You may have heard about US Surgeon General Dr Vivek Murthy campaigning to place cancer warnings on wine labels sold in America. Murthy’s new advisory highlights some evidence linking alcohol consumption to several types of cancer, which has sparked a grand debate amongst wine consumers, the wine industry, and even nations. Now no one is propagating the idea that alcohol abuse is the secret to a long and healthy life. In fact, most of us are probably still trying to recover, in some way, from our over-indulgences over the festive period, and are living (barely) proof of the damages caused by the phrase: "One more glass won’t hurt."
Now, I am the type of person that lives with reckless abandon and probably consumes way more alcohol than I should while practicing some selective ignorance to the effects on my health. I’m sure we’ve all been guilty of this. Everyone has a vice. Mine just happens to be Chateauneuf Du Pape.
The trouble is, that I’d like to be able to enjoy my giddy juice for as long as humanly possible, and one of my motivators to keep my body relatively healthy is so that I can continue to sip on my favourite tipple without it hospitalising me. So I thought it prudent, maybe not to heed the warnings of the Surgeon General, but to do some research into whether some fermented grape juice would indeed bring on my early demise.
The mere fact that there is debate around whether Murthy’s proposal will be implemented or not means that there is reasonable evidence against the claims.
Sure, most of the uproar is deeply rooted in the wine industry where producers, farms and wine professionals are suffering financially due to a significant dip in alcohol consumption over the past few years, and scare tactics like cancer warnings on bottles may force the industry into further decline. This uproar obviously does not invalidate the proposed legislation, as a struggling industry does not warrant the dismissal of public health.
Nonetheless there is some evidence to suggest that Murthy’s findings and demonization of alcohol as an umbrella category is inherently flawed as not all alcoholic beverages have the same effect on the body. This would be like grouping an over-the-counter painkiller with opiates and cautioning the populace that all painkillers lead to substance abuse and renal failure, which simply isn’t true. It is how we consume our vices and what our vices are that determine our risk to their side effects. The occasional aspirin when you have a headache is not the same as living on a morphine drip, in the same way that a glass or two of wine a day is not the same as trumpeting a bottle of Vodka over your lunch break.
While the World Health Organisation (WHO) claims that there is no "safe amount" of alcohol to consume, there is significant evidence suggesting that red wine consumed in moderation (2 measly glasses a day. As I roll my thirsty eyes.) can actually be beneficial to one’s health.
The French paradox
Let’s bring in the French paradox, and God bless the French. Not only are they the reason why what I do is considered a real job and not just an excuse to drink fabulous wines, but as a nation they are a living testament to the beneficial qualities of moderate wine consumption. In particular, red wine.
The French paradox is an observation that despite the fact that the French population generally consumes a diet relatively rich in saturated fats, they have a very low incidence of coronary heart disease among their people.
This is surprising, because if you’ve ever eaten confit de canard, I’m sure you’re familiar with the fact that it pairs beautifully with a Chateau Margeaux, and also (maybe more poignantly) it is a deeply fatty and rich dish that could quite possibly make your heart unalive itself before you reach dessert. This paradox is said to be aided by a moderate consumption of red wine on a habitual basis (see Chateau Margeaux).
The magic word to add to your vocabulary when fighting off the wino slander is "polyphenols". Research around a specific polyphenol found in red wine called resveratrol confirms that not only is red wine delicious, but that it is actually beneficial to the health of our hearts. And not just in the metaphysical sense where it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy.
Before you ask, no, I am not the researcher. Research on resveratrol and its numerous benefits has been conducted by the University of Bordeaux, the University of Barcelona, The University of Navarra, California, Chicago, and even Harvard. I’m sure you get the point. Something about knowing that multinational groups of people pondering around in their John Lennon spectacles and pristine lab coats, declaring the benefits of consuming red wine just makes the world a little brighter.
To add to this, it’s not just your heart that it’s good for. Evidence suggests that our beloved loopy juice improves cognitive function, mood regulation, helps manage chemical depression, lowers your risks for ischemic strokes, improves sleep quality and, rather interestingly, may reduce the formation of amyloid beta proteins (bad stuff), and oxidative-stress (worse stuff) on the brain which are responsible for the development of Alzheimer's as well as Parkinson’s disease.
Now that’s some food for thought!
Before you call me a flat earther as a result of me going against what the US government is saying, I think it’s important to note that "health trends" change all the time, depending on who you’re listening to. Remember when margarine was supposedly good for us and butter was Satan himself? The point I’m trying to make is that cancer warning labels on bottles of wine justified by research done on ethanol and the overconsumption of it seem like the cries of boys who are afraid of wolves. Yes the wolves may be lurking somewhere, but are they huffing and puffing at your door? Not only that, but studies on red wine specifically have shown how beneficial that wolf could be. A guard dog, of sort, for your mental and physical health.
Dry January
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have all the answers, nor am I a health professional in any way. What I will say is that I am increasingly annoyed with Dry January for all the reasons I mentioned above. Not that I think that people should continue to booze like it’s Jesus’ birthday, or that people shouldn’t be concerned about their health, but because there is only one thing worse than a wine snob, and that’s a health snob.
In a world where the costs and benefits of a couple glasses of yum-yum a day is an undecided science, the decision to cold turkey (which can’t be good either) something you enjoy completely for the sake of Dry January seems absurd to me. Is going back to work after the holidays not painful enough? Why add to the struggle?
The other issue I have with Dry January is the indirect damage it does, not only to my bottom line (as someone who sells wine), but while well-intentioned, Dry January may inadvertently reinforce an unrealistic expectation that quitting drinking is effortless. Thus further perpetuating the kale-spotted smirks of the health snobs as they tower over their peers who (and I say this softly) might have a little drink problem.
I say, pretend like it's 1 February, (which apparently is a better date to drink, go figure) and have a glass or two. Just remember: All things in moderation… Including moderation.
Follow Razeen's wine journey on Instagram at @virgin_vines.