By: Tom Pitts
In 1991, CBS-TV aired a segment on “60 Minutes” stating that the French had a lower rate of heart disease than we had in America. They referred to it as the “French Paradox,” and indicated that it was apparently due to the moderate consumption of red wine by a higher percentage of the population than we were experiencing in the United States. It promptly led to a dramatic increase in red wine consumption throughout the western world. Additional follow up touted the “Mediterranean Diet” focus on fruits and vegetables and healthy fats for its health benefits when combined with moderate consumption of red wine. It also led to extensive research to identify the ingredients in red wine providing the heart health benefits. They identified an array of polyphenols, notably resveratrol, procyanidins, and flavanols, antioxidants originating in grape skins, that help protect blood vessels, reduce bad cholesterol, and lower swelling.
We’ve recently heard quite a bit about the health dangers of drinking wine from a modern neo-prohibitionist movement, based on a major misrepresentation of a recent large study. The UK Biobank study tracked alcoholic beverage drinking habits and mortality rates of 340,924 British adults from 2006 to 2024. Participants completed detailed dietary questionnaires and were placed in one of four categories based on the amount of pure alcohol consumed each day and week. (A 12-ounce can of beer, a five-ounce glass of wine, and a 1.5 ounce shot of spirits each contain about 14 grams of alcohol on average. This was classified as a standard drink size,) Study participants were broken down into four classifications: Those consuming less than 20 grams of alcohol per week were classified as either no or occasional consumers; from 20 grams per week to 20 grams per day for men and 20 grams per week and 10 grams per day for women was considered low consumption; daily consumption of 20 to 40 grams for men (about 1.5 to three standard drinks) and 10 to 20 grams for women (0.75 to 1.5 drinks) was considered moderate; and daily consumption of over 40 grams (about three drinks) for men and 20 grams (over 1.5 drinks) for women was considered to be high. Researchers tracked individual health outcomes for an average of 13 years. Not surprisingly, heavy drinking increased the risk of death. This is where the neo-prohibitionists enter the picture. They launched a campaign ignoring the actual details of the study, combining results and claiming that the consumption of all alcoholic beverages hastened death, starting with the first drop. They focused heavy attention on wine, an easier target because of its smaller constituency compared to beer or spirits. Their inaccurate use of statistics led to wide coverage, including a statement from the World Health Organization (WHO), harming the wine industry worldwide.
And now, a more thorough analysis of the available details in the same study was presented at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Annual Scientific Session in Washington, D.C., in March. It got little attention at the time. And then the ACC published a release in Science Daily in August which has delivered the message to a much wider audience. Here’s a direct quote from the Science Daily report,
“Moderate wine drinkers had a 21% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with never or occasional drinkers. In contrast, even low levels of spirits, beer, or cider consumption were associated with a 9% higher risk of cardiovascular death compared with drinking never or occasionally.”
This is a reconfirmation of the so-called “French Paradox” report, with a broad-based, highly detailed formal scientific study that has been dramatically misquoted recently to the detriment of the wine industry. Quite simply, the study shows that moderate consumption of red wine is better for your heart than not drinking it – and is better for your heart than drinking beer, cider, or spirits. While many studies don’t differentiate between alcoholic beverage types, this one does – in great detail, even if certain special interest groups choose to ignore the facts. The neo-prohibitionist groups, including the WHO in this case, have chosen to treat wine like a drug, rather than as a beverage. As the American College of Cardiology report shows, massive amounts of data have been there for those who chose to find it and reports like the “French Paradox” report in 1991 simply stated what many people have known for years. A product that lowers heart fatality risk by 21% deserves broader accurate news coverage. As Rob McMillan, Executive Vice President of Silicon Valley Bank’s wine division said of the ACC study report, “It is consistent with what science has been showing since the 1920s, that there are benefits to wine consumption, if it’s moderate consumption.”
Cheers.
Tom Pitts is an author, business consultant, and grant writer. He was the founding President and Chairman of the Board of the Verde Valley Wine Consortium. Tom can be contacted at verdevalleywine.tom@hotmail.com.
