WHO acting unit lead Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges (not really)
“No amount” of alcohol is safe? Bullshit.
The World Health Organization (WHO) made a big splash when it confidently stated “no level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.” The news release went on to equate alcohol to asbestos, radiation, and tobacco in perhaps the biggest overreach in public health history.
The release correctly noted that the risks of developing certain types of cancer increase as more alcohol is consumed. However, the release also boldly stated, without evidence, that “any beverage containing alcohol, regardless of its price and quality, poses a risk of developing cancer.” It’s so bad that “risks start from the first drop.”
That’s right my kombucha drinking friends, you are killing yourselves by drinking the stuff. (It has less than 0.5% alcohol.) Gave your baby boy a drop of wine at his bris? You ruined his life. Drink the blood of Christ at communion? Yeah, that’s killing you too, sorry.
The WHO’s acting unit lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and regional advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs, Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges states, again, without evidence, “It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage.”
Let me be as blunt as I can be. Dr. Ferreira-Borges and the WHO have gotten way out over their skis on the risks of any alcohol consumption. There is no evidence to support the assertion that any amount of alcohol, no matter how small, is harmful to one’s long-term health, full stop. There is actually a large body of evidence that contradicts what they assert, which essentially amounts to an anti-alcohol crusade hidden in a news release.
Quite simply, the WHO is lying to you. The question is, why?
The answer is contained in the third section of its press release, which states that the WHO European region has the highest alcohol consumption level globally. “So,” says Dr. Ferreira-Borges, “when we talk about possible so-called safer levels of alcohol consumption or about its protective effects, we are ignoring the bigger picture of alcohol harm in our Region and the world.”
In short, over-consumption of alcohol is a serious problem in many countries. There is unequivocal evidence that excessive consumption is associated with worse health outcomes.
Now if the WHO said “People who drink excessively need to imbibe less to improve their health outcomes” it would get no press and have no impact. However, if the WHO says “no amount of alcohol is safe” – despite a complete and total lack of evidence that this is the case – it will gain a huge amount of media attention and scare people into drinking less, potentially heavy drinkers who are its target.
This “papa knows best” approach is a tradeoff that public health officials make every day. The WHO believes that any beneficial effects that some people might receive drinking low and moderate amounts of alcohol are outweighed in terms of the greater good by the harmful effects of other people who drink too much.
I understand the tradeoff from a global public health perspective. Don’t lie to people to do it.
The WHO states, “To identify a ‘safe’ level of alcohol consumption, valid scientific evidence would need to demonstrate that at and below a certain level, there is no risk of illness or injury associated with alcohol consumption.” Comically, the WHO follows this by stating that “risks start from the first drop” yet removes itself from any such burden of proof. It cannot show that is the case because the evidence does not exist.
This is grandstanding by the WHO with a lack of scientific research to support its assertions. It is an embarrassment to the organization, to scientific research, and to the thousands of people who have studied this topic for decades. It’s also a disservice to low and moderate wine drinkers who might receive some potential health benefits.
As a research scientist in another life, you know what convinces me? Data. The WHO doesn’t have it, yet it makes definitive statements as if it does. It is shameful.
To the WHO, I say this. You want to assert that any amount of alcohol no matter how small is harmful to long-term health? Prove it. Otherwise, it’s an untested hypothesis erroneously stated as fact that should be retracted.
The assertion that a “drop” of alcohol leads to long-term health consequences is laughable on the face of it. Such fear mongering only serves to discredit the WHO as a legitimate authority on matters of public health. That is something that will surely have long-term health consequences.
Do you enjoy Northwest Wine Report? If you do and haven’t subscribed already, now is the time! This site is 100% subscriber funded and is my primary source of income. None of the content can be created without YOU subscribing. Subscribe here. It’s the cost per month of a cup of coffee and a crumpet.
To receive articles via email, click here.
Excellent analysis. Thanks, Sean.
Thanks Sean. Appreciate your point about data and you are spot on, they have none.
Thank you SO much for writing this, Sean. It needed to be said in a clear and level-headed way (instead of the way I’ve been saying it, which is reflected in the opening line).
Great post!
For those looking for a more nuanced perspective than the WHO provides on alcohol and health from public health officials, this recent article (2024) is a good place to start.
https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/is-alcohol-bad-for-you-or-is-alcohol-good-for-you-yes/
There is conclusive scientific evidence that acetaldeyde, a metabolite of ethanol, is carcinogenic, and as such is categorized as a Group 1 carcinogen. Acetaldehyde is also toxic and mutagenic as well as carcinogenic. Although I enjoy wine occasionally, it appears that those involved in the business of alcohol object to the demonization of it while medical researchers and physicians appear to be more objective in its potential for documented harm.
Gus Carvalho, I wouldn’t necessarily say that researchers and physicians are by default more objective. To me, there’s a clear lack of objectivity in Dr. Ferreira-Borges’s statements.
Dr. Ferreira-Borges is stating her point so forcefully to try to gain attention and to increase awareness of the dangers of alcohol, which you and I both know are not well understood by many people. She is attempting to increase awareness by overstating her case. To me, that substantially hurts her cause by undermining her credibility.
I understand that alcohol is a Group I carcinogen. However, so are processed meats and air pollution. I don’t see the WHO saying that a single slice of bacon is dangerous or to stay away from city air at all costs. I also don’t see the organization equating hotdogs to asbestos.
As you know, carcinogens do not cause cancer in every person, every time there is an exposure. By your own admission, you have wine on occasion despite it being carcinogenic and mutagenic. If alcohol were as dangerous as the WHO implies in its news release, you likely would never have any. The WHO is saying that a single drop of alcohol is dangerous!
I am all for educating the public about the risks of alcohol in general and over consumption of alcohol in particular, whatever that actual amount might be. But I am not for fear mongering, which is what the WHO is doing. Again, show me the data that a single drop of alcohol leads to poor health outcomes, and I’m all ears. That is what Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges implies. There is no data to support that.
As I stated in the article, I was a research scientist in another life. (I was also an MD-PhD student.) I am *always* interested in data. It’s the WHO’s overstating of the data that I object to.
The WHO stance on alcohol mirrors its stance on other potentially carcinogenic agents. They state they are no safe levels of processed meat exposure, asbestos exposure, cigarette smoke exposure with no amount considered a safe level of exposure. This implies that a one time exposure to these known carcinogens is a risk despite no studies available for one time exposure. By analogy, smoking one cigarette probably won’t cause lung cancer but is it safe? Eating one slice of bacon is unlikely to cause cancer but again is it safe? By extension, drinking a single glass of wine is unlikely to cause cancer but is it safe? Granted it is a hardline stance that could be taken to extreme levels, but until absolute safety can be established would it not be better to err on the side of caution. People can still drink but with the knowledge that this could be potentially harmful, have the positive effect of people moderating their drinking, and even possibly becoming more acutely aware of the health impacts of drinking.
Dr. Carvalho, thank you for bringing logical though to an illogical rant.
I laughed out loud when I read in the original post: “The assertion that a ‘drop’ of alcohol leads to long-term health consequences is laughable on the face of it.”
That “assertion” doesn’t exist in the WHO statement. All that was said is that a safe consumption cannot be determined at this time. The media blows it out of proportion, including this blogger.
RM, the WHO says “No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.” The clear (and intended) implication is that any level of alcohol consumption is unsafe (dangerous) for our health.
The WHO says “there is no safe amount that does not affect health.” The implication is that any level of consumption affects health.
The WHO says “any beverage containing alcohol…poses a risk of developing cancer.” That is self-explanatory.
The WHO says “Risks start from the first drop.” The implication is a drop of alcohol is not safe and, based on what it has written previously, can cause cancer.
The WHO says “We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage.” The implication, as above, is no level of alcohol is safe, not a single drop.
Sean:
You are certainly correct that the World, Health Organization’s comments about alcohol are completely misleading. Any decent mathematician can tear apart their argument in about three minutes. It simply doesn’t hold any water in terms of all life expectancy. That is because it completely ignores the science that proves that you live a longer life if you consume a small quantity of wine every day, without missing a day, according to heart specialists. The No. 1 killer of Americans is heart disease. Small amounts of wine taken daily prevent heart disease by a far greater degree than is the increased risk of cancer.