Everybody should be advised to take at least two alcohol-free days a week, say MPs, who urge in a report that safe drinking guidelines should be revised because they are confusing.
The House of Commons science and technology committee says awareness of the existence of the guidelines is high, but public understanding of what they mean is poor. More help is needed so that drinkers understand what a unit of alcohol actually looks like, so they can have an idea of how many units they are drinking in a pint of beer, glass of wine or shot of vodka.
In 1987, when alcohol guidance was published, it was set out as a maximum advised number of units per week, which was 21 for men and 14 for women.
However, studies published in the early 1990s suggested a small amount of alcohol might be good for the heart. This, says the committee, led to a reframing of the guidance as a daily intake: no more than three to four units a day for men and two to three for women. Those who drink the maximum every day are therefore well above the earlier limits.
But the MPs feels the health benefits of alcohol have been oversold. "The committee found a lack of expert consensus over the health benefits of alcohol and is therefore sceptical about using the purported health benefits of alcohol as a basis for daily guidelines for the adult population, particularly as it is clear that any protective effects would only apply to men over 40 years and post-menopausal women, yet the guidelines apply to all adults," it said.
Andrew Miller, chairman of the committee, said alcohol guidelines were a crucial tool for the government in its effort to combat excessive drinking.
"It is vital that they are up to date and that people know how to use them. Unfortunately, public understanding of how to use the guidelines and what an alcohol unit looks like is poor, although improving.
"While we urge the UK health departments to re-evaluate the guidelines more thoroughly, the evidence we received suggests that the guidelines should not be increased and that people should be advised to take at least two drink-free days a week."
The Royal College of Physicians supported the committee's call. "The RCP believes that in addition to quantity, safe alcohol limits must also take into account frequency. There is an increased risk of liver disease for those who drink daily or near daily compared with those who drink periodically or intermittently," said Sir Ian Gilmore, RCP special adviser on alcohol.
'We currently recommend consumption is limited to between 0 - 21 units a week for men and 0 - 14 units a week for women provided the total amount is not taken in binges and that there are two to three alcohol free days a week. At these levels, most individuals are unlikely to come to harm."
The college also wants the government to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. "There is a clear relationship between price, alcohol consumption and health harm," said Gilmore. "A minimum unit price of 50p would prevent around 10,000 deaths, 100,000 hospital admissions each year and over 10,000 fewer violent crimes. The total direct costs saved in England would be £7.4bn over 10 years."
The drinks industry said it was already involved in efforts to educate the public on safe drinking. Brigid Simmonds, chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association, said: "It's right that the industry should help consumers to understand their units.
"British brewers already have a very good track record of making unit awareness available on bottles and cans – over 90% of products already have this information, and by 2013 over 90% will have lower-risk drinking guidelines and a pregnancy warning, too [this figure is already over 70% ]."
"The BBPA and Drinkaware are also now rolling out a customer unit awareness campaign for pubs, launched in December, with posters and other materials now available."
Andrew Langford, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said: "The trust supports the recommendation that the guidelines should not be increased and that people should be advised to take at least two consecutive alcohol-free days a week.
"However, we would like bolder steps taken and believe it would support public understanding if the health warnings that were included are similar to that on tobacco products, clearly stating the potential harm."
A Department of Health spokesman said: "It's crucial that people have good advice about alcohol so they can take responsibility for their own health.
"The current guidelines were developed following a thorough review of the evidence and consultation with experts. We will consider these recommendations and look at whether it is necessary to review our guidance."
"Next month, we are launching new Change4Life adverts which will advise people about the harm alcohol can do to our health. We will also shortly be publishing a strategy to tackle alcohol misuse."
Comments
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
9 January 2012 12:23AM
Of course, a minimum price per unit will only benefit the drinks industry, as the government is not setting this as an additional tax which they can then direct towards more effective help.
Living with a problem drinker I know that a minimum price per unit will not stop him. Neither do messages about liver damage (his is already damaged) or other health consequences. A driving ban stopped him driving, he has not bothered to claim his license back even though the ban is long expired, it did not stop him drinking.
One issue is that busy GPs will not push the issue with drinkers and families find it very difficult to get effective help for their family member with an alcohol problem - mainly because no one will help unless the drinker asks for the help themselves. Very few problem drinkers will ask for help. They do not think they have a problem, and so the cycle continues.
Measures to allow families to get effective support would be great but do not look to be on anyone's agenda.
I do not have a problem with people drinking for pleasure, but there needs to be real action where harm is caused, and currently there is not. A minimum price per unit is not going to be effective and I do not know why the government are so set on the idea.
9 January 2012 1:14AM
SandGrown,
alcohol & drug addiction are usually terrible tragedies for the victims & those around them. But it must not be the state's function to step in. By all means, let the advice & warnings be loud & clear, & all assistance possible be given. Beyond that, it is a very dangerous principle for the state to attempt to legislate away human weakness & folly - that is a very slippery slope.
The anti-drugs industry - like the anti-alcohol, Prohibition laws before - turned a problem into a multinational criminal empire. Note how the dope business has enormously expanded since the draconian bans & numberless 'crack-downs' began! Illegality boosts profits wondrously.
Every informed expert knows that substance abuse, & many other socal ills, have their roots in social inequality (GINI index). The pols pretend they haven't noticed.
Big Mother & her proliferating laws for 'our own good' is just Big Brother in drag. OGT
9 January 2012 3:40AM
A basic level of responsible service of alcohol ought to include the mandatory provision of near blood test quality, BAC Testing machines, backing up a Legislated Maximum On Street Blood Alcohol Content Level - for Pedestrians!
Such machines are available now with Audio Visual Messages to transmit to the consumer, at the point of sale, basic information on the harms that alcohol does. Including Cancer, Illnesses, Domestic and Street Violence, Pedestrian and Car Fatalities and Injuries, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD - 1 in every 100 babies), and Addiction.
For many of these known and documented outcomes of this carcinogenic drug of addiction, the BAC Level of the individual is crucial.
Am I safe to walk home? To cross that intersection? To board that tram, bus or train? Does my BAC level dis-inhibit me to such an extent that I may swing a punch? Does the BAC level of my fellow patrons put me at risk from violence or accident?
At the moment, in your jurisdiction and in mine, our governments believe that the max safe BAC Level for a pedestrian is infinity!
This belief is reflected in their legal limits. Often these same legislators clearly articulate limits to motorists, machinery operators and pilots, but don't provide the same guidance to pedestrians. Thus perpetuating the ignorant attitudes to this dangerous carcinogen as entertainment or fun. Much like tobacco was presented.
Some 800 million pounds per year are spent by Big Liquor in the UK on portraying alcohol as harmless fun. Or sophisticated. Or sporty. Or energetic. Or totally necessary in order to prove you are not a child. And other messages targeted by their misanthropic social engineers.
A BAC maximum, in law, educated to via an extensive education campaign, backed up by BAC testing machines and Random Breath Testing, will provide a culture change your society so transparently needs.
This same structure has changed the drink driving "culture" of Australia and can be used to change our drink walking culture. Car parks servicing the MCG 100,000 patrons have been RBT'd on football grand final days with none or one or two motorists blowing over the limit. So complete is that change!
No surprise then when one World Health Organisation member was asked "What would happen to our level of pedestrian alcohol fueled violence if a pedestrian 08 was brought in?" He answered without hesitation: "It would end".
Walk your streets in safety. Bring in Pedestrian 08!
9 January 2012 4:28AM
great news ,its about time they shut the Westminster bar a few days a week ,they maybe able to get some work done with a clear head for once
9 January 2012 4:34AM
I thought this lot were going to stop with all the 'nannying'?
The day I need advice from a MP, is the day I turn to drink.
9 January 2012 4:45AM
Another assault on our escapes from the daily grind. Perhaps someone might realise that our lives of mindless consumption and mind-numbing work are ultimately unsatisfying and there are practically no prospects for a rewarding future either so drugs in all their forms are all that are left. Or some kind of self-delusion. Or both.
9 January 2012 5:01AM
Crammer, you have to be kidding. Suicide by alcohol? Try volunteering. Try Education. Do almost anything to "escape" other than via inculcating a chemical dependency.
9 January 2012 5:04AM
Click on this if you want to see what Big Liquor could do to your daughter: http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/images/fas-brain-410x277.jpg
9 January 2012 5:37AM
MCG? RBT'd? We might be swayed by your point, Pedestrian08, if you could possibly express it in English for us.
9 January 2012 5:54AM
Safe drinking limits 'were simply a guess'
Official guidelines on safe alcohol limits were 'plucked out of the air'
These were drawn up by the Royal College of Physicians in 1987 in its first significant report into alcohol misuse, the most authoritative study at the time.
The RCP found that illnesses such as liver disease, heart attacks and infertility were linked to excessive drinking. But when faced with defining safe guidelines they hit a roadblock, admitted former panel member Richard Smith.
He said that during discussions the committee's epidemiologist David Barker conceded 'it's impossible to say what's safe and what isn't' because 'we don't have any data whatsoever'.
Mr Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, said that panel members thought they needed to make some sort of recommendation.
'So those limits were really plucked out of the air. They weren't really based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee,' he told the Times newspaper.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488682/Safe-drinking-limits-simply-guess.html#ixzz1iwBQu3jq
9 January 2012 6:42AM
No thanks. My life is quite miserable enough without making two days a week even more so. If it kills me, fine. My decision.
9 January 2012 6:49AM
If the government eased off on its shock therapy, I mean austerity measures, perhaps there'd be less cause for people to drown their sorrows.
9 January 2012 6:51AM
I appreciate that you mean well, but if that is what people choose to do, and aren't harming others, then why not?
I spend my working day surrounded by the public, so I'm not going to volunteer to spend more of my time with them.
Education? What for? There's no point in me bettering myself as I've got no career prospects whatsoever - why waste the time?
I have no children, I do not drive if I'm drinking, I don't get into fights due to booze.
My life is mostly pointless, so I numb myself to get through the days. I don't care so why should you?
9 January 2012 6:52AM
How about 2 MP-Free Years every Ten, for Alcohol Users?
9 January 2012 6:53AM
All control freaks stay out of our lives.
9 January 2012 7:03AM
Sage advice - I have two alcohol free days a week.
Mind you, I drink myself into unconsciousness on the other five.
9 January 2012 7:04AM
You make out like it just means you'll just drop dead one day - it doesn't work like that. It is far more likely that you will become increasingly dependent on NHS and care services and face the last 10-20 years of your life with no real quality of life. That may be your decision, but someone has to pick up the tab for your care when your body is a wreck before the age of 60. Stop pretending you're James Dean.
A couple of years back I was drinking every day and struggled not to. If you can't go a day without a drink then you have a problem. I know that now, I didn't then. If your life is miserable then all the alcohol is doing is numbing the pain. Sober up, face reality and change your life so you're not miserable.
9 January 2012 7:05AM
Policy written during a late night binge in the Commons bar!
9 January 2012 7:05AM
God I hate the government... the economy is on its knees, people are losing their jobs, we're facing the biggest financial crises in recent times and this makes the headlines.
9 January 2012 7:13AM
People can moan about nanny states & killjoys all they like, but 2-3 days per without alcohol is pretty reasonable and attainable by any stretch of the imagination.
That said, the whole argument behind units seems pretty arbitrary to me - the effects alcohol has on one's health is surely dependent on a whole range of factors, including genes, general health, diet, exercise etc etc.
As the Daily Mail so kindly illustrates
http://hellokinsella.posterous.com/the-daily-mail-list-of-things-that-give-you-c,
it's pretty wearying to here the endless spoutings from medical advisory boards that usually are disproved/updated as soon as they're published. Surely the easiest and best way to look after oneself is just to go with what your body tells you. My father always used to say 'Everything in moderation' and it seems pretty sage advice to me.
9 January 2012 7:14AM
Just over the holidays, I've been on a high alcolhol diet and I can proudly report I LOST TWO DAYS A WEEK! It feels like a new me and I deelf wonderfully liberated.
9 January 2012 7:18AM
The problem with statistics is that they create murderers or victims of us all.
A rise in speed limits will lead to x amount of deaths therefore - bollocks, ban the car if it's so dangerous, don't let silly statisticians lead us by the noses.
Anyhow if we had an educated, responsible and informed public people would make informed choices, but what we do is take control away from people therefore castrating the responsible side of society. Legalise drugs, make the speed limit an issue about how you treat your fellow beings - if it was up to us to choose if we live or die and we were being judged by our peers, not the state, we would eventually live up to the challenge.
But is the raison d'etre of our society to have people wake up? No it's not.One day we have to have a little faith.
9 January 2012 7:18AM
These principles being somewhat in opposition to each other.
9 January 2012 7:21AM
Oh no. Here we go again with another health scare story full of qualifiers.
I would like to issue a report warning that health scare stories may (or may not) increase the risk of sickness in up to 90% ( ie. from 0.000001% to 90%) of readers, but only if they're gullible enough to believe every space-filler they read in the newspapers
9 January 2012 7:22AM
Before we continue with the usual cries of 'nannying'. It is the public health professionals job to to look at the latest data and give information to the public about what the risks are to the best if their knowledge. This isn't knew - we've known for some time that drinking everyday isn't great for you.
But let me make it clear - they are not telling you what to so with this information. Do what you like. But if a few years down the line you get a stroke, or cancer or alzheimers or one of the other nasties that alcohol increases the risk of - you would be exceedingly upset if you found out the government knew about the risk and hadn't told you.
9 January 2012 7:24AM
I'm currently doing an alcohol free January. Hearing this "advice" I didn't ask for makes me feel like abandoning it.
My personal life is my affair. In the unlikely event I want lifestyle tips from MPs I will ask for them.
9 January 2012 7:24AM
What I find very strange about the attitude towards alcohol in Britain is that people feel an obligation towards getting as drunk as possible, despite knowing all of the short-term and long-term effects. It's even worse if it's free (like on a plane). What's the fun in feeling unwell? Very strange that people feel it is their duty to make themselves feel awful.
I'm sure the usual reaction to the "nanny state" will come thick and fast, despite most people who moan about it also expect the very same state to pick up the pieces when it all goes horribly wrong.
I personally have no problem with lawmakers (although I would prefer it were doctors or other health professionals) politely suggesting moderation. After all, when the healthcare bill for treatment due to self-destructive decisions by members of our public comes due, these lawmakers are going to have to cut from somewhere else.
9 January 2012 7:25AM
I think the paper left themselves off the list. An understandable pudery.
9 January 2012 7:25AM
Has it ever occurred to you that if you don't understand relative risks it might be up to you to learn about them rather than whine that you don't get it? Nothing in life is certain - but if you understand relative risks you can make an educated choice about your behaviour.
9 January 2012 7:29AM
This would seem to imply that there are currently a large number of people who think it's quite natural to drink booze every single day of the year. That's pretty frightening.
9 January 2012 7:31AM
a problem with the health benefits argument is that whilst studies found that those who drink a glass of wine a day are healthier there's no evidence that the wine itself was a factor in making someone healthier
if you look at population data then your average wine drinker is often better educated and wealthier than your average beer drinker. Someone who stops after a single glass is generally more likely to look after their health and be disciplined in consumption than someone who finishes the bottle (and of course rules out all those with an alcohol problem from that particular sample of the population). Of course there will be some unhealthy, poor and badly educated people who might just drink the odd glass of wine but across the population as a whole small shifts in tendencies can have measurable effects when you look at mortality statistics.
if you already normally only drink an occasional glass of wine you're more likely to be healthy. If you're unhealthy then changing drinking patterns to this won't necessary mean you feel better
there is no absolute safe limit that you can apply to everyone - much of this depends on your genetic makeup and whilst someone could drink relatively heavily relatively safely others may see their risks of ill health significantly increased through only light drinking. The "safe" limits are designed to work for the majority and are kind of an average limit. If you have close relatives that died at a relatively early age or suffered from heart failure, hypertension or strokes then you probably have a lower safe limit than the rest of the population and these illnesses are much more prevalent than liver disease
9 January 2012 7:34AM
MPs? Telling us not to drink? The bloody gall of them. Have they considered why?
Mass austerity, mass unemployment. Rubbish, stress-and-bullying filled, soul-destroying, badly-paid, insecure employment for those with work.
The disemboweling of the NHS, households indebted up to their eyeballs, spending on credit cards just to make it to the end of the month, savers' money being reduced to zilch by government fiscal policy, students paying £30,000 for a degree (not including the subsistence loans!), ever-rising rents and skyrocketing transport fares, colossal housing shortages.
And acting in our interests? Corrupt politicians who have long been purchased, making exquisitely bespoke and considerately-drafted policy for the sole benefit of their corporate paymasters.
And just in case the politicos weren't enough, HMRC seems to be offering Club Class service to the rich as well. Pah, Dave Hartnett may as well offer to carry their crocodile-skin suitcases full of cash onto the Lear Jet for them (whilst tugging his forelock), before they bugger off to the Caymans for a week of sunning and salting away.
And of course, to top it off, the rich getting ever richer (for some reason no one seems to be able to explain), while the rest of us can go and die in a ditch. Where of course, there will be no welfare state, as they're dismantling that as well.
Sod alcohol abuse. They should damn well be surprised we're not all addicted to smack by now.
9 January 2012 7:38AM
This is very good advice. The problem is that I don't think anyone under forty believes a word that government and experts say. The reason for this is the lies that have been peddled for decades about other drugs. Younger people have been told all sorts of nonsense about cannabis and ecstacy which they know from experience to be complete rubbish. Why should they now start believing what they are told about alcohol?
9 January 2012 7:38AM
I wouldn't want to have said this as it's too close to an admission for me and I'm still in denial. But for me and lots of other people, lots of people, you've hit the nail on the head.
9 January 2012 7:40AM
drinking a single measure of alcohol a day surely shouldn't be frightening - I'd guess that many who do drink regularly would consider just drinking a single measure fairly pointless - that's more of a worry to me.
Every time a story like this pops up here you see a fair proportion of commenters who seem to have the belief that not having more than 6 units in a drinking session would stop you enjoying life and the word "killjoy" gets wheeled out with regularity. As soon as your social life and enjoyment of life require the consumption of any particular substance then you have a dependency and many don't recognise that.
having a small glass of wine every day with your evening meal is much less frightening than that
9 January 2012 7:44AM
An excellent suggestion Can we also have a couple of days a week off from Cameron's promotion in his soul attempt to save the nation? He was on Country-file last night.
I thought there were rules for every other party excepting Cameron about the amount of time spent on campaigning? The more observant might now see why he has a Tory running the BBC with the rest of his sponsors in the News sheets towing Central Office Party Line.
Celebrity Chef is a good platform to show how to Cook the Books and absorb the massive subsidy to the Private Rail Network without the electorate noticing.
I'm waiting for his appearance in I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here. There is an opportunity for us all to leave him there!
9 January 2012 7:46AM
I can never understand this outrage - the MPs haven't passed a law forcing anyone to do anything. They've collected a range of medical opinions and used them to generate a set of guidelines that people are free to ignore at their leisure - and most will
I think it's perfectly reasonable for elected officials to summarise scientific advice. We have the information now and we can act on it if we want or are free to do otherwise.
why be pissed off if you're happy with what you're doing? you are happy with what you're doing. right?
9 January 2012 7:47AM
Ask any cardiologist; drinkers have the cleanest pipes.
9 January 2012 7:49AM
What a lot of nonsense!! Proof (if proof was needed) that you Brits have no idea when it comes to alcohol "control, abuse", etc... Call it what you like!
Small, sensible amounts on a regular, daily basis is all you need to maintain a healthy life style; but on this island getting smashed continues to prevail at all levels of socitey and at any age... Sadly!
9 January 2012 7:52AM
"The House of Commons science and technology committee says awareness of the existence of the guidelines is high, but public understanding of what they mean is poor."
Well, I don't even understand that sentence! Science and Technology Committee - keep up the great work. I think.
9 January 2012 7:54AM
This is the UK, if they set minimum then retailers will ramp you the prices on everything punishing those of us that have a little self control.
Drinking is a choice, drinking too much is a choice. (unless you have Alcoholism)
I'm on the left, but the State works for me not the other way around and needs to have boundaries in terms of helping and interfering.
9 January 2012 8:05AM
It's the constant nagging, and this report isn't the only one. Only a few days ago we had some charity telling us there was no point giving up for January, we need a few alcohol-free days a week. I don't personally go knocking on my neighbours' doors giving unasked-for lifestyle advice, and I'd expect a hostile response if I did. What makes every politician, clinician and health charity think they can do that?
Underlying it is an assumption that we have a civic duty to live as healthy a life as possible which I do not accept, I believe it is a personal choice.
9 January 2012 8:05AM
That was my first reaction too!
However, as an expat who has been living in Istanbul for about 6 years I think I've become very much tuned-out to the UK drinking culture. I certainly used to drink my fair share in years gone by.
I remember how quaint/different it felt after finishing a game of five-a-side football here and realising that the norm was for a tray of tea to be brought around. Of course plenty of Turkish people drink but generally speaking it's not anywhere near as predominant a part of peoples' lifestyles as in the UK.
That's not to say my wife and I don't like a glass of wine now and again but I've certainly got a different perspective these days to the extent that a headline like "MPs call for two alcohol-free days each week" begins to sound a bit nuts in what it implies is already going on...
9 January 2012 8:06AM
Sorry, that was meant to be a response to MoreTeaVicar...
9 January 2012 8:06AM
Close the Commons bars for 2 days a week or, at least, withdraw the subsidy they enjoy on those days.
9 January 2012 8:08AM
gasp, please don't use the slippery slope argument, please, not again. just don't. that we do have traffic signs doesn't mean that big brother is driving the car, does it? it goes without saying that there's a huge difference between price regulation and an outright ban: the former can be adjusted to rein in excessive consumption, while still making sure that getting the alcohol legally is the most favourable option; the latter gives a carte blanche for bootlegging.
as regards the gini coefficient, take a look at this: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/70
9 January 2012 8:09AM
Had Brown suggested something similar Cameron would have likened it to the Nanny State.
The advice seems sensible.
9 January 2012 8:09AM
that was in response to Oldgitom, by the way.
9 January 2012 8:10AM
i only go out once a week....monday to sunday....
9 January 2012 8:11AM
*sigh*
It's like a fucking merry-go-round.
Oooh, it's January, quick quick, story about drinking, get some soundbytes!
Yes, we've heard all of it before, over and over and over and over again.
Next on the agenda, Salt.
Then we'll have some more on Obesity - perhaps the traffic label system for the 10th time, been about 6 months since we read about that.
It's like really bad Déjà vu