There continues to be a great deal of media coverage of anti-alcohol advocates who claim that there is “no safe level” of alcohol consumption. This series of blog posts provides 3 reasons why I will continue to ignore these assertions.
Reason #2 – Don’t Listen to Biased Sources
The second reason that I am not paying much attention to the anti-alcohol advocates is that I generally only give credence to scientists and other experts that I believe are looking at the issues with a proper unbiased perspective and who are neutral. In other words, I pay attention to who is making the claims and what their motivations might be. I need to trust the source. I think that much of the work coming from the anti-alcohol camp is not neutral science … rather it is advocacy cloaked in scientific language. Most of the anti-alcohol crowd derive from one of two camps: they are either public health professionals or are academics whose research interests are devoted to anti-alcohol work.
In terms of the public health group, I believe that for the most part, this group is well-intentioned but often becomes misguided. On many contemporary public policy issues, public health has focused their analysis far too narrowly, often using a metric of mortality reduction related to a single disease without considering the wider effects on society or even on properly targeting the actual problem. In addition, they have sometimes demonstrated a propensity to not provide the whole truth if they believe that a “white lie” will accomplish their policy objectives. The World Health Organization has become, sadly, a prime example of this.
The results can be problematic … as was demonstrated during Covid regarding the contradictory messaging regarding the effectiveness of masks. In my home province of British Columbia, this approach also caused serious political repercussions when a “harm reduction” policy of drug decriminalization was accepted at the behest of public health. This resulted in rampant social disorder, out-of-control public drug use and continued increases in overdose deaths. The province had to reverse the policy to stem the damage.
Many of these same experts have also advocated for various anti-alcohol policies such as hefty tax increases and sales restrictions, arguing that an overall reduction in alcohol consumption will reduce alcohol-related harms. That blunt and over-reaching approach rarely works as Scotland recently discovered when increases to its minimum alcohol pricing had little to no effect on problem drinkers (while increasing the costs for everyone else). See Minimum Pricing, Miserable Results.
The reality is that simple solutions to complex problems rarely work … and that if you want to actually reduce alcohol-related harms, you should target the people who are drinking too much … not those who are drinking wine in moderation with dinner.
In terms of the other group of academics, I also don’t believe that most of them are truly neutral. Decades of scientific analysis has shown that moderate alcohol consumption is either fine or confers some small health benefits. Some recent studies have argued that the earlier work was wrong and that there is “no safe level” of alcohol consumption. However, the science behind such a change in conclusions is dubious at best and probably wrong. See Has the WHO lost its way regarding alcohol?
Many of the proponents of these claims have built careers on anti-alcohol advocacy and are enjoying a moment in the sun, supported by unquestioning media. I believe that it is appropriate to question whether someone who gains all or nearly all of their income from anti-alcohol research is ideologically biased. Some of these folks also have long established connections and working relationships with avowed temperance organizations such as Movendi (formerly the International Order of Good Templars) which requires a lifetime pledge of abstinence to be a member. It’s a bit like asking your vegan cousin to organize the food choices for the family picnic … don’t be surprised when there are no meat options.
Reputable studies and institutions continue to publish studies that provide balanced analysis and continue to show certain benefits from moderate consumption. These are reviewed nicely in this excellent article by Dr. Laura Catena, a physician who is also a winemaker. There is also a good analysis by Dr. Ken Mukamal from Harvard here: Is Alcohol Good or Bad for You? Yes. As such, I recommend being careful who you listen to on these issues – and consider tuning out if you suspect that the “scientist” is someone who is motivated by anti-alcohol bias and/or is someone whose career has been defined by that type of work.
Who should you trust? An accomplished researcher from Harvard and an experienced physician? Or a social science professor with a long history of anti-alcohol work? I know who has my trust and confidence. As a result, I will continue to drink wine in moderation, as I have for the past few decades and as civilized society has for thousands of years.
Stay tuned for Reason #3 – Individuals Should Make Their Own Choices
Reason #1 is here: Only Pay Attention to Good Science