Is wine good or bad? Let's try to clarify a bit question raised by the immunologist Antonella Viola, which once again draws attention to the possible effects of the alcoholic component on our body, causing, as was to be expected, a hornet's nest of controversy. Authoritative sector journals responded immediately to Viola, trained at the Basel Institute of Immunology in Basel and subsequently EMBO fellow at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) in Monterotondo, Rome (1999-2000), group leader at the Humanitas Clinical Institute of Rozzano and since 2015 Professor of General Pathology at the Department of Biomedical Sciences of the University of Padua, replicating, in support of the goodness of a moderate consumption of wine, works published both in thick journals, including Nutrients and independent production studies , which can still have validity within a scientific community, since precisely because they are independent they do not need to achieve a certain result.
In particular, theanalysis published by experts in Nutrients indicates that wine differs from other alcoholic beverages and its moderate consumption not only does it not increase the risk of chronic degenerative diseases, but it is associated with health benefits. This is true, again according to the study, if the moderate consumption of wine is included in a Mediterranean diet food model. According to Nutrients experts, wine is an alchemy of unique properties, a mix of polyphenols and antioxidants useful in the control of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and neurological disorders. Obviously, without prejudice to the importance of promoting behavioral education to prevent alcohol abuse (including wine), above all, among young people.
For the IARC it is carcinogenic, but we also need to know how to interpret the data that is made available to us
Dr. Viola, however, on the other hand is based on data from both the Lancet and the WHO (not exactly the first organization we can find on our doorstep!). We try to start from what we know for sure and that it is useless to necessarily want to contradict. The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) classifies alcohol, therefore also wine or beer, as SURELY CARCINOGENIC for man. Processed meat also falls into the same group. Ours too ministry of health (therefore an institution I can trust) shares this position. It all lies in the know how to interpret the data that are made available to us. In this case, as in many others, we must consider that the molecule in question (alcohol) acts on risk factors. In the specific case of alcohol, it has been shown that it has interactions with both alcohol-derived cancer pathologies (cancer of the esophagus, liver, oropharynx, colorectal…) and non-tumor (of the breast or the endocrine system). This translates into: for any pathology, alcohol intake leads to a worsening of the same or to the onset of new pathologies. Translated into more blunt language: the alcoholic component always hurts, but that doesn't mean I don't have to take it.
Studies have the task of informing, the consumer has the right to choose and consume
Generally when we talk about something that we know can harm us, it means that we have to get rid of it. Nothing could be more wrong, and the studies don't say that. The studies have the task of informing, nothing more. The consumer has the right to choose and consume. We Italians must admit that we are unwilling to accept criticism of what we consider valid and which perhaps concerns our daily lives or our cultural heritage. And whether we are talking about food or wine, we perceive everything as a direct attack.
Wrong on the part of the detractors of alcohol consumption to support their own claims, perhaps with too much arrogance
That which is wrong on the part of the detractors of alcohol consumption is the way of supporting their claims, perhaps with too much arrogance, almost ridiculing some customs. Our peninsula is known for Mediterranean eating (I refer you to my article on the Mediterranean diet published on FirstOnLine last February 15th, as a contribution to discovering what the Mediterranean diet really is!) and the consumption of wine, nectar some gods. Considering our past as wrong or something to change could be difficult to digest. But be careful to consider the “Global Burden of Diseases”, the article cited in defense of wine, as obsolete. The study is constantly updated (the latest in 2022) and truly complete enough to provide us with a picture of mortality and disability in countries, time and age. It essentially quantifies health loss from hundreds of diseases, and is written to improve health systems, which places it in importance and reliability above independent studies.
The problem exists and it is real, but the social and historical context of consumption and its symbology must also be considered
It is important to understand that this studio does not attack or demonize anything, least of all wine or alcohol, only informs about the loss of health in relation to a risk factor or a certain disease. No study on this matter will ever say not to consume a certain food. Also because defining a quantity of security beyond which not to exceed is almost impossible, since each subject is different from another. In these cases the bull's head is cut short by identifying this threshold as "zero". That's why those who work in this sector often find themselves in complicated situations when they have to explain the why of things. I would like to say, however, that consuming alcohol is part of an expression of personal freedom. Especially in social contexts within which it is considered a form of further socialization: sharing a symbolic drink. Wine also has a symbolic, festive meaning, with wine we toast to success, to a wish, to health. In conclusion, I believe it is useful for the consumer to be informed, also with the introduction of the much talked about advertising on the label, fomented by the introduction on Irish bottles. But this does not mean that the choice of the consumer who must in any case feel entitled to buy it and consume it, in the quantities he deems appropriate. Informed yes but forced no.
But who demonizes individual freedoms? Who forgets history? What does it has to do with it? But who makes the headlines is the same person who then writes the articles? It just seems not. The international medical community does not deny the minimal benefits given by some ingredients of red wine, but considers that those benefits put on the scales have no weight compared to the dangers that all alcohol presents. No one is thinking of banning wine, not even the "Taliban" Dr. Viola, she is just pushing for informed consumption. Anyone who doesn't want that informed consumption has an interest in people remaining ignorant on the subject.