Why it’s time to defend wine

Given the increasing anti-alcohol rhetoric, it is time for the beverage trade to defend the role of wine in society, emphasizes doctor and winemaker Dr. Laura Catena.

This view comes from an increasingly frustrated Catena, who cites a number of recent articles in the mainstream media that uncritically promote the idea that consuming any amount of alcohol poses a health risk.

Adding to her irritation is the fact that, after drawing media attention to credible scientific studies showing that drinking moderate amounts of wine may provide certain health benefits, she received no response from articles such as: B. received The Times, The Guardian And The Wall Street Journalwho they believe have spread “misinformation.”

That’s why Catena, who practiced medicine in California for 27 years before running her family’s wine business in Argentina, Bodega Catena Zapata, created her own website called ” In defense of winewith her thoughtful letters to various media outlets as well as a presentation on wine and health.

She spoke to earlier this year db In it, she explains her thoughts on the nature of reporting on alcohol and health and the need for a balanced perspective on the issue – something she says is being expressed in some media outlets as well as by the World Health Organization (which takes the view that “No level of alcohol consumption is “harmful to health”).

“I don’t know what their motivations are – I can only speculate – but what I see in the press, such as The Guardian“These are stories that I think contain misinformation while simultaneously attacking reputable, credible research,” she said db.

She continued: “The lifestyle press only publishes anti-alcohol articles and does not quote reputable magazines.”

She accuses the World Health Organization of failing to recognize the credible scientific evidence of certain positive effects of moderate alcohol consumption among those over 40 – in other words, the message that there is “no safe level” of alcohol consumption is untrue.

Such an approach risks “confusing the public,” Catena fears, adding: “We said that moderate alcohol consumption might have some advantages and some disadvantages, but now we say there are no advantages.”

“That’s why I publish all my letters to the editor on ‘In defense of wine‘” she said, referring to the website she set up to publish her work on alcohol and health.

“It’s really a reaction to the fact that newspapers only seem to want to hear one point of view,” she says of the site.

One topic Catena would like to address during our discussion is the issue of bias that has arisen in the media in the United States regarding a National Academies review of the health effects of alcohol.

Two of the scientists involved in this study were said to have had ties to the alcohol industry – they had reportedly received funding from the industry – as revealed in an article New York Times Article. As a result, the National Academies removed them from the “Committee of Experts” due to “conflicts of interest.”

While Catena acknowledges such bias, she says that “there are two types of bias, and one of them is financial, but the other is ideological.” In the case of the National Academies’ “Committee of Experts,” Catena says there is now ideological bias : “They are all members of anti-alcohol groups, and there is no cardiologist,” she notes, the latter being particularly important since numerous scientific studies indicate that moderate alcohol consumption reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease .

She asks: “Without a cardiovascular specialist, how can you form an opinion about what moderate alcohol consumption is like?”

In any case, she believes that raising money from the drinks trade is necessary to help people learn more about alcohol and health.

“5% of research is funded by the alcohol industry and it has been found that there is no bias* – and I think the alcohol industry should fund research, just like pharmaceutical companies [funding clinical research]” she says, before stating: “Alcohol is the most widely used drug in the world – we need the answers.”

While Catena’s campaign and website are called “in defense of wine,” she tells me that it is really “in defense of science,” explaining that while there are thousands of studies, there are “hundreds that are good,” and which clearly demonstrate that “The greatest potential benefit of moderate alcohol consumption is cardiovascular.”

Such studies also show “some small cancer risks – and they are really small – from moderate alcohol consumption,” she continues.

As an example, she says, “If my risk of getting breast cancer was 10%, then it would be 11%.” [as a moderate drinker] – but they don’t tell you that; And they don’t tell you that there are risk-reducing means – like eating vegetables.”

According to Catena, “seven different types of cancer” are associated with alcohol, which “usually only pose a problem if you drink excessively”, but “moderate drinkers” have a slightly increased risk of developing breast cancer of the oral cavity – “although Smoking and drinking together are very bad.”

Perhaps surprisingly, moderate alcohol consumption “does not pose an increased risk of liver cancer because wine breaks down into acetaldehyde – which is toxic, but in small amounts the liver is cleared of it very quickly – so there is no toxic effect.”

Meanwhile, “there is a physiological reason why alcohol is good for cardiovascular health – it has an anticoagulant effect like taking aspirin, so wine in moderation is a preventive measure.”

“Then there is the effect on diabetes: If you drink a little wine with meals, your blood sugar level does not rise as much, and numerous studies prove this,” she explains the reason for the lower risk of type 2 diabetes if you are a moderate wine drinker.

And she adds that moderate wine drinkers tend to have higher levels of HDL – the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, also known as “good” cholesterol because it helps eliminate “bad” cholesterol. [low-density lipoprotein] cholesterol from your body.

As for criticism of studies that show some benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, such as the idea that they include “ex-drinkers,” so-called “sick people who have stopped trying,” Catena stresses that these quibbles are no longer valid and only “never drinkers” are taken into account in the last two decades of research on alcohol and harm – “and we are still finding the effect”, for example with regard to the positive effects on cardiovascular health.

She points this out with the comment that “this is a super complex thing.” The lancetThe 2022 publication of the results of the Global Burden of Diseases Study (2020) states clearly that “consumption of small amounts of alcohol may provide some health benefits for people over 40, such as reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease diseases, strokes and diabetes.” .”

She says: “It’s a respected British journal and if anyone wants to take action against it, it needs real science.”

Furthermore, while it is clear from such studies that excessive alcohol consumption is associated with a range of harms, “in a democratic society, the choice is up to the people.” [how much they consume].”

She adds: “It would be like not letting people drive because they might drive too fast and get into an accident; People have to decide whether it is an acceptable risk. Driving allows them to go on vacation or go to work.”

Catena is also horrified by the similarities between alcohol and smoking. “It’s shocking to find comparisons with cigarettes, which have no benefits in any way… You can’t compare wine with cigarettes, which are much more addictive, very difficult to moderate and there is no study that proves cigarettes are good .”

One development observed by Catena that is of concern to overall human health is the increase in obesity due to a less active lifestyle.

“We’re dealing with a new breed of people who are much more sedentary,” she says, pointing out that inactivity and alcohol are not a healthy combination.

“It may be that we as a society need to support those who need to moderate their drinking or stay sober, but the way to get there is not to be anti-science,” she explains.

Finally, Catena says, “Do we have the gold standard study? No, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore all these observational studies.”

“And to say that drinking alcohol is bad or that there is no safe limit is not supported by the broader body of scientific work.”

Catena actually says, “Drinking in moderation makes you feel good – that’s why I say it’s health-neutral and enjoyment-positive – which is very different than saying there’s no safe level.”

Finally, Catena expresses her dismay at the inability of some organizations and certain media outlets to present a balanced view on the issue of wine and health.

“I am very surprised that we are at this moment in history. “I never – ever – predicted that we in democratic societies should follow this line of thinking,” she said, referring to the promotion of wine as a dangerous substance even without considering its proven health benefits.

* “Many studies demonstrating the cardiovascular benefits of alcohol were funded by the alcohol industry” – writes the WHO in Reporting alcohol: a guide for journalists (April 2023). However, Catena points out that the article cited by the WHO shows 5.4% of industry funding from 386 observational studies and no apparent bias in the results (see below).

Related news

The OIV meets with the WHO to discuss wine, health and warnings

“No science” supporting a dry January is good for your liver

European politicians called for the health benefits of moderate drinking to be recognized