Crack open the wine. Put another bottle in the fridge. Order more cases from the off-licence. Lay down as much of the stuff as your cellar can hold.
The secret is out – the secret the nanny state did not want you to know. Moderate wine-drinkers are not, repeat not, drinking themselves into an early grave. They are actually healthier than teetotallers: less at risk of heart disease, less prone to obesity, less likely to suffer from depression. It is an inconvenient truth, but one that should be shouted from the rooftops.
Science has long recognised that the odd glass of wine can be good for you. But the interesting thing about the latest research, carried out in Paris and based on the medical records of 150,000 Parisians, is how comprehensively it validates the lifestyles of people who drink two or three glasses of wine a day.
How often are such people – and I am proud to be one of them – subjected to finger-wagging by the authorities? "Have three glasses a day, if you must, but you are putting your health at risk." That is the underlying message, rammed home again and again.
Do you think those same authorities are now going to advise teetotallers that, if they persist in their unhealthy abstinence, they are reducing their life expectancy? Or put them on an emergency diet of Beaujolais and Pinot Grigio? That is not how the bureaucratic mind works. Scratch a civil servant and you find someone who hates saying yes and loves saying no.
With liberalism sweeping Whitehall, and not before time, it is worth reflecting on quite what a puritanical society Britain has become since the millennium. Increased tolerance in some areas – notably in attitudes towards gays – has been offset by increased intolerance in others. More and more people want to stop more and more people doing things.
A few years ago, I was invited to sign a petition at my local delicatessen. "What’s this about?" I asked, pen poised. "We’re objecting to an off-licence opening across the street." Eh? When I pointed out that an off-licence and a delicatessen would make perfect neighbours, they looked at me as if I were an anarchist.
Nowhere has the puritanism of the age been more evident than in the attempt to micromanage the nation’s health. Thirty years ago, governments would recommend an apple a day, advise against smoking, print the odd leaflet about the joys of breast-feeding, and that was that. Additional information was available, if you asked for it, but it was not thrust down your throat; you were trusted to get on with your life.
Contrast that with the 1001 dietary dos and don’ts that now bombard you from every direction. I went to my doctor to have a routine check-up the other day and emerged with a list of good fish to eat and bad fish to eat. Apparently, if I want to live until I am 90, and not peg out at 89, I should eat more sardines and go easy on the poached salmon. Fascinating. And I thought all fish were good.
Information is power, of course, but power can quickly be abused if it falls into the wrong hands. There is a slippery slope from giving people information to cajoling, then bullying, them to act on that information.
A couple of years ago, I was shopping at my local supermarket and, at the behest of a student lodger of unsophisticated eating habits, had loaded five frozen lasagnes into my trolley. "You do know that’s bad for you?" said the woman behind me in the queue, accusingly. I could hardly believe my ears. What happened to live and let live? Eat and let eat? That is the trouble with Big Brother governments. They infect ordinary people with their controlling habits.
You can’t turn the clock back. You can’t deny consumers the information they are entitled to. But you can, starting at the top, set a good example: emancipate people from the tyranny of being lectured about healthy and unhealthy diets.
If David Cameron and Nick Clegg want to consummate their relationship, and prove their liberal credentials, they could do worse than hold a photo-call splitting a bottle of wine: not just a nervous thimbleful apiece, but three brimming glasses. And they should demonstrate, by their body language, that they are enjoying every drop. Only then will the killjoy legions of New Labour puritans have been put to flight.
Everyone is entitled to make up their own mind. Having been, for most of my 55 years, a committed omnivore, I am only now equipping myself with the KNOWLEDGE to really do that based not on narrow issue pronouncements that confuse (e.g. good fish/bad fish) but empirical evidence and robust investigation. Don't believe what it says on the packet even if you can really understand it. E.g if a "food" says it provides x% of the RDA for fat/sugar etc. who set the RDA and on what basis? Who says we need added sugar at all; the food industry that's who. Most "westernised" societies have developed a legacy of food "knowledge" often based on good intentioned ignorance. Ask yourself why it is that cronic conditions of all sorts have increased dramatically over recent decades. Very simplistically its because of what WE put into our mouths and bodies. Being challenged on what we eat tends to generate a lot of emotion; would Helen accept evidence contrary to any of her comments. Interested; read The China Study (T Colin Campbell - emminent scientist) and In Defence of Food (Michael Pollan - journalist)
Stephen van Scoyoc at 08:43.
"........likely to be moderate drinkers (1 1/2 glasses of wine....."
Who the heck drinks a half a glass of wine? I bet you are a ball socially, serving out the wine with a pippette.
As for affluence, guess what? The French don't pay so much as the British for their wine (unless you count Chateau Tescos)
John at 12:24.
No you didn't miss the evidence, you missed a life.
Many years ago a good mate of mine asked "have you ever noticed how the non drinkers are off sick more than the drinkers?"
And he was correct.
I am Max Davidson's long-suffering daughter...
Daddy, when you were taken to hospital screaming in agony from gout, you told me there was 'no evidence' that your drinking habits had contributed to your physical problems, yet there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that your 'moderate' drinking habits are harming you physically.
Stop cherry picking which academic papers you choose to quote on the subject. You're not a scientist or medic, you have a classics degree.
Stephen - my father may be able to write, but like most wooly-minded, liberal artists he couldn't critically read a scientific paper if he tried. Nor, it seems, can most journalists.
And another note for my father - the state kindly paid for your gout treatment, and no doubt over time will pay the price for your alcohol-fuelled paunch, so they have a right to suggest you avoid habits that could land you in hospital again.
Its true that the french can have 2 glasses a day, but the english cannot, because the glass size in england is too large!
Its a choice, isnt it. I want to drink so I will drink. Ive had a really bad day / week / month or much worse. Get divorced and loose your house and then and stay sober. Then when I get home I will eat or maybe I will eat at the burger van. It is my choice after all. But then again if Im rich I do as I like. No that wont work. If Im rich I got to look rich and not look like a slob. I might loose friends if I do that. If Im poor who gives a stuff.Oh that's right - Im a statistic and a science exam. OK then I dont have a choice Im just part of the network of society just like the last 4000 years before me.
Did I miss the reference to the evidence?
To Stephen...the report states clearly those who drink 1 TO 3 glasses of wine a day AKA moderate drinking. It has also been confirmed that red wine protects against coronary heart disease. Additionally, while the report might not state that the wine is the reason for them being healthier..it rather knocks the idea that such drinking is 'harming them' on the head doesn't it! Each to their own. I state again that stress is a far bigger risk to health than wine. Be happy means to be healthy.
I get a bit fed up with the false idea that because you are on a lower wage, you will be unhealthy and have to survive on fried food and ready meals. It is far cheaper to buy fresh veg than to buy a bag of oven chips. You can buy a pack of lean pork mince for less than £2.00, a tin of tomatoes for 40p and a kilo of spaghetti for less than a pound....a hell of alot cheaper than a chinese takeaway for 4!! You always hear about the less well off living on pizza and fast food....I can't afford to eat this every night, it'd cost a fortune. It's down to personal choice and having an ounce of common sense. It is the easiest thing in the world to whip up an omlette or a bolognese, using your financial status as an excuse to be lazy is no reason to feed yourself saturated fat filled burgers and kebabs. And back on topic, it's fine to have a glass of wine or two as long as the rest of your lifestyle balances with this, i.e. moderate exercise, don't smoke, eat well (this can be done cheaply). It's not rocket science!!
Let's drink to the end of the Labour Party and the national nanny state.
Bliss
And
Let's drink to low taxes and small government - the co-ilition please take note - leave us alone to spend our own money.
Health is the religion with wine and cake as mortal sins. I laughed when I read int he media about 'evangelical health campaigners' so true!
According to the scientists 'priests'; obseity leads to cancer, toast at breakfast and roast dinners lead to ovarian cancer. Stress leads to cancer (hardly surprising with all the scare tactics) yadda yadda yadda
I know one thing that is totally necessary to getting cancer--life. The rest is just mankind thinking they know it all--and then report their wrong a few years later. I wish they'd concentrate on finding a cure and stop wasting time and money on brain washing.
@Stephen van Scoyoc
Actually you are making the same mistake that you are accusing Max Davidson of. If there is not a causal link proven in the article between Drinking and health
neither is such a link - proved between health and wealth in this study - you are just assuming that. You might as well assume one with intelligence too (or emotional intelligence) - wise people drink in moderation, are successful and are healthier - those that don't share the lifestyle simply "don't get it".
Oh flipping heck, if only I had the resources to organise a Party with oodles of wine for all, to celebrate the end of the Labour Brainwashing Nightmare, the lies and the rubbish, I would. How about it Richard Branson or somebody, or even Your Majesty - let's party?
I must agree about wine. Drinking red wine is very good for you. I would also like to agree about the Labour Party good riddance to them, people never learned with the previous one and their IMF Loan, now we are almost at that point again.
Too many people have been critisicing other people and not looking within at their own faults. This is bad when individuals do this but when Governments do this it leads to a Totalitarian State see www.afbio.co.uk
I don't know anyone who takes any notice of the Food Gestapo. Cheers!
Unfortunately, your grasp of science and this particular report is a bit slippery. Drinking isn't the reason these people are health but rather an indicator of their relative financial status and health habits. That is, people who have better health habits, are in higher financial brackets, etc. are more likely to not to be obese, more likely to seek health care when appropriate, etc. AND they are likely to be moderate drinkers (1 1/2 glasses of wine and not 3 as you suggest). A teetotaler with these same habits is also likely to be more healthy. Frankly, I don't care if you drink or east easy-meals and wouldn't utter a word to you, but stop twisting science's arm to suit your own purpose. You can write so I assume you can also read critically and understand what this report actually said.