In
May 2011 the Cancer Council of Australia issued what it called ‘Position
Statement. Alcohol and cancer risk.’ Its first key message is (and I quote):
‘Alcohol
use is a cause of cancer. Any level of alcohol consumption increases the risk
of developing an alcohol-related cancer; the level of risk increases in line
with the level of consumption.’
Its
second is:
‘It
is estimated that 5,070 cases of cancer (or 5% of all cancers) are attributable
to long-germ, chronic use of alcohol each year in Australia.’
The
sleight of hand is masterful. In the first statement there is no attempt to
quantify either the level of consumption (a teaspoon a week?) or the increase
of risk (by 0.001%?). In the second statement there is a shift to ‘long-term
chronic use of alcohol’ (a clever avoidance of use of the word ‘abuse’).
It
brought forth a blistering response from the Boston School of Medicine
Institute on Lifestyle and Health. ‘It is shocking that an alliance of
organisations, some of which are government agencies, would agree to stand
behind such a deliberately misleading misrepresentation of the science
addressing the effect of alcohol on human health.’
More
specifically, the Boston Institute said:
·
‘The
paper disregards the vast majority of well controlled studies which show
significant and concrete public health benefits of moderate alcohol
consumption.’
·
‘This
Position Statement conflates the effects of excessive and moderate alcohol
consumption, and in so doing creates confusion and concern, with the apparent
purpose of advancing a prohibitionist agenda.’
It
is this (surely deliberate) merging of moderate and excessive consumption of
alcohol that is so breathtakingly dishonest in the context of an apparent
research debate.
But
it gets worse. The greatest (by a considerable margin) cause of death in the
Western World is coronary heart disease, and the Boston Institute does no more
than state the facts when it says:
·
‘Scientific
data over more than three decades have clearly shown that moderate drinkers are
at considerably lower risk of cardiovascular disease; and newer studies also
indicate that they are at lower risk of dementia and many other diseases of
ageing.’
The
Position Statement excels itself when it says:
‘Earlier
research which reported that low to moderate levels of alcohol consumption
might reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease may be flawed.’
Note
the all-important use of the words ‘might’ and ‘may’.
The
Cancer Council has well and truly slain the smoking dragon (which I applaud,
particularly having regard to the fact that I have never smoked) but its
attempt to portray alcohol (regardless of its form) as damaging as smoking is
appalling, as is the assumed link between the two.
Compared,
it says, with non-smoking, non-drinkers, those who are regular heavy users of
both substances, drinking more four or more standard drinks and smoking 40 or
more cigarettes a day, have a risk of cancer 35 times greater than that of the
abstainers. It is silent about the relative risk of simply smoking at that
level, but I’ll wager there’s little difference.
Coming
back to reality, there are a number of truths, some inconvenient, some
altogether different.
First,
most wine is consumed by most people in the context of a meal and over a time
span of one to three hours. That is absolutely not the case with beer, spirits
and/or RTDs.
Second,
there is peer-reviewed evidence to show that the regular consumption of
moderate amounts of alcohol does not cause the harm associated with weekend
binge drinking.
Binge
drinking is a very significant issue in the UK, but is also a social problem in
Australia. Here the inconvenient truths come thick and fast. Research from the
Australian Institute of Criminology shows that wine is by far the least
represented alcoholic drink consumed by those arrested for disorderly conduct
on Friday and Saturday nights.
Research
from the National Drug Strategy taskforce likewise shows wine to be the least
favoured alcohol type for young people, including those who binge. Cask wine is
considered the preferred alcohol type by only 1.6% of 14 to 19 year olds who
drink, compared to 23% for beer and 44% for RTDs, the remainder for spirits.
An
inconvenient truth for all sectors of the alcohol spectrum, including wine
(especially fortified) is the deep, grievous and lasting harm it causes to
indigenous people. It is beholden to winemakers, large and small, to do what
they can to ameliorate this harm. The wine industry has always acknowledged
that obligation, and will continue to do so. But to formulate a broad based
policy driven solely by this issue – that is, extending to the entire
population – would be akin to a hair on the tail wagging the dog.
There
are no easy answers in this debate. Plain packaging and restricted access have
an Orwellian feel. Impossible? Now, perhaps, but in the future it may be a
different story unless the wine industry is able to tell the truth about wine
to the silent majority, the bureaucrats, and our political masters.
