Labour’s nanny state £10m spin on alcohol ignores science
For most people, drinking below a certain so-called “safe” or “minimal risk” level is associated with little harm, but outcomes vary.
* For certain individuals, even low levels of alcohol consumption can be associated with harm (e.g., those with medical conditions, taking medications).
* For others, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with health benefits. For example, a protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption has been demonstrated for cardiovascular disease in middle-aged men and for osteoporosis in elderly women.
Men and women have different sensitivities to the same levels of alcohol consumption, due to differences in physiology. Recommended “safe” or “minimal risk” drinking levels for women are generally lower than for men.
There is inconsistency regarding the official threshold between safe and harmful consumption.
Drinking guidelines exist within broader nutritional or dietary guidelines, as part of a drug strategy, or as stand-alone recommendations about drinking.
Official government guidelines differ with regard to the “safe” or “minimal risk” threshold for alcohol consumption. Recommendations may be presented as daily or weekly limits. For example:
In Portugal the male drinking limit is 42.4 units a week and for women it;s 27.5 unites per week.
Which is 82% more that labour’s nanny state wants us to limit.
Health Direct notes that once again labour dithers over another dilemma. One which ignores there own advisers and the science.
On August 02, 2006 Health Direct posted: Risks of taking drugs compared- Scientific review of dangers of drugtaking- Drugs, the real deal
Health Direct reproduced the first ranking based upon scientific evidence of harm to both individuals and society. It was devised by government advisers – then ignored by labour ministers because of its controversial findings.
This showed that alcohol was the fifth most risky drug to take.