Wine, drugs and an unhealthy debate

November 2, 2010 in wine culture with 16 Comments

 

For an audio version of this post, click here:

I should warn you now, I am a dedicated proponent of a non-communicable disease.

There is only ALCOHOL!

The debate has been stirred by a report by Professor David Nutt, the former UK chief drugs advisor, published in The Lancet called “Drug harms in the UK“. However, it continues a debate we had at the recent European Wine Bloggers Conference as well, on “Freedoms, Rights and Responsibilities”.

What I discovered in that very interesting session in Vienna, with presentations by Adam Watson-Brown (Information Society & Media Department, EU Commission), George Sandeman (representing Wine In Moderation) and Ken Payton (blogger at Reign of Terroir), was exactly how governments and official bodies think of alcohol – and it makes a BIG difference in understanding their approach to the debate.

In this debate, there is no “Wine”. There are no “Spirits”. There are no “Alcopops”, “RTDs“, “artisanal cordials” or even “record-breaking alcoholic beverages”. There is no ‘good alcohol’ or ‘bad alcohol’. There is only ALCOHOL!

ALCOHOL is not a feature of a beverage, a natural by-product of age-old techniques, nor even an industrial process. Alcohol is a drug, and its consumption is a ”non-communicable disease”.

“The World Health Report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life, identifies five important risk factors for non-communicable disease in the top ten leading risks to health. These are raised blood pressure, raised cholesterol, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and overweight.” WHO fact sheet No. 273

In other words alcohol is seen as a disease to be eradicated.

It is like banning bridges because they can be used to jump off

Before I go further, let me state that I agree that alcohol abuse is a problem is many societies, and a factor in many problems, but I believe alcohol is also very different from most of the other drugs listed in Prof. Nutt’s study and so this debate is very ‘unhealthy’. Let me explain how.

The chart we have all seen today is this:

Most harmful drugs - The Lancet

This illustrates that, according to a long list of criteria relating to the harm to the individual and also harm to society, and its widespread consumption, alcohol comes top of the list, delivering to the world’s media the nicely controversial headline: “Alcohol is more harmful than heroine“.

What this chart, and this way of thinking completely misses, in my opinion, is that this is only half of the story. It is like banning bridges because they can be used to jump off.

Take a look again at the list, but from a different perspective. Which of these items listed CONTRIBUTE to individuals and society, if any? Where are the BENEFITS? I think most of us would be very hard pressed to say that Crack, Methylamphetamine and Heroine contribute to society in any meaningful way. [Heroine is interesting. Unlike 'Alcohol', this chart doesn't list 'Opiates' where Heroine = BAD but medically administered Morphine = GOOD]. However, the two ‘legal’ drugs on the list, Tobacco and Alcohol do.

Another look at Nutt Report on drugs and alcohol

Another look at Nutt Report on drugs and alcohol

[note: this is my crude attempt at modifying the graph, sourced from The Lancet, for illustration only]

(I’m not going to make the case for Tobacco, others can do that, but even here there are some benefits to society from taxation, even if they are outweighed by the costs.)

But alcohol IS different.

Let’s take wine, but you could argue a similar case for beer and some spirits too. The benefits include:

  • Huge revenue streams from Duty & VAT receipts to the Treasury
  • Vast numbers of people employed in production, supply, retail, marketing and distribution (not just winemakers, but bar and pub owners & staff, importers, wine shop assistants, glass manufacturers, cork companies, shipping companies, label printers, designers, journalists, educators, etc.)
  • Sustainable environmental benefits from land cultivated, often where little else would be viable, and people making a living in rural areas instead of moving to cities
  • Developing tourism infrastructure around regions dependent on wine production
  • Thousands of years of historic and cultural legacies in production and consumption

I’m not even going to touch on the contentious issue of potential individual health benefits from moderate drinking.

I am not in a position to quantify these benefits, but others such as the WSTA might. However, it is obvious that these benefits do exist.

One of the main reasons this needs to be taken into account is because the blunt weapons of punitive taxation and medical warnings can disproportionately reduce the BENEFITS instead of reducing the harm. Raising taxes on alcohol might cut consumption rates, but it also costs jobs and tax revenue. It reduces the margin and incentive to increase quality for retailers and producers because their products are less affordable. This benefits large brands less connected to any local, cultural investments and driven by sales volume growth (which is the opposite of the policy’s aim).

It won’t be just those who are abusing alcohol the most that are affected, but everyone else as well. The approach is backfiring. We already have some of the highest taxes in the world, yet their own evidence shows that things are still not improving.

We have to change the rules of the debate they have set

I went to the EWBC hoping to make the point that wine blogging can have a positive impact on society, through education and reconnecting consumers with the cultural roots of wine enjoyment so that alcohol may be consumed responsibly. I realised, sadly, that the anti-alcohol lobby wasn’t just ignoring us, we weren’t even speaking the same language.

So, how do we engage with the discussion? We have to change the rules of the debate they have set. It is a time for much more concerted efforts by wine lovers and wine businesses.

Unfortunately, printing messages on labels and adverts about “drinking responsibly” are not the answer.

We need clearer data on the benefits of the alcohol trade to individuals, governments, countries and regions. We need to broaden out the debate about dealing with alcohol abuse from the purely medical, to the cultural and economic areas too. And we need informed politicians willing to have a sensible debate about these points without fear of being pilloried by the media.

[UPDATE: 03/11/2010 An interesting follow-up on this debate from an NHS site is here]

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

About Robert: Robert McIntosh is a wine blogger and online communicator on WineConversation.com, a prolific twitterer (@thirstforwine) and an occasional contributor to wine magazines as well as speaking at wine events. Robert is co-organiser of the annual European Wine Bloggers Conference and Born Digital Wine Awards, promotes international online wine communication, and advises companies about how to engage through social media. Robert also has some trouble communicating in the third person.

All Posts by  |  Website  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Share By Email
  • http://twitter.com/maltpress maltpress

    There’s a small flaw in your argument for the benefits of alcohol: several of those arguments could be applied to the cultivation and supply of drugs like heroin, cocaine (by extension crack) and marijuana. Even while they’re illegal, people are “employed” in their production – look at the problems trying to control opium poppy production in Afghanistan have caused the farmers who have no other income. There are long, long cutural precedents for the consumption of these drugs as well, even in the UK. OK, so maybe drug tourism isn’t huge, but what about Amsterdam? Banning alcohol would make it very much the same as any other illegal drug, but legalising any other drug would make it similar to alcohol.

    The fact is, toxicologically, alcohol is more dangerous than some drugs and less dangerous than others, but it *is* a poison. Drinking too much in one go will kill you. Drinking too much over a long period will kill you. Interestingly, using heroin in a controlled manner over years will be no more or less dangerous than using alcohol in a controlled manner over years – it’s often the stuff it’s mixed up with (and how this makes dosage so difficult to work out) and the assoicated illegal lifestyle which kills people and causes social issues.

    I’m not saying that I disagree with your points over alcohol taxation and warnings, just that the report – as a somewhat detatched view of alcohol as a drug (which it is) which does cause social problems – is well reasoned. Alcohol abuse does cause a lot of problems, more – societally – than illegal drugs do. Controls do need to be considered.

    I just wonder – if it were possible to break down alcohol consumption by type – how many problems would be caused by wine, and how many by cheaper and stronger drinks? This is where I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head earlier in your post.

    Anyway, just thought I’d add my little opinion! Interesting article though.

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      Many good points, thanks. Some responses:

      1. Being aware of the importance of the production DOES matter. I’m no expert on poppy farming, but if you don’t give those growing it a ‘carrot’, your ‘stick’ will be less effective
      2. I’m not saying that alcohol does not do harm, it does. But there are degrees to everything. Even drinking too much water can kill you!!
      3. Talking about how heroine might not be so bad for you if properly constituted, etc. is not an argument against alcohol, but maybe an argument for the legalisation of heroine!
      4. Alcohol is more of a problem because it is more widespread. Sure. There’s a reason for that, but unfortunately nothing in life, even oxygen, is wholly good for you!
      5. I’m not saying we don’t do something about alcohol abuse. I am saying that we need to realise that banning alcohol, or taxing it alone, are not the solutions, and indeed my actually CONTRIBUTE to the problem. We need to change the thinking because alcohol is not like the other items listed
      6. Separating wine from the rest of alcohol might be good for wine, but in the long term is bad for all businesses. We need to address this together.

      Thanks for joining the debate. I do enjoy sensible discussions :)

  • http://www.catavino.net Ryan Opaz

    I think the health benefits of drinking in moderation need to come into this debate. It’s silly not to include them as they are real and if anything show that alcohol is needed, the abuse of it is not.

    Great piece.

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      thank you Ryan

      I must admit that the levels considered ‘moderate’ in order to achieve a positive outcome from wine consumption are unlikely to be adopted widely. People do drink “too much” for it to be actually healthy, but there are some benefits even if the activity is not healthy, IMHO

  • Zev Robinson

    I’m usually a fan of your writing, but I think that you and other wine writers are misreading it and taking offense. It doesn’t attack alcohol per se, but talks about the damage done to society as a whole, not individual cases, using 16 measures, though I didn’t read what those measures are. I don’t see the report as a comparison between shooting some heroin and having a glass of fine wine. Binge drinking, alcoholism, violence associated with alcohol abuse are serious problems in the UK. In Spain, as you know, people will have a glass of wine or beer for their almuerzo at 10 or 11 AM, another glass at lunch, and one or two in the evening, but you very, very rarely see people drunk, and my guess would be that if the same study was carried out in Spain, the results would be very different. The study questions certain assumptions that are generally held, and the answer is to change drinking habits which wine writers and producers should welcome.

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      Thanks Zev. Maybe others are better than me on commenting on whether I am being fair, but I’ll tell you how I see it.

      The issue with the report is that THIS is what is informing and guiding the debate in the media and therefore also government. The report is saying that the current “drug classification doesn’t reflect the harm done” – in other words fighting the effects of alcohol is even more important in their minds than fighting what is currently Class A (Heroine, etc.). Unless we change their opinion on HOW to address this issue, it will be MORE taxation, MORE regulation and LESS education.

      As I understand it (and I don’t have a subscription to The Lancet to read it), the report isn’t about changing drinking habits (we WOULD welcome it, I agree), it is that they are operating on the simple equation that:

      Alcohol = drug and alcohol consumption = non-communicable disease THEREFORE Action = stop people drinking (usually by making it more expensive through taxation).

      It doesn’t work! It is not helping and it is punishing regular folk and damaging what is, and could be, an industry that could be positive for our society.

      A report that does not take that into account MUST be challenged, publicly. I’m doing my bit

  • http://arnoldwaldstein.com/ awaldstein

    Well articulated post. Thanks for writing this.I as well was in this workshop at EWBC. It was certainly a Tower of Babel discussion with people talking past each other and lip service replacing conversation. There are only so many battles an individual can fight. For me, I’ve chosen an organic and biodynamic approach to winemaking as the message and awareness I want to encapsulate in my wine blogging. I’m glad someone like yourself, with way more patience is tackling the bifurcation of wine from the drug industry. Necessary but I’ll bet a lifelong endeavor.

  • J Roberts

    Strange how Professor Nutt claims alcohol to be the most damaging drug while at the same time developing an alcohol substitute.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6874884/Alcohol-substitute-that-avoids-drunkenness-and-hangovers-in-development.html

    Bit of a conflict of interest there methinks…

    • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

      interesting. Not sure it is a conflict of interest exactly, but not sure it will work exactly.

      One of the KEY points missed in this is that, once again, the alcohol is JUST seen as a drug. If it were, you’d just replace one for another. But you and I know that wine, at least, is much more than the buzz you get from drinking it.

      Can you get a sense of ‘terroir’ or history from benzodiazepines or match them to food to increase your sensual/sensory enjoyment? I don’t think so

  • Mick

    Whilst the comparison between alcohol or tobacco and heroin problematic, I think it is clear that khat, mushrooms, LSD, or even cannabis are less harmful to users and to society than alcohol. When taken in moderation these drugs do little harm to users or to society even whilst illegal. The main problems caused to society by cannabis, cocaine and heroin are a direct result of them being illegal (not that this makes them healthy for the individual consumer).

    You are entirely correct that the form of the alcohol matters a great deal when dealing with the damage to individuals and society. Super strength lagers that come in cans providing more than your recommended daily intake are irresponsible and aimed directly as addicts. Single malt whiskies or a good bottle of wine is another matter.

    The real problem with alcohol is its easy availability and the abuse of this substance by a small minority – drivers, hooligans, wife beaters, etc. But the world would not be a better place if we had more drivers on LSD which would be inevitable if it were to be legalised.

    The division of alcohol into different strengths on this graph would mean you would have to do the same for other drugs, most notably cannabis and tobacco, the strength of which and methods of consumption vary enourmously.

    Professor Nutt has tried to introduce science and thoughtful analysis into a debate that is too close to politics and vested interests. In challenging the perceived wisdom he should be praised and then we can better consider how we should be focusing resources for preventing the damage to health and society for all of these drugs.

  • http://thirstforwine.co.uk thirstforwine

    Trying an experiment. Instead of a podcast, I thought I’d create an Audio Boo(k) version of the post. Will add link to the article for those who prefer to listen rather than read.

    You can now find the link above, or click here: http://audioboo.fm/boos/210224-wine-drugs-and-an-unhealthy-debate-audio-version

  • Hugh Ammundsen

    A very well written argument. It makes me feel your utter sense of frustration at a situation where a debate is being held between two sides who speak different languages, and where the press, for whatever reason, only hears the one it comprehends. The other side of the debate seems unable to respond – in part because it has, arrogantly, never bothered to learn the language of the debate.
    Is this a reasonable synopsis?
    It is something I have been cognisant of in New Zealand where a very similar debate is ongoing, but where I feel a similar sense of frustration at the conduct of the arguments. In particular I feel that the wine industry is allowing itself to be portrayed as a “big business” conspirator with the beer barons and spirits multinationals, regardless of the truth or otherwise.
    (I have blogged some comments in a similar vein at http://doubtlesswinebusiness.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/of-water-wine-prices-and-agendas/ and http://doubtlesswinebusiness.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/the-tip-of-the-new-temperance-iceberg/ )
    I suspect you will find these rants to come from a similar core of helplessness at the manner in which the agendas are being run. While I confess to enjoying my beer and my malts, from a wine industry perspective I feel we have not got to “first base” in arguing any form of differentiation among drinks. Until the new temperance movement is forced to argue micro details, the public debate will remain concentrated on sound bites regarding generic “alcohol”.
    Perhaps it is also worth parting with a reminder of the social disaster that was prohibition in the early 20th century. Let that be reflected in a chart of harms.

  • Gabriella Opaz

    Really well stated debate! Similar to you, my anger stems from the fear mongering tactics when stating the results of their research. Having come from a long line of alcoholics, I can attest to the social, economic and physical repercussions of alcohol abuse; however, one can easily make the argument that anything – whether it be work, sex, exercise, etc – taken to an extreme will have negative results. Hence, education on moderation across the board is key to helping promote a healthy lifestyle.

    Let’s put this another way. In both the USA and Spain, the 2 countries that I have lived in, legally prescribed drugs are handed out like candy. Worse, in the USA, we advertise prescribed drugs because an “expert” suggests that the consumer will be cured if said prescription is filled. But rather than focus on preventative medicine (a healthy lifestyle with moderate exercise, relaxation, sleep and a healthy diet – which may include moderate amounts of wine), we push prescription drugs to ease the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle of overeating, alcohol abuse, poor diet, lack of sleep etc. Yet ironically, we deem these legally prescribed drugs as safe, healthy and a betterment to the society as a whole.

    My point is that by pinpointing alcohol as a significant cause of societies woes is both naive and ignorant. And as you rightfully pointed out, higher taxation and regulation will not solve the issue. Only by teaching balance in ones life, taking fear mongering out of the equation and placing greater weight on the quality of what you consume versus the quantity, will children and adults alike discover their personal limits.

    At least that’s my two cents. Thanks so much for this article Rob!

  • http://vinosambiz.blogspot.com Fabio (Vinos Ambiz)

    Excellent and interesting post AND comments. I don’t think I can can expand on or add much to what’s already been said, EXCEPT FOR the following 2 cents’ worth: the cultural dimension implicit in all the above, ie everything said above (post and comments) (excpet for Zev’s comment!) is based on an anglo-saxon cultural perspective of alcohol ‘use’ in general. There’s always been a certain sector of anglo-saxon society that has been ‘against’ alcohol (whether it be beer, wine, whisky, gin, whatever); remember Prohibition, temperance movements, etc that go way back in history and have deep roots, and connected with religeon and politics. From over here in Spain (and I imagine Italy, france, etc) this whole debate flurry sounds just crazy and not serious at all, a bit like debates on gun control, abortion, or whether or not to introduce ID cards.
    I think the lesson to be learned from this brainless onslaught (from whoever it is that’s doing it. corporate lobbies? religeous groups? dark forces?) is that we could focus on the positive aspects of wine (and alcohol in general?) and not get bogged down in statistics, and sound-bites. ie, culture, history, diversity, sustainable grape agriculture and wine industry, etc, etc.
    Like I said on Oliver Syles’ similar post to this one, the zeitgeist is moving, and this latest alcohol-bashing flurry is related to the general dumbing down of all issues, political correctness, distancing of our ‘leaders/authorities/opinion-setters’ from normal citizens, etc. “Salud y buen vino”, that’s what I say (Eng: ‘health and good wine’)

  • Pingback: Amy Winehouse and James Freud « AMANT DU VIN

  • Hal Wilson

    Great debate and comments. I really think you are on to something with the balancing side of the equation, the benefits of alcohol to society. You identify a number of benefits, economically, socially and fiscally. I think it would be fascinating to do a Lancet style critical analysis of Social Benefits in the UK. Using exactly the same methodology (a broad range of criteria to weigh the benefits of recreational pastimes to society). If a. the research was taken seriously and b. alcohol emerged as one of the social goods that we believe it to be, you could see Guardian headlines along the lines of ‘Alcohol better than shopping’ as well as a contribution to a more balanced debate.