The hysteria was partially fueled by an analysis performed in New Zealand by Jeannie Connor — an anti-alcohol researcher who has claimed that “alcohol causes cancer at seven sites in the body and probably others.” Connor alleged causation admittedly without “confirmation of specific biological mechanisms by which alcohol increases the incidence of each type of cancer.”
     Anxiety about alcohol was further nurtured in 2016 by a host of stories about women and drinking. A Washington Post headline from last month blared, “Heavy drinking among women has been normalized, and it’s killing them in record numbers.” But in reality the “record number of deaths” is a record exaggeration. It is true that there is an increase in the number of white women aged 35 to 54 dying from alcohol-related causes, but only by about one-one hundredth of a percent over the course of 15 years.
     But if you want to push for big government solutions, you need people to think the problem is bigger than it actually is.  This is leading some researchers and public health officials to go outside the bounds of good science or fair reporting to try and undermine the moderate drinker vs. the excessive drinker paradigm.   Take the latest Surgeon General’s report “Facing Addiction in America.” Rather than focusing on solutions to alcohol addiction, which only affect 3.5 percent of U.S. adults, the report’s recommendations took aim at anyone who drinks by calling for a wide variety of new regulations on the sale of alcohol.
     The health benefits of alcohol have long flummoxed public health officials in more activist circles who believe alcohol should be regulated as the new tobacco. Bans on alcohol advertising and Sunday sales, sky high taxation, further lowering the legal BAC limit, and restricting alcohol access, are primary goals of many in the public health community.
     To the dismay of activists, the public understands that alcohol and tobacco are apples and oranges. They can’t be linked or compared. Even the most moderate of smokers are damaging their health. And, unlike alcohol, there is no way to incorporate smoking as part of a healthy lifestyle.