IS DRINKING WINE GOOD FOR YOU?
There has been much debate about possible benefits to moderate consumption
The fermentation of carbohydrates by yeast to yield alcohol may be the oldest example of applied chemistry, even predating the ancient process of making soap from animal fat and wood ashes. It seems that historically, drinking trumped cleaning. Much has been written over the years about the pros and cons of alcohol, with virtually everyone agreeing that overindulging leads to problems ranging from impaired driving to liver disease. The much-discussed question, however, is whether moderate drinking, usually understood to be about one drink a day, is detrimental, beneficial or innocuous.
The possibility that alcohol,
red wine in particular, may be beneficial was raised in the 1980s based on the “French Paradox.” How could it be that the French, who ate all those buttery croissants, fatty cheeses and cholesterol-laden foie gras, have an unusually low rate of cardiovascular disease and obesity? Could the explanation possibly be their higher consumption of red wine? Indeed, some studies do suggest that people who consume no alcohol are less healthy than those who drink moderately. This observation may, however, be less meaningful than it appears due to what has been termed the “sick quitter” effect. Some, who in surveys show up as non-drinkers, may have given up drinking because of some ailment and that, rather than abstaining from alcohol, may account for their poorer health.
Still, there is the possibility that some component of wine, other than alcohol, offers a protective effect. Wine contains hundreds of compounds, including many “polyphenols” which are of interest because of their antioxidant property. One of these, resveratrol, has attracted a great deal of interest from researchers because mice live longer when it is incorporated into their diet. However, the amounts fed to the animals were far greater than what people could possibly consume from wine. Incidentally, peanuts, soy, grapes and Itadori tea, which has long been used in Japan and China as an herbal remedy for heart disease and stroke, also contain the compound.
A study of 783 seniors in Tuscany, where red wine is abundantly consumed, casts a further cloud on the resveratrol theory. Researchers used mass spectrometry to analyze 24-hour urine samples for resveratrol and its metabolites and found that people with the highest concentration of resveratrol metabolites lived no longer than those who had none of these compounds in their urine. There was no association of the metabolites with inflammatory markers, cardiovascular disease or cancer rates. So, if it isn’t alcohol, and if it isn’t resveratrol, what then can account for the French Paradox?
Some argue that the question is irrelevant because there is no paradox. Death certificates in France are more ambiguous than in other western countries and many cardiac deaths are not recorded as such. Others propose various reasons why cardiovascular disease may indeed be less frequent in France. Portions are smaller, so the French eat less food. They eat more vegetables, they cook more meals at home, which means less processed food. Meals are social occasions, not gulped down on the run. The French consume less sugar, drink fewer soft drinks, don’t eat snacks often, nap more and take longer vacations. If there really is a French Paradox, it is likely multifactorial.
Now getting back to alcohol. It is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Class 1 carcinogen, meaning that it is known to cause cancer in humans. Alcohol is linked to cancers of the breast, liver, rectum and the digestive tract. There is controversy about whether there is a threshold effect; that is, a dose below which alcohol causes no harm. The “Million Women Study” in the U.K. has monitored the health status of over a million women for more than seven years and found that the risk of cancer increases with alcohol consumption, even if that is only one drink a day. Type of alcohol apparently makes no difference. The researchers concluded that when it comes to cancer risk, no amount of alcohol is safe. That seems to be corroborated by a fascinating study in the U.K. that compared a group of moderate to heavy drinkers who gave up all alcohol for a month with a similar group who did not alter their drinking habits. Giving up alcohol for a month significantly reduced blood pressure, weight, cholesterol, proteins associated with cancer as well as insulin resistance.
Just because the negatives are stacking up when it comes to alcohol doesn’t mean that we should become a society of teetotallers. After all, there is more to life than evaluating everything in terms of risk. We ride roller coasters, we ski, we bicycle, we barbecue, we eat oysters, we engage in sex, all of which have some risk. Same can go for alcohol. I’ll drink to that. But not much.