Can we have a bit more faith in wine?
‘Science’, as it is commonly presented to us, is not actually truth. It’s a belief system, much like a religion or the reasons behind a decision to drink only Natural Wine. Like religion, we depend upon our faith in it. We have to have faith in what we are being told in order to believe it. So, for instance, when we are told that alcohol is more harmful than heroin, we need to have faith in the scientists and their findings in order to truly believe it.
Well, I understand it, but I don’t believe it. I don’t know a great deal of heroin users, but I do know a lot of instances where drink has enabled (note: not caused) violence and violent behavior on the part of a lot of people I know – myself included. I get that alcohol enables (note again: not causes) more violent behavoir than heroin. It’s merely a sheer weight of numbers thing – there are, one assumes, more alcohol ‘users’ than there are heroin users.
So my first point is obvious: it is generally not alcohol’s fault, it’s the fault of the person drinking it. There’s a certain sense of causality here but the implied argument used by health officials is that while it is clearly the fault of the person that has been drinking, if there was less access to booze, there would be less crime/violence. And what the health lobbies are pushing for is increasing wine prices as this is, they argue, by far the easiest way of reducing access to alcohol. Which I can understand (to a certain extent) but, if this were true, surely the best way to combat obesity is to put food prices up? The best way to stop people getting killed? An astronomical tax on arms sales.
But the last two points are not discussed with anything like the same seriousness as the public danger of fist-fights at weddings after a few too many glasses of Prosecco and a misunderstanding on the dancefloor. This is my point about belief in science – you can take whatever you want from it. If you believe science holds the key to improving our lives, firstly, wonder why only certain problems of the world are being discussed – there is still no vaccine for Leishmaniasis, a huge killer throughout the world, a fact practically unreported in the West, although we do have reports on the ‘healthy’ number of alcohol units.
Also, not only does this kind of scientific research cover what you might call a very narrow field, but suggestions on how to deal with it are the opposite of science – they are hypothetical. Hypothetical because there is little by way of data/model that is proposed as the best way of combating alcohol abuse (this is the enemy, remember, not alcohol sales [although one could argue that pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in destroying the drinks market for, as the potential providers of 'cures' to the ills of drink - they sit on government advisory boards - they also have the most money to make from reforming alcoholics and those who have a tendency towards addictive behavior]). Of course, these people might argue for increased policing of off-licences or liquor shops, increased taxes and higher wine prices, but if these same people cannot scientifically prove that this will reduce crime/violent behavior (and often the models and science is woefully lacking), the two parts of the equation do not fit. You cannot use science to prove something without using science to solve it. Indeed, it might be proven that better education gives a much better result.
Of course, if you follow the notion that the only way to combat alcohol abuse is to make it hard to get hold of, then why not ban it outright? Although the obvious point here is that one only has to look at the prohibition years of the USA to understand that violent crime will not necessarily drop as a result. That’s a model, and one we know well.
Most belief systems (or ideologies) ignore the bad and concentrate on the good. Proponents of the foundations of our modern society might trumpet the French Revolution as a great moment in the history of the world, but in doing so, they choose to ignore the sheer horror of mass-murder that was the Terror – all part and parcel of the belief system which forged the Revolution. But we turn a blind eye to this for the good of humanity, much like we turn a blind eye to torture and murder committed by our governments on our behalf. We choose, I suspect, to put faith in them. But in the case of wine we tend to ignore the good and concentrate on the bad. Time, maybe, for a bit more faith? I’m not saying we should be as evangelical of wine’s healthy properties as the Wine Spectator, which, it seems, cannot pass up the tiniest bit of research saying that wine is beneficial without trumpeting it in its pages. I’m saying that we should be as critical of science as science is as mercilessly critical of us.
And remember, scientifically speaking, what is good for our countries (what it seems this alcohol debate is supposedly about – ‘costs to the economy’, etc.) is not necessarily good for us.
One last point. If we assume this study is being held up to show us that alcohol is the most dangerous drug, then one can easily argue that the study must also tell us what is a lesser danger. I’d like to think that if I gave him the choice, my doctor would rather I ‘took’ wine than heroin. But scientifically speaking (i.e. according to this report) I’m better off smoking cigarettes, snorting Cocaine, puffing Cannabis, or just generally off my tits on GHB, Ketamine, Methadone, Mephedrone, Khat, LSD, Mushrooms or Ecstasy. I have no idea what one might do with Butane (I assume you sniff it, not smoke it) but according to an independent scientific model, I’d be doing society a favour by tipping my Tempranillo down the drain and stocking up on some top-quality camping gas at my local outdoor lifestyle shop.
Sorry science, you might be right, but I don’t believe you.
Very interesting, many thanks. Some very valid points, but in my opinion you’re missing the big one…
Science itself is not a belief system. It does establish truths, not all the time, and more often than not it establishes falsities (A helluva lot more things don’t happen than do.)
The problem arises when you start applying it (in this case statistics) to something that cannot be empirically measured such as one person’s definition of dangerousness in society.
To my mind you’re asking the wrong question: surely it isn’t whether you believe in the science bit, but how far you believe it can or should be extrapolated to everyday life / government policy &c.
No you can’t ban alcohol – someone, somewhere will always know how to make it. But, on second thoughts, banning it may be the best approach for all concerned. The first thing that would happen is that the price would go up – which would be good for the wine producers; the second thing that would happen would be that governments would (don’t worry, they’ll work out a way) get more tax; and thirdly, it would begin to put it out of the reach of the younger drinker, or at least reduce abuse – which would in turn reduce the under-24′s road death rate a bit.
Yup! Ban alcohol! Prohibtion already proves that it would work. The politicans are so clever they would surely find a way to ban it and yet still make it available – look how they managed it in the UK with their parliamentary expenses.
Science is not a belief system. It is a statement of fact wherin a hypothesis or null hypothesis is proved repeatedly by different people carrying out the same experiment, often based on 1 criteria or a collection of individual criteria. Belief and faith are not relevant.
As for alcohol being more dangerous than diamorphine hydrochloride, surely the word is abuse is missing from the media who have once again misrepresented a statement of fact. No one can be in any doubt, and many hold the belief that 1 glass of wine per day is probably good for you, whereas 1 syringe of Heroin is not.
I have no problem with minimum pricing on alcohol, because I only drink wine and the odd beer and none of it is available when I buy 1 I get one free. Surely though there are plenty of respondible people of limited means who should not be penalised.
Ah! That’s good. Then Champagne won’t be moving to England before the end of the 21st century. I was getting worried.
Hi Oliver, not sure that you defend yourself when you say science is not a belief system but that it ‘establishes falsities’. Anyway, I agree that one of the more important points is the way that science is applied. But this is what I’m getting at when I say it’s a belief, because you have to ask yourself which science ‘facts’ you want to use? Do you, as a government, encourage drinking wine because it has health benefits or do you want to slow alcohol sales because it is a dangerous drug? The two points are almost contrary, yet both are scientifically proven.
Gurnseyboy – the only problem with banning alcohol production is that it is relatively easy to spot a vineyard and close it down (using, one assumes, something like Columbia’s USA-sponsored Monsanto herbicides). Production of the ‘hard stuff’ is tougher to spot!
Hi Daniel, thanks for your comments – I wish I had more differing opinions on my site! However, if science is a fact, what do you believe – that wine is good or bad for us? Science can be used to prove both. But if, as you say, abuse is the problem – science finds it difficult to solve the reasons for abuse. If science cannot deal with it (unless perhaps behavioural science is applied), what is the point of all these findings? Certainly, as far as pricing goes, surely hard drugs prove that increase cost does not prevent abuse?
If abuse is the correct word (and I must admit, you’re probably right here), surely Heroin can be used responsibly?
I think all this is a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s the usual story of the mass media dumbing down any snippet they can find to make a headline and sell more newspapers. It’s so stupid to imply that alcohol is more dangerous than all those other substances, that it’s a waste of time and keypresses to even bother replying to their so-called ‘arguments’. It is a good opportunity though to talk about wine, science, religeon, drug abuse, society, social policy, taxation, etc, is it not? You guys who can write in an interesting and compelling manner could could strike a blow for sensible and pleasurable wine-drinking, culture, history, sustainable grape-growing, etc… and all in one post please
Fabio, thanks, as ever, for your comments. While I agree with you that this is sensationalist (what news report isn’t?), there are darker forces at work here – believe me. Since it’s victory in getting cigarettes banned from public places, the health lobby has been after alcohol. Now, I’m not pro cigarettes in public places but I am pro wine everywhere and there is, undoubtedly, a move to attack alcohol as the next in line after cigarettes. I’m not sure what the ultimate objective of the health lobby is (it might be to make us healthier – but being healthier generally involves taking more pills), but be under no illusion, wine (as part of alcohol) is being targeted and we’ll all have to be very clever if we want to stop this attack on it. And it will be very difficult to defend wine if we don’t have concrete answers to what is being thrown at us.
Unfortunately, the scientists have just proved that alcohol is indeed more damaging overall than all these other drugs. Now, how we interpret that information (of course, because alcohol is consumed by so many more people this is perhaps self-evident) and what we do with it (i.e. what can be done to reduce the damage) will be key points and it is highly likely that in places like the UK, this is where the battle will be fought. I do believe that wine, culture, and so on, is to be praised but I’m increasingly worried that none of this will help us to defend it.
I own up, I’ve missed the point with both posts – but perhaps, like Wine Spectator, I’ve done so for my own purposes i.e. to try to make a supplementary point.
However, to get back to THE point, Wine Spectator is, of course, merely pandering to its own US readership which is searching endlessly for the elixir of eternal life. So if you can ‘prove’ that something is bad for you then the reader is eternally grateful and will avoid it and if you can ‘prove’ that something is good for you then the reader is eternally grateful and starts to take it tomorrow.
Both, of course, are false science and false proofs. They depend almost invariably on statistical ‘proof’ which, when the subject examined is in total isolation from all other factors, is no proof at all.
And even the accepted food and drink ‘proofs’ are enormously adrift from reality – my own parents ate EXACTLY the same food for almost 40 years, my father died at 61 and my mother at 88!
And as far as drinking and driving is concerned, they are largely related to the 16 – 24 age-group, and while no doubt, alcohol is a contributory factor the under 24′s would, by sheer inexperience, kill themselves more than others on the roads – and if we were able to ban alcohol totally they would continue to do so.
Heroin used under medical supervision is an important drug in it’s correct time and place.
What I believe is that in life there is a line. Generally, if you don’t cross, which usually relies on education and experience, you will generally be ok. Good and bad are very simple words and when it come to alcohol, moderation is the key, which unfortunately is contrary to human nature.
Oliver,
Yes, I agree slightly! It’s not only the sensationalist thing, there is indeed something else. But I wouldn’t go so far as to call it ‘darker forces’ or even ‘they’. Perhaps what we’re seeing is a glimpse of the slow steamroller movement of the zeitgeist, ie the spirit of out times (wow, i’m inspired this morning!). I’m talking about dumbing down, political correctness, the distancing between our ‘leaders’ ‘authorities’ ‘opinion-setters’ and the normal, average person-in-the-street. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy out there to ban alcohol or wine, but cetain ‘forces’ (not dark!) that are pushing the zeitgeist! (in the wrong direction, as far as I’m concerned) for example, perhaps certain corporate lobbies have a vested interest is seeing alcohol/wine sales restricted/made more expensive; perhaps certain political/social interests (ie votes) gain by ‘bashing alcohol’. Perhaps, the Health Ministry has a budegt to spend and if they don’t spend it, they won’t get so much money next year!!!
Also, widening the context a bit, I think that this alcohol-bashing you’re seeing is a very anglo-saxon, puritan culture type phenomenon (eg, the Prohibition, temperence movements, etc) which doesn’t exist at all in continental (or southern) Europe. Anglo-saxon culture people’s relation to alcohol in general and wine in particular is very different from Latin culture people’s.
Remember also public pronouncements are not necessarily an opinion at all. For example, when someone chooses to criticise, what they are really saying is ‘Look at me, I know better’ and similarly when ‘they’ make any pronouncement ostensibly for the ‘social’ good, what they are really saying is ‘Look at me, I’m such a nice person, I have the welfare of all my blinder brethren at heart1′
“not sure that you defend yourself when you say science is not a belief system but that it ‘establishes falsities’.”
Perhaps not making myself clear.
The point was science is a traditionally positivist discipline. In order to be useful hypotheses must be falsifiable. Hence scientific findings are often proving theories incorrect, which, of course, is not without value.
Again, we need not to confuse science with it’s applications, or the demonstrable nature of statistics with their interpretation. Prof Nutt is not claiming to have proved anything. It simply shows that facts when applied to a specific definition of danger rank alcohol as more harmful than heroin.
Nutt has been trying to do this for a lond time (since at least 07), every time he has proposed a scale of harm it has been controversial, this is no different.
In terms of banning alcohol, there’s no need for conspiracy theories, it’s not going to happen. The last government sacked Nutt for making exactly these claims.
Tax increases on the other hand are depressing, and seem to do little.
(Putting the words ‘faith’ and ‘science’ on the same page seems a good way to incite debate!)