Britain’s supposed safe weekly limit of 21 is more than Poland (12.5), but less than Canada (23.75), America (24.5), South Africa and Denmark (31.5) and Australia (35).

Some countries say that women should drink less than men, but others, including Canada, the Netherlands and Spain, make no distinction.

I don´t have a problem with “official guidance” being lower than what the scientists say or indeed the WHO.

What is the point of “guidance” that’s not based on the facts? Is a lie OK because it’s “in your own interests”?

I think we Brits have a bit of a blind spot about the amount we drink. Because of this, I don´t have a problem with “official guidance” being lower than what the scientists say or indeed the WHO. Given the large portion sizes and the increasing strength of most of our booze in the UK, even the people who try to count their units are systematically undercounting.

I´ve heard for example (and do feel free to debunk this myth too!) that the advice for pregnant women to avoid alcohol completely does not come from new research, but rather from the difficulties in sticking to a “safe” limit. In this case, it is better to advise complete abstinence than a limit that can be easily broken.

cheers

Are you seriously suggesting that drinking a bottle of wine a day makes you healthier than drinking nothing?

I’m pointing out that a study of 12,000 male doctors, conducted by Sir Richard Doll, probably the most respected epidemiologist in the world (and the man who discovered the link between smoking and cancer) had that as one of its findings. If there had been other influences on the result, such as some of the teetotal doctors being non-drinkers because of illness, or being recovering alcoholics, I am certain Doll would have pointed that out, and taken it into account. Argue with him - I’m merely repeating his findings.

For example, many people who are tee-totallers are people with serious illnesses that prevent them from drinking. Others are recovered alcoholics. Such people would obviously have a higher mortality rate, and that would skew the figures dramatically.

On the other point, having a session on the beers every night is like consuming another meal, in terms of calories. That’s obviously going to make one lardy.

I still don’t feel lied to.

The level of drinking that produced the same risk of death as that faced by a teetotaller was 63 units a week, or roughly a bottle of wine a day.”

Now, calorie consumption is another matter entirely - (1) in our centrally heated, exercise-free lives, yes, we consume too many calories. But (2) the calorie danger with alcohol is not so much from the drink itself, it’s the “munchies” that accompany drinking - why are kebab shops open after the pubs shut? (And has anyone ever eaten a kebab from one of those places without having consumed several pints beforehand? Mind you, the crack in Abrakebabra near St Stephen’s Green in Dublin around 11.30 on a Friday night is gerat …

Quite aside from the effects of the alcohol on your body, all those extra calories will lead to obesity in most people (i.e. those on an average diet who aren’t regularly exercising a lot). I speak from experience!

Consistently drinking four or more units for men, and three or more for women, isn’t advisable because of the progressive health risks it carries.

That simply isn’t true, and yet it’s presented as fact. The plusses don’t properly start outweighing the minuses until you’re drinking twice as much as the DoH “advises” - four pints a day, regularly, or more.

Trying to get drink taxes raised is just another weapon in the anti-alcohol brigade’s assault on people’s pleasure, alongside restricting sales/opening hours, and overstating the harm alcohol does, and that’s why I link them. Like all the other claims of the new teetotal campaigners (and indeed the old teetotal campaigners) the tax argument is based on false logic and misguided premises - there’s no room here to detail the entire case, but I can highly recommend Drinking to your health: The allegations and the evidence,
edited by Digby Anderson and published by the Social Affairs Unit, a little out of date now, but still a powerful argument against the claims of those attempting social control of our pleasures.