Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health
https://ccsa.ca/canadas-guidance-alcohol-and-health
It’s been about 2 years now since the results of this study were first made public, on August 29 to September 29, 2022. The conclusions and deadly serious recommendations in this study were announced with much fanfare and this was a major news story in Canada and beyond.
One of the most disconcerting statements in the final version of this 89 page study come on page 30 – first paragraph, lines 2 to 4. “…this study estimated that for people in Canada the lifetime risk of death and disability attributable to alcohol use increases as the amount of alcohol use increases.”
So, the headlines and news reports rang out on the new dire warnings regarding the dangers of consuming alcohol, even in modest amounts. Based on these new guidelines, many of us were horrified to see that we were most apparently headed for injury, violence, disease and premature death. I know I had concerns as I was well beyond the highest threshold of alcohol consumption presented in the study; often consuming two (and occasionally even three) glasses of wine with dinner most nights of the week. Here is the alarming continuum of risk associated with alcohol consumption presented in the study.
Please keep in mind that these guidelines are for # of alcoholic drinks consumed per week, not per day!:
o 0 drinks per week — Not drinking has benefits, such as better health, and better sleep.
o 2 standard drinks or less per week — You are likely to avoid alcohol-related consequences for yourself or others at this level.
o 3–6 standard drinks per week — Your risk of developing several types of cancer, including breast and colon cancer, increases at this level.
o 7 standard drinks or more per week — Your risk of heart disease or stroke increases significantly at this level.
o Each additional standard drink radically increases the risk of alcohol-related consequences.
· Consuming more than 2 standard drinks per occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
Something about this study seemed odd to me though. Anecdotally, I personally knew many people who regularly consumed alcohol at or above the highest levels presented in this study and they NEVER had any of the health problems warned about in the study – health or otherwise. In fact, many lived happy, long, cogent and productive lives well into their 90’s and beyond. Something didn’t make sense to me and to many others who heard the grim results and harsh warnings presented in this report. Indeed, according to this study my high school and university years alone should have killed me decades ago.
So, after reading the study and ruminating on its serious health warnings and guidelines, I called the CCSA (Canadian Center on Substance Abuse and Addiction) which had created it. I couldn’t get any clear answers over the phone, but I was provided with names and email addresses of some of the people primarily responsible for the study. I sent them an email outlining my questions in the hope that I would get some answers. It’s been 2 years and after repeated calls and emails, I’m still waiting.
Given the lack of any answers – no response whatsoever from the CCSA, the observational and anecdotal evidence that I have, my own robust health, the exceptional health of many others with similar drinking habits, and the facts presented in my email I have come to my own logical conclusion. In my search for the truth, I have made a decision regarding my regular consumption of alcohol:
I’m on my way to the liquor store to buy more of my favorite dry red wine to enjoy with my dinner.
Here is the email I repeatedly sent to the Canadian Center on Substance Abuse and Addiction (with no response, whatsoever):
Re study: https://ccsa.ca/canadas-guidance-alcohol-and-health
Hello,
I am hoping to get some additional information regarding details on the recent study on alcohol consumption and health.
https://ccsa.ca/canadas-guidance-alcohol-and-health
I read through the study, but still cannot confirm the answers to the following two questions.
First, was there any consideration or differentiation whatsoever on the type of alcoholic drink consumed? For example, the health ramifications of drinking a highly processed (including chemical additives for flavoring, coloring, preservation, caffeine, etc.), can of malt liquor or a cooler, with sugar content of more than 60 grams per litre vs. a glass of organic red wine made with nothing more than fermented organic grapes with a sugar content of less than 5 grams per liter. Although these two types of drinks may contain equal amounts of pure alcohol, the “other” ingredients (or lack thereof) represent possibly serious health ramifications for the consumer of those respective drinks.
Second, was there any consideration of other serious cofactors of those subjects of the study? This would be the idea that “correlation is not cause”. This second question is naturally connected/linked to the first one. Consider possible major cofactors of the types of people who may consider the two very different types of alcoholic drink listed above. Many previous studies have identified cofactors for chronic disease which include the following:
- Obesity
- Lower Income level (lower socioeconomic status)
- Lack of education
- Smoking
- Drug use
- Unhealthy diet – fast foods/highly processed foods vs. what is generally considered to be a healthy diet
- Sedentary lifestyle – lack of physical activity
- Depression
- Other mental health issues
- Again, numerous studies on diet (including alcoholic drinks) and health have identified the importance of these apparent cofactors.
Please consider a healthy, educated, non-smoking individual who exercises regularly and who buys and eats organic fruit, vegetables and pastured meats, fish and other similar foods which are generally recognized as contributing to good health, but who also drinks regularly. Consider that this person drinks even in the higher ranges mentioned in the study, over 10 -15 drinks per week (ex. one or two glasses of wine with dinner). Given these positive cofactors, would this person be at the same risk of disease as outlined in the study?
Further, given these cofactors, it may be far less likely that this person would consume cheap, highly processed alcoholic drinks which contain excessive amounts of dangerous substances including but not limited to: high fructose corn syrup, sugar, caffeine, preservatives and additives among other malevolent ingredients. For example, consider that this person may enjoy simple, less processed alcoholic drinks such as dry red wine or cider with sugar contents of less than 5 grams per liter.
Regarding these general socio-economic and health cofactors, the inverse would, of course likely also be the case.
Please advise on the inclusion or consideration of these two issues in the study.
Finally, careful analysis and study of the habits of people living in Blue zones – particular areas around the globe with the highest concentration of healthy, active centenarians (people who live to 100 years of age and beyond) – confirm that these residents generally consume 2, (and often more glasses of wine per day. This fact alone is a profound, scientifically proven contradiction to the conclusions and alcohol consumption recommendations presented in your study.
I look forward to your response.
Thank you for your consideration of my questions/email.
Respectfully,
Sean Kelly