Science & scaremongering about alcohol consumption

There was a time when government warnings were reserved for risks posing an undeniable danger: icy conditions, an approaching storm, Covid-19. According to the latest headlines, the greatest threat to public health seems to be a glass of Sauvignon on a terrace. Anyone following the recent news about alcohol is left with the impression that, after a sip of wine, you’ll be whisked off to A&E amid wailing sirens.
Text: Ilja Gort | Image: ChatGPT

Let one thing be clear. Alcohol is not harmless. Anyone who drinks a bottle of whisky every day is putting their health at risk. Nor can there be any doubt about the harm alcohol can cause on the roads, through addiction or violence. These are serious problems that deserve attention. But that is precisely why a more nuanced view also deserves attention. And that is where things go wrong.

Denormalisation

The Health Council concludes that there is no safe lower limit for alcohol consumption and advises the government to actively ‘denormalise’ alcohol consumption.
Less advertising. Fewer outlets. Higher excise duties. Less visibility in films, TV series and on social media. In short: alcohol must be banished from the streets. That is a far-reaching recommendation. And it raises an interesting question.
Where does scientific nuance end… and where does public framing begin?

Take the phrase that the media are so keen to parrot: ‘There is no safe lower limit.’ In itself, this is a scientifically accurate statement. There is no amount of alcohol at which the health risk is exactly zero.

But most readers get the wrong impression. They read: every glass is dangerous!
Those are two completely different messages. That relative increase in risk sounds impressive, but if you don’t clearly state exactly how big that risk actually is, the reader is still none the wiser. Does his chance of kicking the bucket after a glass of red wine increase by 1 per cent or 100 per cent?

Research and studies

What is also striking is that the scientific debate is being presented in an increasingly one-sided manner. For decades, studies were published showing that moderate wine drinkers lived longer than teetotallers. The Mediterranean diet, the most widely studied diet in the world, provided important evidence for this.

The Health Council rejects these studies on the grounds that, in certain cases, the control groups were allegedly biased. Fair enough. But studies that corrected for these effects found no evidence of harm among moderate drinkers. Those studies have not been refuted. They have simply been dismissed.

All the reporting on alcohol now seems to be leaning heavily in one direction. When a study identifies a health risk, it makes the front page without any trouble. When other studies paint a more favourable picture, they are dismissed as ‘insufficient evidence’.
And so, without anyone realising it, the discussion shifts from science to framing.

Science-based advice

The Health Council does what it was set up to do: advise the government and parliament on the basis of the available scientific evidence. That is its statutory duty. But something remarkable happens between the scientific advice itself and the way it subsequently finds its way into newspaper headlines, talk shows and government communications.

The nuance is lost.

A scientific conclusion such as ‘There is no safe lower limit’ quickly turns into: ‘Every glass is dangerous’. A minimal statistical risk becomes a dire warning. And advice to cut down on alcohol consumption gives the impression that even a single glass of wine with a meal is no longer socially acceptable. That is where the framing begins.
Most cardiologists and public health organisations now say:

‘If you drink alcohol in moderation from time to time, there is probably no major health risk, but don’t drink on the assumption that alcohol is a medicine.’
But I can’t find that anywhere. No, what I read is: ‘Seven types of cancer!’ and ‘Even one glass is too much!’

Discussion

The debate on alcohol consumption is a legitimate one. But let’s make sure we conduct it honestly. After all, we constantly live with products and habits that pose health risks. Too much sugar increases the risk of diabetes. Too much salt raises blood pressure. Sunlight causes skin cancer. Strawberries are laden with extremely high levels of agricultural pesticides. No one concludes from this that a dessert, a baguette or an afternoon on the beach should be ‘denormalised’.
But as soon as alcohol is involved, it seems that even the slightest risk is enough to cast the entire product in a negative light in the eyes of society.

Make no mistake, I am a winegrower and a great lover of wine, and in that sense I am biased, but over the past five years our winemakers have specialised in the production of alcohol-free wines (‘Gogo Zero, the only alcohol-free wine worth drinking’) and sales of these wines are clearly on the rise. So, as far as we’re concerned, we have no complaints about alcohol-free wine. Quite the contrary.

A society in which problematic alcohol consumption is reduced is an excellent goal. A society in which no distinction is made between alcohol abuse and a glass of wine with a meal does not do justice to reality. Science should highlight risks. But the government and the media should ensure that the nuances are preserved. Because without nuance, public information becomes mere framing.

Cheers!