Almost half the alcohol drunk in New Zealand is consumed in heavy drinking sessions. Photo / Mark McKeown
Almost half the alcohol drunk in New Zealand is consumed in heavy drinking sessions. Photo / Mark McKeown
Opinion by Nathan Cowie
OPINION
An opinion piece appeared recently in the NZ Herald touting the “undisputed potential health benefits” of New Zealand’s most harmful drug, alcohol.
The article was attributed to the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council (NZABC), an industry body with a focus on policy. The author asserted that drinking lightly to moderately has undisputed health benefits, and that New Zealanders can enjoy their drink knowing that “you are not necessarily putting your health at risk and may even be lengthening your life a little in the process.”
My old man, in his drinking days, would have taken that as permission to get absolutely sloshed. “Another bottle of wine Nath” he often said, “did you see that thing in the paper, drinking is good for you”.
This is typical of what the alcohol industry, and other harmful industries (think tobacco, processed food, sugary drinks) do - they are the Merchants of Doubt. They use chains of influence to strategically bolster their public image, produce friendly research while disparaging inconvenient evidence, and cosy up to government and political players to protect their interests.
They set up groups like the NZABC, or the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR), a group with longstanding and continuing associations with the alcohol industry. Under this impressive title is an agenda to create doubt, mislead the public, and most importantly, prevent effective public policies (increasing price, restricting availability, reducing attractiveness) that will reduce harms from their products.
In this case, the NZABC cited the ISFAR and a British blogger to cast doubt on the accumulation of scientific evidence that alcohol causes harm.
The allegations simply don’t stack up - the alcohol industry wants to have its cake and eat it too.
ISFAR uses well-oiled techniques. Studies are said to be too narrow or too broad, their quality is too low, they cherry-pick methods or findings.
A quick scan of ISFAR critiques will show its clear bias, applauding studies that appear to show health benefits, and going hard with criticism on analyses that do not align with the commercial and political interests of their main benefactors, the alcohol industry.
ISFAR has turned its attention to Canada, which has recently published its Guidance on Alcohol and Health using evidence-based studies. The guidance, likely to be followed by other countries, is a huge threat to the alcohol industry.
The Canadian guidance is that not drinking has benefits such as better health and better sleep, while drinking 2 standard drinks or less per week you are likely to avoid alcohol-related consequences for yourself and others.
However at 3 or more standard drinks per week your risk of developing several types of cancer, including breast and colon cancer increases. With 7 or more standard drinks per week your risk of heart disease or stroke increases significantly.
Canadian alcohol advice says three or more drinks a week can cause health problems. Photo / NZME
Canada’s guidance is up to date but not alone in warning of the risks of what many of us would consider very low levels of alcohol use. The World Heart Federation brief on alcohol consumption and cardiovascular health states that the evidence is clear - any level of alcohol consumption can lead to loss of healthy life. As for the claims of alcohol protecting against cardiovascular disease, they are “at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product.”
The Cancer Society of NZ advises that drinking any amount of alcohol regularly, even low levels can increase the risk of some cancers. They too acknowledge the need to curtail the influence of the alcohol industry, strongly supporting international calls for a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control, to reduce the influence of commercial interests in alcohol policy development.
Alcohol is not only New Zealand’s most socially acceptable drug, it is our most harmful drug, with a very wide range of harms racking up, both from one’s own drinking, and the drinking of others.
The International Alcohol Control Study illustrates the alcohol industry’s conflict of interest eloquently, with 46% of alcohol consumed in New Zealand being consumed in very heavy drinking occasions. The alcohol industry is absolutely reliant on these very heavy drinkers for a huge chunk of their revenues and profits.
If all our friends, families, neighbours, and communities consumed alcohol within New Zealand’s Low Risk Drinking Guidelines, which are due for update, there would be huge reductions in alcohol harm, and this would also be accompanied by huge reductions in alcohol industry revenues and profits.
