Wine yes or wine no? Discard it completely by labeling it as a carcinogen, as we have done with many other substances: from tobacco to fine particles, from dioxins to artificial dyes?
The scientific debate is officially open among immunologists, while uncertainties are growing among diners. Firstonline has turned everyone's doubts to ad Attilio Speciani, immunologist and researcher who fell into the same field as the immunologist Antonella Viola, explaining his point of view based on the latest research. In recent weeks, the Paduan immunologist had sided decisively against alcohol, always, regardless, arguing that it certainly leads to cancer. Speciani paints a more detailed picture and declined in different forms than that position, referring rather to the situation of the single individual.
Dr. Speciani, many have been shocked by recent claims that alcohol is always carcinogenic, regardless of quantity. In his experience, is that really the case? Should we give up even just the classic glass of wine?
Indeed we have seen in recent weeks affirmations completely criticisms of the use of alcohol in any form: I consider them excessive, even if they rely on some data already acquired on the correlation between alcohol and some forms of cancer, certainly important, but not absolute. Let's take the pancreatic cancer. For a significant and critical pathology such as this type of cancer, it was thought for many years that alcohol only had a negative value and was among the main causes of tumor induction.
But isn't this correlation there? What does it depend on?
For the latest research, dating back only a couple of years, it has been shown that it is not alcohol itself that leads to cancer, but the level of glycation high, which depends on the sugar used by that single person. The study of glycation it is subverting some of the classic beliefs about the causes of disease: it has come to understand a cause or a pathological cause that for many years has been scarcely considered. Research published in the authoritative European Journal of Cancer (March 2022) has shown that the correlation between alcohol use and pancreatic cancer depends on the glycemic status of the person using it.
What does this mean in practice?
It means whoever has one healthy lifestyle e glycation levels measured and monitored, he could happily use a moderate amount of alcohol with the near certainty that that amount bring benefit or anyway they do not give. Studies have documented that, in people with normal sugar metabolism, two weekly intakes of alcohol lead to a reduction (repeat, reduction) by about 15% in the risk of pancreatic cancer. In those who, on the other hand, reached five weekly intakes, the risk increased by about 13%. On the other hand, those who were in a condition of elevated glycation had a 38% increase in risk. alcohol used in moderate doses by a person with low glycation levels may not be harmful, while it becomes so in other people with high sugar intake.
Can the same thing also be said for other types of tumors, in addition to that of the pancreas?
As a researcher, in the light of the discoveries on glycation in recent years, I deduce that something similar can also happen in many other forms of cancer, bringing the role of sugar imbalance back to first place in the possibilities of prevention and treatment of many diseases. An individual excess of sugars can create a defensive shield for the tumor, which prevents the immune system to work towards its elimination or its control. To understand how important the sugar imbalance is for alcohol-related pancreatic tumors, just think that in full-blown diabetic subjects (even pharmacologically controlled) the risk of getting sick is almost doubled, with a 70% increase compared to normal people, who it also applies to "no drinkers", i.e. also to abstainers. It really is the sugar that makes the difference.
So in small quantities wine, on the contrary, can also bring some benefit? In which cases? And what benefits?
In fact, some studies have found that moderate alcohol intake also has preventive effects for numerous pathologies. We need to consider the famous "J" shape of statistics, ie the fact that any element (from physical activity, to taking medicines or alcohol) up to a certain level is good for you, but beyond that bar it's bad for you. This is seen for example in the cardiovascular diseases: those who drink alcohol in a moderate and more "healthy" way (wine rich in resveratrol, instead of spirits for example), have a lower cardiovascular risk than those who don't drink at all. Instead, the risk curve rises dangerously when the amount of alcohol consumed increases and becomes high. Furthermore, last February one of the most important medical journals in the world (JAMA) published on the JAMA Open Network - Neurology the results of a research carried out on 4 million people, evaluating the risk of developing dementia, vascular dementia or disease of Alzheimer, in relation to the daily use of alcohol. Different levels of consumption have been defined: light (up to 15 g per day), moderate (between 15 and 29,9 g per day, equal to approximately 2 glasses of wine), heavy (equal to or greater than 30 g per day) . The research results confirmed the strong negative action of high alcohol intake which leads to the development of neurodegenerative phenomena, cognitive decline and dementia. However, the statistical analysis revealed a completely unexpected fact: lifelong never drinkers, light drinkers (up to 15 g of alcohol per day) and moderate drinkers (up to 30 g), had a reduced risk of developing dementia. moreover, those who went from being a teetotaler to a light drinker had a lower risk of developing dementia than abstainers. It is obvious that no one should interpret this result as an invitation to start drinking, but it is also true that alcohol in small quantities can give greater benefits than those obtainable by abstainers, while by increasing the quantity of use, the damages certainly grow exponentially. .
If the direct cause is not alcohol, but glycation, further upstream, since it is often hidden, how can it be detected?
Glycation levels must be constantly monitored through tests such as the Glyco Test or the PerMè test. If my Methylglyoxal and Glycated Albumin levels move up, that means the limit is exceeded and action should be taken. Instead, the stability of these levels reassures the moderate use of wine in the pleasure of shared conviviality.
I would say that there has never been any doubt and that the title of the article should be changed: “Is alcohol always carcinogenic? YES". What does Speciani or the author of the interview say about it.
I just purchased Grattini's book. I'm curious to read this part.
“We talked about minimal risk and not absent risk because, as also recalled by the World Health Organization at the beginning of 2023, there is no safe quantity of alcohol, a quantity that can be consumed without any level of risk and /or health consequences. Damage to health is often associated with excessive, immoderate, pathological alcohol consumption. The data instead show that, at least in the countries of the European area examined by the WHO, half of all cancers attributable to alcohol are caused by "light" and "moderate" alcohol consumption, i.e. less than 1,5 .3,5 liters of wine or 2 liters of beer per week. Again contrary to common thought, then, there are no studies that report evidence to support the potential beneficial effects of light and moderate consumption of any type of alcohol - not even the famous red wine - on cardiovascular diseases and type XNUMX diabetes.”
Taken from: “Garattini, Silvio. Prevention is revolution: To live better and longer (Contemporary) (p.26). Il Mulino publishing company, Spa”
I believe there is NOTHING more to add.
Even considering the resveratrol hoax, as rightly pointed out above, the pharmacologist Silvio Garattini pointed out that the possible anticancer effects require at least one gram of resveratrol a day. To reach this dose, however, it would be necessary to drink 80 liters of wine; in fact, a liter of wine contains just 12,5 milligrams. Furthermore, if we consider that many researches use grapes, the association with the consumption of wine becomes even more tenuous. In addition to that the presence of alcohol is a factor that reduces the absorption of resveratrol.
“A component of food is also alcohol, present in wine, beer, aperitifs and more. Also in this case it must be kept in mind that, if a little alcohol can be useful for the cardiovascular system, THERE IS NO THRESHOLD FOR THE CARCINOGENIC EFFECT.” Silvio Garattini. (https://informatorecoopfi.it/opinioni/garattini-regole-alimentazione/) I don't understand why there is still a need to discuss. The scientific community is by no means divided. Valid studies confirm what Prof. Garattini summarized. Why do we have to go back and still use the “French Paradox” study which is basically a spurious correlation study?
You really hurt journalism like that.
Obviously the colleague and the article seem to ignore the global and European evidence of the IARC, the WHO, the Resolution of the European Parliament launching the "EU beating cancer plan" strategy on which there is the consensus of the world scientific community that NOTHING has ever expressed on the merits of SUGAR in alcoholic beverages as the main cause of CANCER. Just think that all the experimental studies that use ALCOHOL (in the absence of sugars) are universally in agreement in demonstrating the genetic damage produced by ethanol sic et simpliciter, its ability to inhibit cellular repair, the demonstrated efficiency at even moderate doses of direct or indirect stimulus to carcinogenesis for at least 7 types of cancer including, significantly, breast cancer. Available to represent on behalf of the Italian Alcohol Society, SIA and the European Federation of Addiction Societies- EUFAS all the truly scientific elements in refutation of what is reported in this article which letting the reader understand and believe that alcohol is not the carcinogenic substance but the sugar content leads to misinformation and to neglect the harmful effect of the use of alcohol. Emanuele Scafato, EUFAS vice president, SIA past president
Dear Dr. Scafato, thank you for your comment which reiterates exactly what I discussed in this interview. Alcohol is certainly one of the major causes of tumor induction. Numerous scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals continue to confirm the existence, for the effects of alcohol, of a J-curve which differentiates the effects in relation to the extent to which it is used. Measurement, on a scientific basis, and moderation are the elements based on evidence-based evidence that deserve discussion and not absolute positions. In relation to sugars, however, I would like to point out the very recent publication in the BMJ of an umbrella-review (which analyzes many millions of people) which confirms the direct correlation between sugar and cancer, together with the other 44 pathologies documentedly correlated to the use of sugar. Thanks anyway, despite your argumentative tone. The civil dialectic is always welcome.
Doctor, may I take the opportunity to ask you what are the safe glycation values for drinking moderately, measured with the Glyco Test or the PerMè test? Thank you. I drink a maximum of one glass of wine a day, that is – I think – the amount that is good for you and therefore it is better to continue drinking. But only after doing the glycation test, is that correct?
Dear Dr Speciani, in an article in which you make these statements verbatim "According to the most recent research, which dates back only to a couple of years, it has been shown that it is not alcohol itself that leads to cancer, but the level of high glycation, which depends on the sugars used by that single person” there is very little to discuss. Your polite reply glossing over BMJ and the correlations on sugars and cancer is a very slippery stepping stone… the transitive property sugars and cancer and sugar in alcohol - cancer does not apply to scientific evidence. No, I repeat, no serious publication or statement can today refer to "Numerous scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals continue to confirm the existence, for the effects of alcohol, of a J-curve which differentiates the effects in relation to the extent to which it is used". ALL the serious work taken into consideration by the thousands of research centers collaborating on the merit assessments of health protection organizations, from the United Nations to the WHO, from the IARC to the European Parliament, from the European Commission to the OECD, from all Scientific and World Federations the consensus emerges consonant and unequivocal: alcohol is carcinogenic even in moderate doses, wine is no exception. The abused "chatter" of resveratrol has been disavowed decades ago and by the Scientific Commission https://www.crea.gov.it/documents/59764/0/Dossier+LG+2017_CAP9.pdf/831d48d8-32ec-54e9-a6b2-902e7a10ee3e?t=1575530688044 and from the alcohol dossier (which we are even reviewing due to the new and further evidence that has emerged in the last three years) of the CREA Guidelines for a healthy diet: the bioactive substances in wine and beer, the polyphenols are inefficient, the quantity in the glass is so insignificant that it would take hundreds of glasses a day taken for six months to achieve an antioxidant effect. https://www.fondazioneveronesi.it/magazine/i-blog-della-fondazione/il-blog-di-emanuele-scafato/alcol-e-tumori-quel-che-non-ti-aspetti Alcohol is a carcinogen and toxic, caloric and anti-nutrient even in moderate consumption. The World Federation of Cardiology and the European Heart Society agree: zero is the healthy amount for the heart, the J curve has been denied for years, anyone can verify it in the updated meta-analysis reports. For which . I repeat, the statements in the article lead the reader to believe that sugars and not alcohol are the problem: the statement is misleading and the arguments far from what the scientific community considers adequate and suitable to substantiate the considerations on alcohol of the European Code against cancer: if you want to prevent cancer, not drinking is the best choice for health. As you can read from a comment below, there are those who have asked you what the sugar level should be – to be measured with the commercial products mentioned in the article – to be sure: this is the effect of disinformation. Whoever reads this should derive damage to health having been erroneously believed that sugars and not alcohol are the cause of potential damage to health has the right to receive valid and correct information to make informed choices, a doctor knows, knows how to do and knows how to do well according to skill, prudence and diligence. If you downgrade a serious problem of misleading communication to "controversy" it is your problem, the reader must have the elements of knowledge adequate to exercise healthy and informed choices and there are things to know about alcohol and cancer https://www.epicentro.iss.it/alcol/pdf/8%20SCAFATO%20FINALE%20FACSHEET%20CANCRO%20E%20ALCOL%20TRADUZIONE%20PER%20OMS.pdf . I think I dutifully argued my claims and verified his. Thank you for this opportunity.
But doesn't it occur to you that “Glyco Test” or “PerMè test” are the names of two commercial products? And guess who sells them? I don't know if you agree with Dr. Speciani or if you are simply superficial and haven't checked (as proper journalists should do), but it is shameful to pass off such an advertisement as an interview to tests of dubious utility, especially for to understand "if alcohol is bad" for each of us.
It is usually called a conflict of interest and should be declared. Much more serious is the exploitation of a misleading communication which exposes people to believe that alcohol is not harmful or harmful but that sugars are. If this is ethics of information… one would expect to see the article canceled or to allow a cross-examination aimed at re-establishing a correct evaluation by the inexperienced reader. So do the serious titles.
It's called FREEDOM OF PRESS and OPINION!
I know that you have somewhat confused ideas about the concept of freedom of the press and of opinion. Here we are not talking about politics, but about health and scientific theses that have the characteristic of being demonstrated.