Don’t ignore the risks of moderate drinking
Boston University rightOriginal Study
Posted by Rich Barlow-Boston U. on
You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.
BOSTON U. (US) — Researchers find that even moderate drinking, one and a half drinks per day, can be attributed to nearly 6,000 cancer deaths annually in the US.
Timothy Naimi, a Boston University School of Medicine and School of Public Health associate professor, and his team suggest that the number of deaths from moderate drinking should not be ignored. Add in alcohol consumption at all levels and the total surges to 20,000 cancer deaths a year, or 3.5 percent of all cancer deaths, according to the study.
For men, lethal alcohol-caused cancer typically afflicts the mouth, throat, and esophagus, the researchers say. In women, breast cancer is the most common cancer killer linked to alcohol consumption.
The researchers, whose study appears in the American Journal of Public Health, synthesized risk estimates from hundreds of other studies to come up with their findings. Naimi believes the big takeaway is the total number of deaths, the role of excessive drinking, and the fact that these deaths are preventable.
Evidence of excessive drinking’s role in cancer is much greater than that for the role of modest drinking, says Naimi, an alcohol epidemiologist specializing in binge and youth drinking and alcohol policy.
But the moderate drinking findings need to be taken seriously, and Naimi says there is evidence from the literature he and his team reviewed supporting their concerns. And, he adds, deaths from alcohol “dwarf any small number of people who may derive benefit from low-dose alcohol.”
Indeed, among all people who start drinking, 5 to 10 times as many die from it as are benefited by it, according to Naimi, who notes that you can’t predict when people begin drinking whether they’ll wind up an alcoholic. “You don’t know prospectively who’s going to end up as a moderate drinker.”
Benefits of moderate drinking?
Nor is he convinced by studies showing heart benefits from moderate drinking. Those studies have never included the accepted standard in scientific research: a randomized, controlled study comparing moderate drinkers with teetotalers.
Also, moderate drinkers tend to come from higher on the socioeconomic ladder, a rung at which people tend to be healthier. In other words, moderate drinking may be “a reflection of people’s social position and good health. It’s not its genesis,” Naimi says.
Studies linking alcohol to cancer are based on calculations using three types of data: the numbers of people who drink at different levels; the prevalence of various cancers at those various drinking levels; and the number of cancer deaths among people at each level.
As for the argument that there’s a certain risk with much of the food we consume—nonorganic fruits and vegetables marinated in pesticides, for example, or brown rice, once thought to be healthy, but now found to contain risky levels of arsenic–Naimi replies, “Alcohol is not a food. Alcohol is a drug.”
Source: Boston University
10 Comments
“Alcohol is not a food. Alcohol is a drug.” – If only more people accepted this view. Despite the fact that it’s scientifically proven (I.e. Truth) … people fly in the face of logic and feel alcohol is food. 6k deaths by cancer isn’t as serious a problem as from drunk driving though.
I totally agree that it is a drug. And the numbers are alarming. But as long as it will be allowed to make and buy alcohol, these numbers will remain. It is also difficult to educate people when all you see on tv associated to alcohol is fun, sex, rich…
Very small amount of deaths compared to all the stress relief a drink or two provides. Imagine how many people would be pulling their hair out or jumping off of bridges without being able to relax with a drink. Sure, maybe those people should find other ways to relax like taking up yoga or meditating but 6,000 seems a small price to pay overall. As long as you’re not one of them of course.
beer is good.
Homo sapiens have a 100% mortality rate. Please don’t forget that the purpose of life should be to enjoy it. Humans have enjoyed alcohol for thousands of years, potentially tens of thousands and the benefits of drinking alcohol for many outweigh the risks.
This is crap. It’s like using hearsay in a murder trial. Where is the direct evidence? Where is the explanation why alcohol causes cancer? Using this researchers methods we can also state that divorces are correlated to marriage and therefore we should not get married.
6,000 pedestrians were killed in 2000. Should we all stop walking on the streets too? At some point you just have to take what life gives you and not be fearful of every possible cause.
While Ethan said it best, let’s not forget that Jesus drank wine, and Ben Franklin was told by God that He wanted Men to be happy, that’s why He made Beer.
Isn’t the first paragraph backward? Moderate drinking cannot be attributed to deaths from cancer. Cancer is attributed to drinking. Otherwise, i agree with the study. Wish it were not so.
Spurious comment of Tom’s there. This is a report of the study, not the study itself – it is a very short article explaining the surface facts, not the evidence.
To continue Tom’s analogy, this is like a media report of a murder: not the police report. No detailed evidence here does not equal no detailed evidence to be had. Gp to the study for details.
To Ethan and Robert Reed et al: quality of life is a separate matter. This article purports only to discuss physical health. Do what you choose with that information.
SHARE ARTICLE