Drinking less alcohol is better for your health. health risks escalate quickly above six standard drinks per week, especially for women. Don’t exceed two drinks a day to minimize risks. Alcohol is carcinogenic. Alcohol containers must carry prominent health warnings.
You may be asking, who undertook to give this advice to the public and on what basis? I am a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research and was part of the team that created this advisory. I have also advised or served on panels on four previous guideline committees over the past 30 years, including Australia, UK and Canada. I try to explain here some of the underlying science and how it has evolved, mainly because drinking guidelines internationally have narrowed the definitions of “low risk” alcohol use.
Why have the instructions changed?
Development of the new guideline was led by the Ottawa-based Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), with funding from Health Canada. The previous 2011 guidelines were much more generous: low-risk drinking was defined as up to 10 standard drinks per week for women and 15 for men. In Canada, alcohol containers do not list how many standard drinks they contain. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Daryl Dyke A standard drink is a mystery to many people, mainly because unlike some other countries (eg Australia and New Zealand) alcohol containers here do not state how many standard drinks they contain. In Canada, a standard drink is defined as 13.45 grams of ethanol, corresponding to standard serving sizes of average beer, wine and spirits:
341 milliliters of beer or cider (5 percent alcohol), 142 milliliters of wine (12 percent alcohol) or 43 milliliters of spirits (40 percent alcohol.
What has changed in the last 11 years? Why is an expert panel now recommending much lower guidelines? I was also on the panel for the 2011 guidelines, which were based on the simple idea that low-risk drinking was a level that did not increase health risks above those who abstained.
Criticism of old guidelines
In writing the 2011 guidelines, we reviewed extensive reviews of the relationship between alcohol use and the risk of premature death. These almost always showed that light and moderate drinkers had less risk than abstainers, but, above the break-even point, the health risks escalated rapidly. Many observational studies have shown that low volume drinkers are “protected” from heart disease, type II diabetes and certain types of stroke. These figures are now disputed. Based on the best quality systematic review available at the time, we observed that at two drinks per day for women and three for men, mortality risks were equal to those for abstainers. We recommended at least two abstinence days per week, resulting in the 2011 guideline of 10 drinks per week for women and 15 per week for men. This approach has been criticized from many quarters. Studies in such reviews are drawn from around the world, although with a bias from North America and Europe, but estimates should be more precisely adjusted for any particular country. Another criticism is that estimates of the relationship between level of alcohol use and all-cause death will be largely confounded by other lifestyle factors. A better approach, these critics argue, is to estimate the risks of alcohol use for a select number of diseases and types of injuries known to be caused by alcohol, such as liver disease, breast cancer, car accident injuries, and so on. When such an approach is used, this break-even point (the point at which potential benefits and risks cancel each other out) is much lower than in all-cause mortality studies. My colleagues and I recently calculated that this would be about one drink a day, even assuming some protection against heart disease.
Risk levels
As the net risk of alcohol-related harm increases even at low levels of consumption, guideline committees in other countries (such as the UK and Australia) have resorted to defining an ‘acceptable’ level of risk from alcohol. For external hazards such as air pollution or radiation from a nuclear power reactor, acceptable risk is generally considered to be an increase in mortality risk of less than one in a million. If an equivalent risk for external factors were assumed for alcohol, I reckon that would mean, based on risk estimates for the new guidelines, never have more than one drink a year! For personal behaviors such as taking sexual risks, smoking and drinking alcohol, people are prepared to accept higher levels of risk, for example up to one in 100.
New Canadian guidelines
The new Canadian guidelines followed strict procedures to make the assessment as unbiased and informed as possible. The committee members were experts in public health, medicine and epidemiology who had no financial interests in the manufacture or sale of alcohol. An independent panel used rigorously defined search criteria to identify the most recently published high-quality studies on alcohol risks for conditions identified by the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Study Group. Drinking at the new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or about five minutes per drink. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang When these risk relationships were collected and applied to Canadian data on causes of death and life expectancy, the lifetime risk of mortality from alcohol was estimated to be less than 1 in 100 for men and women who consumed no more than six drinks a week. The risks were elevated even with two drinks a week, at a risk level of just under one in 1,000. These new guidelines are provided based on the latest science, guided by the principle that citizens have a right to know the potential health effects of products. This is especially true for products distributed and sold directly by Canadian governments in most provinces and territories.
Alcohol and heart health
The careful review process found much weaker evidence than before for the hypothesis that low doses of alcohol can protect against heart disease. This finding is also consistent with a World Heart Federation statement published earlier this year, which advised that the science behind this hypothesis is now highly contested and, at best, extremely weak. My colleagues and I are keen to see how these new guidelines are received. There is still much more work to be done, including determining the acceptable level of risk from alcohol for most people. We have estimated that drinking at these new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or around five minutes per drink. Is this acceptable to most people? It’s a conversation we need to continue.
title: “Canada S Low Risk Drinking Guidelines Have Been Reduced To 6 Drinks Per Week. Here S Why. Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-17” author: “Inez Larson”
Drinking less alcohol is better for your health. health risks escalate quickly above six standard drinks per week, especially for women. Don’t exceed two drinks a day to minimize risks. Alcohol is carcinogenic. Alcohol containers must carry prominent health warnings.
You may be asking, who undertook to give this advice to the public and on what basis? I am a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research and was part of the team that created this advisory. I have also advised or served on panels on four previous guideline committees over the past 30 years, including Australia, UK and Canada. I try to explain here some of the underlying science and how it has evolved, mainly because drinking guidelines internationally have narrowed the definitions of “low risk” alcohol use.
Why have the instructions changed?
Development of the new guideline was led by the Ottawa-based Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), with funding from Health Canada. The previous 2011 guidelines were much more generous: low-risk drinking was defined as up to 10 standard drinks per week for women and 15 for men. In Canada, alcohol containers do not list how many standard drinks they contain. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Daryl Dyke A standard drink is a mystery to many people, mainly because unlike some other countries (eg Australia and New Zealand) alcohol containers here do not state how many standard drinks they contain. In Canada, a standard drink is defined as 13.45 grams of ethanol, corresponding to standard serving sizes of average beer, wine and spirits:
341 milliliters of beer or cider (5 percent alcohol), 142 milliliters of wine (12 percent alcohol) or 43 milliliters of spirits (40 percent alcohol.
What has changed in the last 11 years? Why is an expert panel now recommending much lower guidelines? I was also on the panel for the 2011 guidelines, which were based on the simple idea that low-risk drinking was a level that did not increase health risks above those who abstained.
Criticism of old guidelines
In writing the 2011 guidelines, we reviewed extensive reviews of the relationship between alcohol use and the risk of premature death. These almost always showed that light and moderate drinkers had less risk than abstainers, but, above the break-even point, the health risks escalated rapidly. Many observational studies have shown that low volume drinkers are “protected” from heart disease, type II diabetes and certain types of stroke. These figures are now disputed. Based on the best quality systematic review available at the time, we observed that at two drinks per day for women and three for men, mortality risks were equal to those for abstainers. We recommended at least two abstinence days per week, resulting in the 2011 guideline of 10 drinks per week for women and 15 per week for men. This approach has been criticized from many quarters. Studies in such reviews are drawn from around the world, although with a bias from North America and Europe, but estimates should be more precisely adjusted for any particular country. Another criticism is that estimates of the relationship between level of alcohol use and all-cause death will be largely confounded by other lifestyle factors. A better approach, these critics argue, is to estimate the risks of alcohol use for a select number of diseases and types of injuries known to be caused by alcohol, such as liver disease, breast cancer, car accident injuries, and so on. When such an approach is used, this break-even point (the point at which potential benefits and risks cancel each other out) is much lower than in all-cause mortality studies. My colleagues and I recently calculated that this would be about one drink a day, even assuming some protection against heart disease.
Risk levels
As the net risk of alcohol-related harm increases even at low levels of consumption, guideline committees in other countries (such as the UK and Australia) have resorted to defining an ‘acceptable’ level of risk from alcohol. For external hazards such as air pollution or radiation from a nuclear power reactor, acceptable risk is generally considered to be an increase in mortality risk of less than one in a million. If an equivalent risk for external factors were assumed for alcohol, I reckon that would mean, based on risk estimates for the new guidelines, never have more than one drink a year! For personal behaviors such as taking sexual risks, smoking and drinking alcohol, people are prepared to accept higher levels of risk, for example up to one in 100.
New Canadian guidelines
The new Canadian guidelines followed strict procedures to make the assessment as unbiased and informed as possible. The committee members were experts in public health, medicine and epidemiology who had no financial interests in the manufacture or sale of alcohol. An independent panel used rigorously defined search criteria to identify the most recently published high-quality studies on alcohol risks for conditions identified by the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Study Group. Drinking at the new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or about five minutes per drink. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang When these risk relationships were collected and applied to Canadian data on causes of death and life expectancy, the lifetime risk of mortality from alcohol was estimated to be less than 1 in 100 for men and women who consumed no more than six drinks a week. The risks were elevated even with two drinks a week, at a risk level of just under one in 1,000. These new guidelines are provided based on the latest science, guided by the principle that citizens have a right to know the potential health effects of products. This is especially true for products distributed and sold directly by Canadian governments in most provinces and territories.
Alcohol and heart health
The careful review process found much weaker evidence than before for the hypothesis that low doses of alcohol can protect against heart disease. This finding is also consistent with a World Heart Federation statement published earlier this year, which advised that the science behind this hypothesis is now highly contested and, at best, extremely weak. My colleagues and I are keen to see how these new guidelines are received. There is still much more work to be done, including determining the acceptable level of risk from alcohol for most people. We have estimated that drinking at these new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or around five minutes per drink. Is this acceptable to most people? It’s a conversation we need to continue.
title: “Canada S Low Risk Drinking Guidelines Have Been Reduced To 6 Drinks Per Week. Here S Why. Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-07” author: “Joseph Mendoza”
Drinking less alcohol is better for your health. health risks escalate quickly above six standard drinks per week, especially for women. Don’t exceed two drinks a day to minimize risks. Alcohol is carcinogenic. Alcohol containers must carry prominent health warnings.
You may be asking, who undertook to give this advice to the public and on what basis? I am a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research and was part of the team that created this advisory. I have also advised or served on panels on four previous guideline committees over the past 30 years, including Australia, UK and Canada. I try to explain here some of the underlying science and how it has evolved, mainly because drinking guidelines internationally have narrowed the definitions of “low risk” alcohol use.
Why have the instructions changed?
Development of the new guideline was led by the Ottawa-based Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), with funding from Health Canada. The previous 2011 guidelines were much more generous: low-risk drinking was defined as up to 10 standard drinks per week for women and 15 for men. In Canada, alcohol containers do not list how many standard drinks they contain. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Daryl Dyke A standard drink is a mystery to many people, mainly because unlike some other countries (eg Australia and New Zealand) alcohol containers here do not state how many standard drinks they contain. In Canada, a standard drink is defined as 13.45 grams of ethanol, corresponding to standard serving sizes of average beer, wine and spirits:
341 milliliters of beer or cider (5 percent alcohol), 142 milliliters of wine (12 percent alcohol) or 43 milliliters of spirits (40 percent alcohol.
What has changed in the last 11 years? Why is an expert panel now recommending much lower guidelines? I was also on the panel for the 2011 guidelines, which were based on the simple idea that low-risk drinking was a level that did not increase health risks above those who abstained.
Criticism of old guidelines
In writing the 2011 guidelines, we reviewed extensive reviews of the relationship between alcohol use and the risk of premature death. These almost always showed that light and moderate drinkers had less risk than abstainers, but, above the break-even point, the health risks escalated rapidly. Many observational studies have shown that low volume drinkers are “protected” from heart disease, type II diabetes and certain types of stroke. These figures are now disputed. Based on the best quality systematic review available at the time, we observed that at two drinks per day for women and three for men, mortality risks were equal to those for abstainers. We recommended at least two abstinence days per week, resulting in the 2011 guideline of 10 drinks per week for women and 15 per week for men. This approach has been criticized from many quarters. Studies in such reviews are drawn from around the world, although with a bias from North America and Europe, but estimates should be more precisely adjusted for any particular country. Another criticism is that estimates of the relationship between level of alcohol use and all-cause death will be largely confounded by other lifestyle factors. A better approach, these critics argue, is to estimate the risks of alcohol use for a select number of diseases and types of injuries known to be caused by alcohol, such as liver disease, breast cancer, car accident injuries, and so on. When such an approach is used, this break-even point (the point at which potential benefits and risks cancel each other out) is much lower than in all-cause mortality studies. My colleagues and I recently calculated that this would be about one drink a day, even assuming some protection against heart disease.
Risk levels
As the net risk of alcohol-related harm increases even at low levels of consumption, guideline committees in other countries (such as the UK and Australia) have resorted to defining an ‘acceptable’ level of risk from alcohol. For external hazards such as air pollution or radiation from a nuclear power reactor, acceptable risk is generally considered to be an increase in mortality risk of less than one in a million. If an equivalent risk for external factors were assumed for alcohol, I reckon that would mean, based on risk estimates for the new guidelines, never have more than one drink a year! For personal behaviors such as taking sexual risks, smoking and drinking alcohol, people are prepared to accept higher levels of risk, for example up to one in 100.
New Canadian guidelines
The new Canadian guidelines followed strict procedures to make the assessment as unbiased and informed as possible. The committee members were experts in public health, medicine and epidemiology who had no financial interests in the manufacture or sale of alcohol. An independent panel used rigorously defined search criteria to identify the most recently published high-quality studies on alcohol risks for conditions identified by the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Study Group. Drinking at the new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or about five minutes per drink. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang When these risk relationships were collected and applied to Canadian data on causes of death and life expectancy, the lifetime risk of mortality from alcohol was estimated to be less than 1 in 100 for men and women who consumed no more than six drinks a week. The risks were elevated even with two drinks a week, at a risk level of just under one in 1,000. These new guidelines are provided based on the latest science, guided by the principle that citizens have a right to know the potential health effects of products. This is especially true for products distributed and sold directly by Canadian governments in most provinces and territories.
Alcohol and heart health
The careful review process found much weaker evidence than before for the hypothesis that low doses of alcohol can protect against heart disease. This finding is also consistent with a World Heart Federation statement published earlier this year, which advised that the science behind this hypothesis is now highly contested and, at best, extremely weak. My colleagues and I are keen to see how these new guidelines are received. There is still much more work to be done, including determining the acceptable level of risk from alcohol for most people. We have estimated that drinking at these new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or around five minutes per drink. Is this acceptable to most people? It’s a conversation we need to continue.
title: “Canada S Low Risk Drinking Guidelines Have Been Reduced To 6 Drinks Per Week. Here S Why. Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-09” author: “Dana Butler”
Drinking less alcohol is better for your health. health risks escalate quickly above six standard drinks per week, especially for women. Don’t exceed two drinks a day to minimize risks. Alcohol is carcinogenic. Alcohol containers must carry prominent health warnings.
You may be asking, who undertook to give this advice to the public and on what basis? I am a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research and was part of the team that created this advisory. I have also advised or served on panels on four previous guideline committees over the past 30 years, including Australia, UK and Canada. I try to explain here some of the underlying science and how it has evolved, mainly because drinking guidelines internationally have narrowed the definitions of “low risk” alcohol use.
Why have the instructions changed?
Development of the new guideline was led by the Ottawa-based Canadian Center on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), with funding from Health Canada. The previous 2011 guidelines were much more generous: low-risk drinking was defined as up to 10 standard drinks per week for women and 15 for men. In Canada, alcohol containers do not list how many standard drinks they contain. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Daryl Dyke A standard drink is a mystery to many people, mainly because unlike some other countries (eg Australia and New Zealand) alcohol containers here do not state how many standard drinks they contain. In Canada, a standard drink is defined as 13.45 grams of ethanol, corresponding to standard serving sizes of average beer, wine and spirits:
341 milliliters of beer or cider (5 percent alcohol), 142 milliliters of wine (12 percent alcohol) or 43 milliliters of spirits (40 percent alcohol.
What has changed in the last 11 years? Why is an expert panel now recommending much lower guidelines? I was also on the panel for the 2011 guidelines, which were based on the simple idea that low-risk drinking was a level that did not increase health risks above those who abstained.
Criticism of old guidelines
In writing the 2011 guidelines, we reviewed extensive reviews of the relationship between alcohol use and the risk of premature death. These almost always showed that light and moderate drinkers had less risk than abstainers, but, above the break-even point, the health risks escalated rapidly. Many observational studies have shown that low volume drinkers are “protected” from heart disease, type II diabetes and certain types of stroke. These figures are now disputed. Based on the best quality systematic review available at the time, we observed that at two drinks per day for women and three for men, mortality risks were equal to those for abstainers. We recommended at least two abstinence days per week, resulting in the 2011 guideline of 10 drinks per week for women and 15 per week for men. This approach has been criticized from many quarters. Studies in such reviews are drawn from around the world, although with a bias from North America and Europe, but estimates should be more precisely adjusted for any particular country. Another criticism is that estimates of the relationship between level of alcohol use and all-cause death will be largely confounded by other lifestyle factors. A better approach, these critics argue, is to estimate the risks of alcohol use for a select number of diseases and types of injuries known to be caused by alcohol, such as liver disease, breast cancer, car accident injuries, and so on. When such an approach is used, this break-even point (the point at which potential benefits and risks cancel each other out) is much lower than in all-cause mortality studies. My colleagues and I recently calculated that this would be about one drink a day, even assuming some protection against heart disease.
Risk levels
As the net risk of alcohol-related harm increases even at low levels of consumption, guideline committees in other countries (such as the UK and Australia) have resorted to defining an ‘acceptable’ level of risk from alcohol. For external hazards such as air pollution or radiation from a nuclear power reactor, acceptable risk is generally considered to be an increase in mortality risk of less than one in a million. If an equivalent risk for external factors were assumed for alcohol, I reckon that would mean, based on risk estimates for the new guidelines, never have more than one drink a year! For personal behaviors such as taking sexual risks, smoking and drinking alcohol, people are prepared to accept higher levels of risk, for example up to one in 100.
New Canadian guidelines
The new Canadian guidelines followed strict procedures to make the assessment as unbiased and informed as possible. The committee members were experts in public health, medicine and epidemiology who had no financial interests in the manufacture or sale of alcohol. An independent panel used rigorously defined search criteria to identify the most recently published high-quality studies on alcohol risks for conditions identified by the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Study Group. Drinking at the new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or about five minutes per drink. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang When these risk relationships were collected and applied to Canadian data on causes of death and life expectancy, the lifetime risk of mortality from alcohol was estimated to be less than 1 in 100 for men and women who consumed no more than six drinks a week. The risks were elevated even with two drinks a week, at a risk level of just under one in 1,000. These new guidelines are provided based on the latest science, guided by the principle that citizens have a right to know the potential health effects of products. This is especially true for products distributed and sold directly by Canadian governments in most provinces and territories.
Alcohol and heart health
The careful review process found much weaker evidence than before for the hypothesis that low doses of alcohol can protect against heart disease. This finding is also consistent with a World Heart Federation statement published earlier this year, which advised that the science behind this hypothesis is now highly contested and, at best, extremely weak. My colleagues and I are keen to see how these new guidelines are received. There is still much more work to be done, including determining the acceptable level of risk from alcohol for most people. We have estimated that drinking at these new guideline levels will still reduce life expectancy by two or three months – or around five minutes per drink. Is this acceptable to most people? It’s a conversation we need to continue.
