As Simon Barnes (former Chief Sports Writer of the Times) pointed out long ago, alcohol is the West’s drug of choice. But we live in a puritan country, and one where the government is getting ever more puritan and attempting to curtail anything of which it doesn’t approve.
Hence this week we have seen new government guidelines on the consumption of alcohol which are hyperbolic and puritan [Telegraph, 08/01/2016]. Or in the words of Simon Jenkins in the Guardian [08/01/2016]: These absurd new guidelines on how much alcohol we should drink are patronising and will have negligible effect on people’s health … These limits are about a vague national self-image of puritanism, not health.
At a swoop the alcohol limit for men has been halved to 14 units a week. Yes, halved. They say the previous limit was 21 units, but it wasn’t; the guidelines said 3-4 units a day; that’s up to 28 units a week. Similarly the limit for women has been reduced from 21 units (2-3 units a day) to 14. That, my friends, is the first piece of statistical obfuscation in the announcements — and it is one none of the media seem to have noticed.
As the Telegraph points out, one simple rule in life is that if A tries to tell B not to do something, B will probably want to do it all the more. Especially if A works for the government and is therefore ipso facto not trusted and seen as hectoring.
According to the Chief Medical Officer there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. While technically this may be true, it is disingenuous. The report’s figures show that there is a small but significant increased risk of breast cancer for women who drink; and similarly an increase in some of the rarer cancers (eg. oesophageal cancer) in men.
So what is the data behind this? Well the figures being quoted in the media are:
| Cancer |
0 Units |
1-14 Units |
>14 units |
| Breast, female |
11% |
12.5% |
15.5% |
| Bowel, male |
6.5% |
6.5% |
8.5% |
| Bowel, female |
5% |
5% |
6.5% |
| Oesophagal, male |
0.5% |
1.5% |
2.5% |
[Note: these numbers have been rounded to the nearest 0.5%; allowing for error bars the statistics cannot possibly be any more accurate than this.]
So if I drink more than 14 units a week I am 2% more likely to get bowel cancer (for which I am already being regularly monitored) or oesophageal cancer (which is pretty rare). And note this is over my lifetime (three-quarters or more of which has already passed), not per year.
Let’s give this some perspective … For comparison, in the UK we have a less than 0.5% lifetime chance of dying in some form of transportation accident (the vast majority of which is down to road travel). [In the USA this risk is over 1%.] Moreover in the UK the risk of dying from coronary heart disease alone is around 14% for men and 10% for women.
To quote the Telegraph again, the hyperbolic claim that there is no safe limit at all — that someone is taking their life into their own hands when they enjoy a glass of sherry — defies common sense. The report even admits the health risks of drinking within its recommended limits are comparable to those from “regular or routine activities, such as driving”. And that is something we all accept for both convenience and enjoyment.
As Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs observed [Telegraph, again]: Alcohol consumption has been falling for a decade. The change to the guidelines will turn hundreds of thousands of people into ‘hazardous drinkers’ overnight thereby reviving the moral panic about drinking in Britain and opening the door to yet more nanny state interventions. People deserve to get honest and accurate health advice from the Chief Medical Officer, not scaremongering.
And this from Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk, University of Cambridge: These guidelines define ‘low-risk’ drinking as giving you less than a 1 per cent chance of dying from an alcohol-related condition … An hour of TV watching a day, or a bacon sandwich a couple of times a week, is more dangerous to your long-term health.
Or Simon Jenkins again: Everything we do in life is risky … We would be furious if Whitehall laid down risk and safety limits for riding horses, climbing mountains, eating foreign food and playing rugby. All involve far greater danger than marginal changes in consuming alcohol.
No wonder the government and the Chief Medical Officer have been accused of nanny state scaremongering.
But let’s be clear what the government are doing here. This is puritanism and prohibition by the back-door. Tobacco has already been made socially unacceptable. This is the campaign to do the same for alcohol. And note that they have already started on sugar.
And we all know that prohibition doesn’t work; it drives the problem underground and deprives the government of tax revenue.
As citizens it is our right — indeed our duty — to stand out against such ill-conceived nanny-state control. It is high time that people were empowered to take responsibility for their own lives, the risks they take and their quality of life (something which is all too often overlooked) without hectoring “advice” from on high. Unless we do so we are rapidly sliding down the slippery slope to Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World.
I, for one, will be treating this new guidance with the contempt it deserves.
As one might expect, Christopher Snowdon (he who has taken the new alcohol guidelines apart) writing over on City AM is not at all impressed by George Osborne’s new tax on sugar.