In my professional life I have been a biologist in Australia. I studied at the University of Sydney (B.Sc., and Ph.D.), and I was an academic at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). For example, I studied the biology of native Australian plants in response to fire; and I also studied the evolutionary biology of particular Australian plants. (And yes, I have described a few new plant species; eg. see Lechenaultia, and the picture below.)
I taught about biomedical science, as well as plant and animal biology. So, the effect of wine on human bodies has been of both professional and personal interest to me. It has consequently made its appearance many times in this blog. More importantly, I don't just accept what official bodies tell me about how good or bad wine is for me, but I can make my own professional judgement based on the scientific evidence available.
Recently, for example, there have been these Wine Gourd blog posts:
I taught about biomedical science, as well as plant and animal biology. So, the effect of wine on human bodies has been of both professional and personal interest to me. It has consequently made its appearance many times in this blog. More importantly, I don't just accept what official bodies tell me about how good or bad wine is for me, but I can make my own professional judgement based on the scientific evidence available.
Recently, for example, there have been these Wine Gourd blog posts:
- Contrary to WHO, recent medical research shows that wine is safe for cancer
- Medical research concerning heart disease indicates that wines are safe to drink
- More medical results suggesting that wines are usually safe to drink
- Another official study indicating that alcohol is not necessarily a risk for cancer
The essential point of the article is this: Science can’t prove a negative. So, as Skovenborg quotes the UK Health Security Agency:
“As the nation’s top public health advisory body, it’s a pretty regular occurrence for Public Health England to release health advice on a range of topics. Often enough, the bottom line for one of these pieces of advice is that the issue at hand ‘poses a low risk to health.’ Sometimes it’s even a ‘very low risk.’ What we never say, however, is that it poses no risk.”That is, science can never prove that alcohol poses no risk to health, only that it is or is not a low risk. However, the WHO does require precisely that:
“To identify a ‘safe’ level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption.”So, as Skovenborg notes, “there can be no scientific demonstration of a 100% safe level of alcohol consumption ... Nevertheless, the WHO recommends an unattainable condition for the enjoyment of wine: the scientific demonstration of a 100% safe level of alcohol consumption.”
What we can all do, however, in light of the fact that virtually everything in life is risky, is decide whether any given circumstance poses an acceptable risk to us personally.
Dr Skovenborg provides an excellent discussion of evaluating the magnitude of the health risk of light to moderate wine enjoyment. This risk cannot be zero, as required by WHO, but there is little evidence that the risk to health is high. I recommend that you read his article, and take his discussion quite seriously.
PS. The latest news is: Moderate drinking linked with lower mortality in Parkinson’s patients.
No comments:
Post a Comment