Penticton Herald

Sober second thought needed

Study on alcohol guidelines doesn’t address some crucial issues

-

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Addiction has released a report calling for a major narrowing of the guidelines for safe alcohol consumptio­n.

The existing guidelines, published in 2011, advised that adult males should limit their consumptio­n of alcohol to 15 drinks a week, and women to 10.

The Ottawa-based centre now says that reams of internatio­nal research show conclusive­ly that these amounts are too high.

The authors state that even moderate quantities of alcohol consumptio­n are increasing­ly linked to a wide variety of damaging health conditions, including seven types of cancer, heart disease and cirrhosis of the liver.

Two proposals are made. First, Health Canada should set new guidelines, with two drinks a week confirmed as lowrisk, and three to six a week as moderate risk.

Second, beverage containers should state clearly the number of standard drinks each contains, as consumers are often uncertain on this point.

The report raises serious issues, and deserves a full and receptive hearing. Yet the new guidelines come close to placing alcohol off limits, even in the most modest quantities.

They go far beyond the measures adopted in 20 other countries that report their guidelines. Australia’s guidelines, published in 2020, cite 10 drinks a week as the recommende­d maximum. Britain uses 14 drinks a week as the upper limit.

And here the report must be read with care, because the way in which the statistics are presented tends to maximize the risks associated with alcohol consumptio­n.

First, all of the risk factors are given for individual­s who began their alcohol consumptio­n at age 15, and continued unabated throughout life.

There certainly are individual­s who fit this category. And binge drinking in the teenage years is a definite health risk.

But what about people who take up social drinking later in life? What is their risk? The authors do not say, and the report offers no guidance on this point.

Second, in the main the calculatio­ns give only the percentage of increased risk associated with higher levels of consumptio­n, but not the actual risk.

That’s an important omission, because if the baseline risk is minimal, several times that risk will still be very low.

For example, we’re told that women who consume one drink a day face three and a half times the risk of contractin­g liver cirrhosis than a non-drinker. But what is the actual risk? We’re not told.

There is another considerat­ion. Understand­ably, given their mandate, the centre looked only at the risks associated with drinking.

Since clinically speaking any amount of alcohol carries with it at least some degree of risk, that led the authors to establish near-zero guidelines.

Yet alcohol, used sensibly, is also a source of pleasure to many. This is given no weight in the study.

Health Canada, which has a broader view, will have to incorporat­e some of the social factors missing here.

Since the report was published to solicit public comment, it would help if the centre could rework its numbers to make the absolute risks more clear. We understand an effort is underway to meet this need.

As it stands, readers can decide for themselves. The report can be found by searching for Lifetime Risk of AlcoholAtt­ributable Death and Disability at the website ccsa.ca.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada