Image: Flickr/pamlane
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
When considering the world's worst killers, alcohol likely doesn't come to mind. Yet alcohol kills more than 2.5 million people annually, more than AIDS, malaria or tuberculosis.
For middle-income people, who constitute half the world's population, alcohol is the top health risk factor, greater than obesity, inactivity and even tobacco.
The World Health Organization has meticulously documented the extent of alcohol abuse in recent years and has published solid recommendations on how to reduce alcohol-related deaths, but this doesn't go far enough, according to Devi Sridhar, a health-policy expert at the University of Cambridge.
In a commentary appearing today (Feb. 15) in the journal Nature, Sridhar argues that the WHO should regulate alcohol at the global level, enforcing such regulations as a minimum drinking age, zero-tolerance drunken driving, and bans on unlimited drink specials. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) Abiding by the regulations would be mandatory for the WHO's 194 member states.
Far from prohibition, the WHO regulations would force nations to strengthen weak drinking laws and better enforce laws already in place, Sridhar says.
Approaching a bottle a day
Alcohol consumption is measured in terms of pure ethyl alcohol to compensate for the varying strengths of beer, wine and spirits. A liter bottle of wine with 10 percent alcohol, for example, would be only 0.1 liter of pure alcohol. According to the WHO, Americans each drink 9.4 liters of ethyl alcohol per year on average. That's equivalent to 94 bottles of the aforementioned wine. [See list of top 20 booze-consuming countries]
As high as that might sound, Americans don't even crack the top 50 on the world charts. Europe, in particular Eastern Europe, dominates the drinking scene. Moldova has the top drinkers, downing 18.4 liters of alcohol per capita yearly. That's equivalent to 184 1-liter bottles of wine, or nearly four bottles a week per person. The legal drinking age in Moldova is 16, and there are few restrictions on when or where alcohol can be sold.
The price of such alcohol abuse is early death. One in five men in the Russian Federation and neighboring European countries dies as a result of alcohol, according to WHO data. Alcohol abuse is associated with cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver, various cancers, violence and vehicle accidents. Alcoholic adults have difficulty working and supporting their families, too.
Sobering recommendations
Sridhar argues that the WHO is unique among health organizations in that it can create legally binding conventions. The WHO has done this only twice in its 64-year history: the International Health Regulations, which require countries to report certain disease outbreaks and public-health events; and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which commits governments to making legislative moves to reduce the demand for, and the supply of, tobacco.
No other entity can attack the global problem of alcohol abuse, she said. When it comes to alcohol, though, the WHO has settled on merely recommendations, such as those outlined in the 2010 WHO Global Strategy to Reduce Harmful Use of Alcohol.
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentEliminate the revenue(taxes)from alcohol sales and licenses and then the governments would do something to reduce consumption. As it is, the revenue takes priority over the people and their health, a conflict of interest. Simple but effective method, no revenue, no support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo now the UN wants to control Booze.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, yes. Great idea. Let's get more invasive. Governance of alcohol consumption should be up to individuals. Governments can & perhaps should provide assistance to those wishing to break an addiction, but beyond that they should stay out of people's personal lives. And WHO should not dictate to its members. Educate, empower & even preach, if you must, but no more unenforceable & silly laws. Such laws engender disrespect for laws, in general, & force individual to become law breakers, in the specific. Idiotic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's only a matter of time before the FDA jumps on this bandwagon. They love extending their regulatory net to anything and everything they can. They have a long history of overreach: http://bit.ly/zR36rd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegulating alcohol went well in Prohibition... So well that it was repealed by the only Constitutional amendment to be ratified by the People (state ratifying conventions).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople know the risks of alcohol and are willing to live with them. Deal with it.
Just let us smoke pot instead!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscollege upper class men who force lower class man who are not mature enough to drink legally to drink should be punished more severely. These thinks can end up in some one dying .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA world without alcohol would be much safer to live in. Humans are selfish:they'd rather have free access to this drug than save lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlas, humans love to stupid things...
Alcohol consumption as an recreational drug has been with us since prehistory, and with the invention of agriculture, as a way to extract some value from crop surpluses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI imagine alcohol abuse has also been with us that long, but was more self-limiting before the invention of organized medical care.
Yes, people will likely always want access to alcohol for recreational purposes, and while there is plenty of evidence it can have some health benefits in moderation, reducing abuse is certainly worthwhile.
Perhaps abuse prevention can be linked in the public's consciousness to some more lofty ideal than one's own selfish health concerns; in today's world of widespread hunger amidst corporate agricultural plenty, it may be worthwhile to consider that every liter of alcohol consumed recreationally (or used as fuel) represents almost 2 kilograms of grain that was diverted out of the world's food supply. In some parts of the world that 2 kilograms of grain feeds a large family for a day.
Enjoy your next glass of beer or wine...
Just when you think the looney left can't get any more petty, intrusive and Big Brother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI drink beer. Get over it.
I think that the WHO should look into banning idiotic bans. They get people's blood pressure up and lead to heart attacks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI side here with those who are afraid of even more intrusion of government into private life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil recently, such topics were only found in sci-fi stories about global governments slowly forcing people to comply more and more for their own will.
It is spooky that such ideas are even raised seriously and funded by public money. Money which is cut for more direct and uncontroversial help for society.
I knew there was a reason so many of the "right" minded were cranky so often; you drink too much. What is there "left" to think? I suspect all of you libertarians here had better be careful, too many people will think you are a bunch of sods.....and we would not want to ruin those stellar rep's now would we ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshit bro
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny institution will face doubts whether it wastes its funds, when it publishes such conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn recent years I feel like in a test, how much more intrusion in their private life people can bear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of a ban on further bans looks appealing. As well as adding privacy explicitly into fundamental human rights.
there are some behaviors that cannot regulated under any circumstances. EtOH can be bad, so is smoking, drugging, excessive weight, spousal abuse, et al. So are we saying that the nanny states should react accordingly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSridhar and the WHO would be over-stepping their place on this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheir job is in the science of the medical realm.
Alcohol is primarily a social issue.
Well educated people can govern themselves.
Making recreational drugs illegal increased their consumption, and making alcohol illegal will increase its consumption. I can see where world governments and the medical establishment can benefit from that. In America, I have a choice if I want to engage in in drinking alcohol since it is legal; I also have a right to bare arms, just like Larry The Cable Guy, and rise up against you when you become too overbearing...you remember the Civil War?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin said: "Just when you think the looney left can't get any more petty, intrusive and Big Brother."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe loony left? Take a look at a map of the dry counties in the United States. They're all in the conservative south and Alaska. Conservative Mormons abstain from alcohol, and conservative Utah used to ban alcohol completely. Conservative Baptists have banned alcohol, tobacco, dancing and movies in the past, which is why most of the dry counties are in the South.
There's a difference between zero tolerance for drunk driving and Prohibition. Laws that hold bartenders responsible for continuing to sell drinks to already-loaded patrons aren't Prohibition.
Thousands of Americans die on the roads every year as a result of drunk drivers, millions of women and children are beaten by drunk fathers, millions of families have torn apart by alcohol addiction. All these things cost money, lots of it, and we pick up the tab for most of it through higher taxes and insurance rates.
Preventing excess is not Prohibition. Responsible beer drinking is perfectly fine. It's the nitwits who encourage a friend to drink 21 shots on their 21st birthday and die of alcohol poisoning that we're talking about, not guys who stop off for a cold one after work.
Just when you thought....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's keep alcohol abusers off of Medicare (and out of my wallet). And if you are on Medicare and the cause of your accident is alcohol; no coverage. And if you kill someone while drunk, a quick trip to the guillotine. Otherwise, drink as you wish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisROFL @ the guy who blames the left for this! Hahaha. And at the guy who thinks drinking alcohol should get you banned from welfare and other social services check this site out:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
I too once was like you once and blamed all our social and financial issues on the poor, but after seeing that only 2% failined in Florida. I now see the wrong in that logic - the vast majority on welfare probably are just single parents trying to get their family to survive.
If you want to blame someone blame the Rich, the lobbyist groups, and the politicians - who no longer have societies best interests in mind.
Typical "central brain controls the world" mentality that has been around since cavemen brewed beer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm an alcoholic. A pretty good one too, such that there will never be enough. Seagram's stock plunged appreciably when I stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, I am appalled once again to have some World organization ratcheting up control over my life. If the people of my state or community want to decide on an issue by referendum that is one thing; but when you start talking about some unknown and unknowable world bureaucracy marching past this nation's sovereignty to get at my freedoms, You are walking on the fighting side of me. And make no mistake about the leftist progressive nature of this intrusion, BLK, There are no baptists or Mormons in the U.N.
It's interesting that so many see this as a political rather than a public health issue. The facts are quite clear: alcohol misuse costs US tax payers billions each year in medical and judicial expenses. Add to this the cost of families destroyed, lost productivity, and all of the other ancillary damage and the total financial and personal cost becomes horrific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf people could make reasonable decisions about alcohol use we would not be having this discussion. The fact that alcohol is a powerful, sedative, addictive drug precludes reasonable decisions in many people.
I guess that I would not mind so much if those who misuse alcohol hurt only themselves but that is simply not the case. A large precent of what I pay for auto and health insurance goes to pay for crashes and illnesses caused by drinking. I have lost friends and family members to alcoholism and alcohol misuse; their own and by other people.
How willing are you to support the right of everyone to drink as they please if one of them kills your spouse or child by driving while drunk?
Prohibition does not work. Still, just as I expect government to try to insure the safety of the food that I eat, the medicines that I take, and provide police and fire protection, I would like a lot more protection from the results of alcohol misuse.
"Big government" does not scare me nearly as much as your garden variety drunk driver.
I wish the WHO and other international organizations would mind there own business! It's one thing to have them as international platforms to study and inform, it's quiet another to give them the power to enforce and dictate. Who in the heck wants a global government? I sure don't! Shades of "1984"! The last thing I want in my life is someone in a foreign country deciding what I can and cannot do in my own home or state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this