Enzo Jannacci, an unforgettable singer-songwriter but also a fine surgeon, recalled how silly it is to live sick and then die healthy.
A clear invitation not to follow the hyper-health phobias that periodically hit the headlines, instead giving space to common sense and moderation when you sit down at the table .
It is a pity that precisely these concepts do not seem to have been developed by the European health authorities when they decided that there is no minimum threshold below which alcohol can be taken without risk. Mind you, in 2008 ethanol was included by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in English "Iarc" , in the list of Group 1 carcinogens, 122 agents including asbestos, ionizing radiation, smoke and UV rays. Its dangerousness for the organism is therefore established , which represented a wedding invitation for those supporters of hyper-health who in recent times have proposed to the European Union to evaluate the possibility of inserting on wine labelsand beer warnings such as "May cause cancer" along the lines of what is already happening for cigarette packs.
Theses must be answered with theses
Led by Ireland, the proposal then came to be discussed in the EU where it met with the obvious and clear dissent of the wine-producing countries, Italy in the lead. It is a pity that the Italian opposition, led by Minister Francesco Lollobrigida, gave way to yet another "protectionist coldirettata" by Coldiretti and went completely off topic, supporting wine as a product of a millenary culture , as an element of sociality and as an important source of work and business.
Groundbreaking new tech proves wine provenance
All true, but the request for labeling is based on scientific theses and therefore should, if anything, be countered by benefiting from equally scientific contrary theses . In the specific case it happens that the "Iarc" classification does not report the so-called "exposure levels" which make an agent strongly oriented towards developing cancer.
The zero threshold does not exist
This has led followers of hyperhealth to argue that the threshold is zero and therefore, to put it simply, even a single drop of alcohol can cause cancer. There is therefore a need to counter the message of the "zero threshold" as the only level of intake that is truly safe for health, a thesis that appears weak from many points of view, starting from its underlying logic, i.e. the infamous precautionary principle and the theory of the "linear damage without threshold", in the acronym "Lnt". The precautionary principle aims to prohibit anything for which there is no absolute certainty of absence of risk, forgetting that absolute certainty is not a thing of this world.
For its part, the "Lnt" theory assumes that the harmful effect of a substance decreases linearly until it disappears only when the exposure is zeroed. The first is therefore purely political , while the second was rejected some time ago precisely on a scientific level . In fact, to realize its absurdity it is enough to think about the fact that it is a thesis rejected even at a medical level, an area in which, on the contrary, a minimum threshold is always admitted, even for the most harmful substances, under which not only the same substances do not produce side effects, but can even prove to be curative. An example in this sense are the curaries, poisons capable of killing, but which, if taken in the right doses, become medicines.
No to alcohol prohibition. What matters is the dose
In confirmation, not even the most ardent non-alcoholic prohibitionist would dare to say that a can of beer a year can increase the risk of cancer.
So a threshold exists. Low, perhaps, but it exists and varies from person to person based on gender, age, physique and lifestyle. It would therefore be better if, instead of launching into diatribes against wine and beer, the European Union gave rise to concrete information campaigns to educate people to drink in moderation , favoring quality over quantity and avoiding their intake if about to undertake activities that require of the best possible concentration. First the guide .
Prohibition for alcohol and wine? Focus on education and common sense
Ultimately, we need to separate the salvation army crusades that would require all teetotalers from those that would instead lead to proper health education. If alcohol is abused it is undoubtedly harmful and therefore it is necessary to give notice of the thing , without however falling into alcophobic campaigns which do everything except discourage abuse. In fact, it is one thing to say that wine, beer and spirits in general should not be drunk very much, it is quite another to demonize even the most moderate of assumptions. After all, the American prohibition of the 1920s went very badly precisely because the rules can do very little against free will.
