黑料吃瓜群网

Over recent weeks, the alcohol industry has been drumming up around Australia鈥檚 new drinking guidelines. Australia鈥檚 guidelines on alcohol consumption are under ongoing review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), with new draft guidelines expected to be released in November. The alcohol industry has labelled the current guidelines (two standard drinks per day and four in any heavy episode of drinking) as , and voiced concern the guidelines .

The global alcohol industry has been increasingly proactive in trying to on the harms associated with the product they make money from manufacturing, promoting and selling. This is somewhat unsurprising given the industry would be if we all drank responsibly.

Drinking guidelines

Panels of scientists develop drinking guidelines around the world by assessing the best and most up-to-date evidence on alcohol and health, and determining consumption levels which might put people at risk. They then provide the information to health professionals and the public to allow people to make informed decisions about consumption. The guidelines are neither imposed nor legislated. The current 2009 recommend healthy adults should drink no more than two standard drinks per day to reduce their lifetime risk of alcohol-related disease or injury. They recommend no more than four standard drinks on one occasion to reduce a person鈥檚 risk of injury and death. So how are the industry players trying to protect our drinking culture from such 鈥渉arsh鈥� guidelines?

Alcohol Beverages Australia: who they are and what they鈥檙e claiming

Alcohol Beverages Australia (ABA) is an industry body for global alcohol producers and retailers, including Asahi Brewers from Japan, Diageo Spirits from the UK, Pernod Ricard from France, Coca-Cola Amatil from the USA, and . Bringing together multiple industry groups to lobby government was . The NHMRC review of Australia鈥檚 drinking guidelines was on the health effects of alcohol consumption until January 2017. At this time, the ABA submitted a report claiming drinking alcohol carries health benefits including a reduced risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. They requested the review take this into account in drafting any new guidelines. In their communications with the media this month, the ABA resurfaced their 2017 submission to the process. It seems they have not updated the information to reflect the latest evidence.

The most up-to-date evidence has shown previous research was in terms of the relationship between alcohol consumption and , , and . We know consuming any type of alcohol of developing cancer of the bowel, mouth, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, liver and breast. The World Health Organisation has classified alcohol as a , along with asbestos and tobacco, for decades.

Any health benefits the ABA demonstrated evidence for is outweighed by the risks.

Alongside claiming the benefits of drinking alcohol need to be considered, to make their case, the ABA have compared drinking guidelines across different countries. In doing so, they are seeking to highlight Australia鈥檚 guidelines are 鈥榮tricter鈥� than those of most other countries.

In making sense of these figures, the difference in drink driving levels is worth considering. It takes the average male four standard drinks to reach 0.05 in two hours and around seven standard drinks to reach 0.08. This is a big difference for most of us.

Those countries with 0.08mg of alcohol per L of blood as the legal limit are willing to accept of having a car accident than Australia鈥檚 0.05.

We need to ask whether these are countries whose health and safety models we want to follow.

To view a larger image, click .

This is not a new problem

The industry is using language like 鈥渉arsh鈥� and 鈥渟trict鈥� to ferment public opposition to any tightened guidelines.

This spin strategy is predictable. The alcohol industry has been fighting for many decades to preserve , disregarding consumers鈥� rights to know the contents of their products, and the harms associated.

They fought against the 0.05 drink driving limit in the 1950s, and have successfully telling us about the cancer risk associated with alcohol consumption. For example, while policymakers have proposed with information about cancer risk be placed on alcoholic drinks, this is yet to eventuate.

The ABA is a push to explicitly warn consumers drinking is harmful to unborn babies by means of mandatory labelling on all alcohol containers, suggesting it鈥檚 鈥渢oo much information鈥�.

These examples show how the industry continues to actively muddy efforts to educate the public of the harms of alcohol consumption.

Notably, we鈥檝e seen all of this , particularly in the , or 鈥渂ig tobacco鈥�, which has previously to minimise health concerns and delay effective legislation.

So it鈥檚 hard not to wonder if the ABA are worried about the bottom line of their corporate masters, and therefore trying to influence deliberations through a media campaign, .

, Professor of Violence Prevention and Addiction Studies,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Image credit: 漏stock.adobe.com/au/Monkey Business

Originally published