A title of an article appearing in the March 28, 2019 issue of The Spectator by Christopher Snowden, “The Campaign to Make Alcohol ‘The New Tobacco'”, seems to be more than a shot across the bow of all thing’s alcohol. Over the last decade there has been an increase in dueling research findings purporting the benefits or dangers of alcohol consumption. Now the anti-alcohol contingent seems to be increasing their proclamations through studies, which may be more defective than claims in the pro-alcohol research. Bottom-line, any research can be manipulated; the devil is in the details. There certainly seems to be flaws in all research; what are we to believed?
The wine industry should take the attack on alcohol seriously; it is gaining acceptance and credibility, no matter how contrived the research and resultant messages. Remember when research once indicted coffee was a real health issue? Today research says coffee is an anti-oxidant and is healthful; drink all you want. Just reflect for a moment about all the things once believed to be beneficial and now are considered harmful and vice versa. At one time butter was bad and margarine was better, now we are told chemicals in margarine are far worse than natural fats in butter.
Having followed wine studies, since the French Paradox (1980’s,) and the protestations on the various effects of wine on health, it now appears there are orchestrated campaigns to call out all alcohol consumption as being detrimental. “Two widely reported studies in The Lancet claimed that there is no safe level of drinking. The evidence in these studies, such as it was, didn’t actually support that claim,” says Snowden. What are we to believe? Still, it appears the media, academia and the medical establishment have globed onto most any anti-alcohol study and become an ambassador of the new “anti” cause. The anti-alcohol movement is now between doctor and patient. Every time I go to the doctor I am ask if I drink wine, beer or spirits and how often. Why and when did this start? And, yes, people have died from drinking too much water cbd oil for cats and humans!
Relative to the article noted above, author Dr. Alex Berezow writing for “American Council on Science and Health” in 2018, seems to highlight many flaws in the same study. Before an oenophile succumbs to total confusion, simply stated, don’t rely on everything you read on negative facts about wine and health. The wine industry will also need to anticipate changes in trends concerning how wine is perceived by various demographics.
The elephant in the room today, that no one in media wants to talk about, are the effects of cannabis–smoking or ingesting. Many of those shouting about negative effects of wine seem to be oblivious to cannabis. So why aren’t media and researchers in a full-blown frontal assault on the health effects of cannabis? The general impression many accept is that cannabis is harmless physiologically, to the point that research to the contrary is discounted by people in media and government. Even some wine and beer now come infused with chemical compounds originating from cannabis.
Sam Blanchard, writing for Mail Online on April 4, 2019, comments about a study on alcohol written by Professor Kent Hutchison, at the University of Colorado Boulder who said, “While marijuana may also have some negative consequences, it definitely is nowhere near the negative consequences of alcohol.” “Problem is, the study also raises many more questions than portrayed by selective facts. One question would be: Why was alcohol studied in individuals that experienced very heavy drinking while participant marijuana users were mostly casual users?” ask Blanchard.
In the final analysis: is cannabis that is entering the wine industry setting a trap for wine? The answer probably lies in how the industry responds.
Snowden makes a further point worth considering. When comparing research concerning alcohol related cancers with those type cancers indigenous to smokers, there does not seem to be statistical or epidemiological relevance. “Epidemiological studies have shown a strong and consistent association between moderate alcohol consumption and lower mortality, mostly thanks to lower rates of cardiovascular disease. So, on the one hand, we have decades of epidemiological evidence backed up by biological experiments which show that moderate alcohol consumption reduces the risk of death from heart disease by 15-30 per cent, and, on the other hand, we have a slimmer body of epidemiological evidence which suggests that moderate alcohol consumption might have a small effect on breast cancer risk,” Snowden elaborated.
Whatever the reason, portraying any alcohol product as evil has been part of the American landscape since the late 1800’s. Prohibition came about in 1919 and lasted until 1933. It does seem every industry has an “anti” influence driving the impetus of the cause. We find these type forces in politics, religion, even medicine. Now wine is under a renewed attack; positive research is discounted and “anti” is the cause-celeb. (Anti is defined as: people opposed to a party, policy, attitude, etc.)
Here is a dated but still welcomed bit of news. “Red wine and the anti-oxidant in red wine called resveratrol may be heart healthy,” says Mayo Clinic Staff. “Various studies have shown that moderate amounts of all types of alcohol benefit your heart, not just alcohol found in red wine.”
Whatever is driving the current research and conversation about wine and alcohol, it is a fact that the conversation has moved from one promoting moderation in alcohol consumption, to one proclaiming alcohol at any level is destructive to the body. But, why would anyone now discount and even disregard positive research on benefits of wine? There are articles on the web that tout wine benefits, such as “80 Amazing Benefits of Wine”, by Tehrene Firman from an October 2017. Some of the more prominent benefits of wine relate to heart health and cognitive function. Nonetheless, contradictions in studies are obvious and prevalent and widely believed; absent sound research methods.