logo
Women shouldn't drink alcohol, say scientists. These are the facts

Women shouldn't drink alcohol, say scientists. These are the facts

Telegraph2 days ago

We cling tightly to the studies that say the odd glass of red is healthy, reminding us how it's packed with polyphenols and brings down your stress levels to boot. But in April, the World Cancer Research Fund ruled that women should be avoiding alcohol just as strenuously as cigarettes as 'any amount of alcohol increases breast cancer risk'. With the average British woman drinking nine units of alcohol each week, this is bad news.
These days we cringe when we see characters in old movies pull out the cigarettes at the first hint of drama. It might have been normal decades ago, but we have come to see smoking as a habit that's uniquely bad for our health. Now, scientists believe that our favourite national pastime could be just as dangerous, for women at least. Here is what we know and how much you can get away with drinking without significantly raising your risk.
Why does alcohol cause cancer, and why is it so risky for women?
It's not what any of us want to hear, but alcohol is 'a known carcinogen,' says Britta Stordal, an associate professor in cancer research at Middlesex University. When you drink alcohol, 'your body turns it into acetaldehyde, which is a compound known to cause cancer,' she explains. For this reason, 'any amount of alcohol that you drink increases your risk of cancer'.
The World Cancer Research Fund has advised that to reduce our risk of bowel cancer, we should restrict alcohol; however, to reduce breast cancer risk, women should avoid alcohol entirely.The reality is that drinking alcohol is especially likely to lead to breast cancer rather than other cancers. 'Alcohol is turned into acetaldehyde primarily in your liver, but this process can also happen inside of breast tissue,' Prof Stordal says. 'We also know that drinking alcohol increases your oestrogen levels, which can also increase cancer risk in women.'
There is a 'dose response' involved in breast cancer risk, says Dr Harriet Rumgay, an epidemiologist at the World Health Organization in its international agency for research on cancer. This means that 'the more alcohol you drink, the greater your risk,' she says. Though smoking is 'still much more harmful to us than alcohol when it comes to all of the consequences for your health, the evidence does say that women should try to limit their alcohol consumption as much as possible to reduce their breast cancer risk, as 8 per cent of all breast cancer cases in women are attributable to drinking [alcohol],' Dr Rumgay says.
More than two bottles of wine a week
Women who drink two bottles of wine a week are at a 27 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who drink two bottles of wine every week, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. This compares with the number of non-drinking women who will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, a figure that's at 11 in 100.
If you're keen on wine, you might like to have a large glass most nights with dinner, bringing you up to at least two bottles of wine drunk each week. In units, that's equivalent to nine pints of beer or cider throughout the week, or nine double-shot cocktails.
According to the World Health Organization, drinking two bottles of wine a week is in 'the middle category of risk, rather than being judged as high risk,' says Dr Rumgay. For a postmenopausal woman, however, drinking in this way could lead to 'a 27 per cent higher risk of developing breast cancer,' says Dr Rumgay.
Postmenopausal women are affected differently to premenopausal women when it comes to breast cancer risk. Scientists are still trying to determine why that is. 'It might just be a fact of age, because as you age, your cells have more of a chance to divide and mutate, leading to cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. 'But postmenopausal women also have different amounts of hormones in their systems. For these women, drinking alcohol could be more likely to cause breast cancer, because the increase in oestrogen that comes with drinking alcohol causes more cell proliferation, where your body's cells divide to produce more of themselves. Whenever this happens, there is the risk that one of those cells will mutate and become cancerous.'
Fourteen units of alcohol a week
Women who drink 14 units of alcohol a week are at a 22 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who drink 14 units of alcohol every week, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke.
One in seven women in Britain drink more than 14 units a week, the 'low-risk' guideline set by the Government, and they are at a 22 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink.
Drinking 14 units of alcohol every week, equivalent to six medium glasses of wine, would give you a 14.4 per cent chance of developing breast cancer over the course of your life, not including other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not you smoke.
But what about the much-quoted government advice that 14 units a week is the safe limit on drinking for women? When it comes to breast cancer risk, 'this is quite outdated advice,' says Prof Stordal. 'I suspect that the 14-unit guideline doesn't properly take cancer risk into account. Instead it's likely based more on issues like liver damage, and is a combination of what the health research suggests is sensible and what people are already doing in a specific country.'
Canada has recently introduced alcohol guidelines that explain the increased risk of cancer with the number of units that you consume. 'I'd love to see the UK bring this in instead, just so that people can be aware,' says Prof Stordal. 'I certainly didn't know about the extent of the risk for a long time.'
According to Alcohol Change UK, just one drink per day (1.25 units) can increase your breast cancer risk by 7 per cent. Smoking, either regularly or occasionally, leads to a 7 per cent increased risk of breast cancer, and of 100 women that currently smoke, 12 will develop breast cancer over the course of their lives. 'Smoking is worse for your health for a huge number of reasons, however, so I wouldn't want people to think that it's safer to smoke than to drink,' says Dr Rumgay.
A small glass of wine with dinner every day
Women who drink a small glass of wine every day, equivalent to around 10 units a week, are at a 15 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have a small glass of wine every day, around 13 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke.
Much alcohol risk research looks at everyday drinking. The facts are in: having a single drink a day, four times or more each week, can lead to a 20 per cent greater risk of early death. When it comes to breast cancer, the risks escalate further. A report by the American Institute for Cancer Research found in 2017 that one glass of wine a day increased the risk of cancer by 9 per cent in postmenopausal women, and by 5 per cent in premenopausal women.
Studies such as this tend to use the WHO's definition of a standard drink: a drink containing 10g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of wine. So having just one tiny glass a day could be having a big impact on your health, and while it may keep you from being too tipsy, 'there's not enough evidence to say whether having food with your wine is any better for your cancer risk, though this is something that research could tell us in the future,' says Dr Rumgay.
Only drinking at the weekend
Women who drink eight double-shot cocktails or eight medium glasses of wine over the course of a weekend are at a 24 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have eight drinks of this size every weekend, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors such as weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke.
Women who drink four of these drinks over the course of a weekend, meanwhile, are at a 12 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink. Of 100 women who have four drinks of this size every weekend, around 13 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives.
While having alcohol-free days can improve your health, there are added dangers to drinking large amounts of alcohol in one sitting, says Dr Rumgay. One study she worked on in the past found that 'the risk of breast cancer was increased by 40 per cent in women that had had any occasion of heavy episodic drinking in the year leading up to the research,' she says. We might not think of it as such, but the WHO classes 'heavy episodic drinking' or binge drinking as consuming 60g of pure alcohol or more in a single drinking session. That's equivalent to just over two large glasses of wine.
Research into the effects of weekend-only drinking is still ongoing, but 'premenopausal women who binge drink seem to be twice as likely to develop breast cancer,' says Prof Stordal. 'There is some confidence in the notion that having this carcinogenic compound in your system in high concentrations after a weekend of drinking could be more dangerous compared with having the same quantity over the course of a longer period.'
One drink a few times a week
Women who have one drink three times a week are at a 9 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink three times a week, around 12 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not including other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke.
Having a break between the days that you visit the pub or have a glass of wine with your dinner is certainly good for your health, says Dr Rumgay. 'Drinking frequently can lead to systemic inflammation of the body,' she explains. 'If you cut the number of days that you drink, or spread them out, then it's possible that your body has more time to recover from this inflammatory state, which could potentially avoid increasing your risk of cancer.'
Even this amount of alcohol can increase your cancer risk, however. Another study that Dr Rumgay worked on found that 'having just half a standard drink every day increases breast cancer risk by 4 per cent,' she says.
One drink once a week
Women who have one drink once a week are at a 3 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink a week, around 11 would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. The same amount of non-drinking women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives
More than 40 per cent of women in Britain drink at least once a week. The effects of having one drink each week are hard to study, however, as 'most people either drink more than once a week or don't drink at all,' says Dr Rumgay. The numbers still show that even this much alcohol consumption can increase your risk of breast cancer – though you might see a 3 per cent increased risk as something you're willing to tolerate.
One drink a few times a month
Women who have one drink every other week are at a 2 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink a few times a month, around would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors such as genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke.
Again, there isn't a lot of research into this pattern of drinking, though 'any amount of alcohol still increases your risk of breast cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. 'The simple advice I always give is reduction,' says Prof Stordal. 'Whether that's cutting down to once a week or once every few weeks, whatever you can do will benefit you.'
One drink every few months
Women who have fewer than six drinks over the course of a whole year are 0.3 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who don't drink. Of 100 women who have one drink fewer than six times a year, 11 would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke.
So while no amount of drinking is completely safe, you may be pleased to know that you can celebrate with a drink a few times a year and only increase your risk of breast cancer marginally, 'though the general consensus is that anything more than zero does raise your risk,' says Dr Rumgay.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tourist dies after drinking trance-inducing tea on spiritual rainforest retreat
Tourist dies after drinking trance-inducing tea on spiritual rainforest retreat

Daily Mirror

time9 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Tourist dies after drinking trance-inducing tea on spiritual rainforest retreat

Aaron Wayne Castranova, 41, reportedly from Alabama, in the US, suffered "multi-organ failure" after having a hallucinogenic drink at a spiritual retreat in the Amazon A tourist has died after drinking a trance-inducing herbal tea while staying at a spiritual retreat deep in the Amazon rainforest. Aaron Wayne Castranova, 41, suffered a severe reaction after partaking in the hallucinogenic drink in Loreto, part of the Peruvian Amazon rainforest that lies close to the border with Brazil. The regional prosecutor's forensic pathologist, Narciso Lopez, said that Mr Castranova, who is believed to be from Alabama, in the United States, suffered catastrophic "multi-organ failure" that led to his death having drunk the tea, which is known as ayahuasca. The psychoactive brew is traditionally used by Indigenous cultures in the Amazon and Orinoco basins for ceremonies and healing. ‌ ‌ Mr Castranova was at a spiritual session when he collapsed in the La Casa de Guillermo ICONA hostel, which is in the indigenous Santa Maria de Ojeda community. This location is well known for its 'spiritual tourism' where visitors take part in psychedelic rituals under the supervision of a shaman. It is reported by the hostel's management that Mr Castranova had not informed them that he was taking antibiotics which they alleged caused the fatal reaction. Mr Lopez said that ayahuesca can cause 'irreversible damage' as well as death. It is traditionally used by indigenous groups in spiritual and healing ceremonies, reported The drink is made from the bark of a vine and local vegetation that contains the hallucinogenic N-N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT). Local tourism where visitors seek to take part in the spiritual ceremonies has spiked in recent years, with some seeking it as a way to improve their mental health. There is a warning on the UK government's travel advice for Peru about drinks which contain hallucinogenic drugs and are offered for 'spiritual cleansing'. It also says that there have been reports of sex attacks during ceremonies. ‌ It states: 'Shamans and other people offer 'spiritual cleansing' (Ayahuasca or San Pedro) to tourists in the Amazon area, northern Peru and Cusco. This often involves drinking a brew containing dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a hallucinogenic drug that is a Class A substance in the UK. "This brew is not regulated and its effect on existing medical conditions is not well understood. People have become seriously ill and, in some cases, died after taking part. Spiritual cleansing retreats are usually far from populated areas, making it difficult to get medical attention. There have also been reports of sexual assault during these ceremonies.' It comes after last year British woman Maureen Rainford, 54, collapsed and died after drinking ayahuasca. The mum-of-three, from Romford, east London, had booked the £800 retreat at the Ayahuasca and San Pedro Pisatahua Retreat in the Bolivian Amazon last October, her family said. Maureen's daughter Rochel, 32, said she was told by a resort official that her mum had suffered a "medical emergency" during the retreat. She had complained about feeling unwell after drinking the tea, with her heart and breathing rate plummeting. Sadly, despite CPR efforts, Maureen died one hour later - before a doctor arrived. Rochel said: "There should be a trained medic on standby when hallucinogenic drugs are being handed out in a remote area. Eric [a worker at the retreat] tried to insist that she must be cremated in Bolivia as her body would decompose, but I did not want any cover-up." Rochel reportedly said that her mum's body was returned after she contacted the British consulate in Bolivia. She revealed that a post-mortem confirmed that her mum suffered a fatal heart attack.

D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal
D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal

Glasgow Times

time9 hours ago

  • Glasgow Times

D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal

Production of the antibiotic penicillin had struggled to take hold at a large scale in Britain, despite being discovered in 1928 in London by Sir Alexander Fleming. Attempts to produce substantial quantities of medicine from the bacteria-killing mould had not been achieved by the start of the Second World War. Then prime minister Sir Winston Churchill became increasingly frustrated that Britain had not been able to produce enough penicillin in the preparations for the Normandy landings in 1944. Official papers released by the National Archive – containing handwritten notes by Sir Winston – highlight efforts to boost quantities of the antibiotic, with Britain eventually forced to import it from America. The documents were released ahead of the 81st anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Official papers highlight the efforts to boost quantities of penicillin (The National Archives/PA) In one report on February 19, after the issue had been raised in the House of Commons, Sir Winston scrawled in red ink on a Ministry of Supply report noting the Americans were producing greater quantities: 'I am sorry we can't produce more.' On another paper, he complained: 'Your report on penicillin showing that we are only to get about one tenth of the expected output this year, is very disappointing.' Elsewhere in the same file he instructs: 'Let me have proposals for a more abundant supply from Great Britain.' With preparations for D-Day ramped up, efforts to deliver enough American-made penicillin for frontline military personnel soon became a matter of urgency. Decisions needed to be made on the quantities of antibiotic imported, how much to administer to individual patients, and how to get medical staff trained in time. Most British doctors did not know how to issue penicillin – until this point, doctors had nothing available to treat infections like pneumonia and many people died of blood poisoning after minor injuries because no drug existed that could cure them. Royal Navy D-Day veteran John Dennett, 101, at the British Normandy Memorial in Ver-sur-Mer to mark the 81st anniversary of the landings (Gareth Fuller/PA) Early in January 1944, Prof FR Fraser, the Ministry of Health's adviser on the organisation of wartime hospitals, wrote that 50,000-100,000 wounded could be expected from the Second Front. He proposed the Emergency Medical Services might need as many as five billion units of penicillin per month for this. Further documents show discussions on whether the antibiotic should be supplied as calcium or sodium salts, or in tablet form. Ultimately, it was agreed powdered calcium salts would be issued for superficial wounds and sodium salts for use in deep wounds. On May 24 1944, less than a fortnight before D-Day, Prof Fraser reported: 'Sufficient supplies of penicillin are now available for the treatment of battle casualties in EMS hospitals, but not for ordinary civilian patients.' Plans were made for casualties from the frontline in France to be brought back to coastal hospitals in Britain for treatment. A week before D-Day, on May 30 1944, hospitals were instructed to treat battlefield patients en route: 'In an endeavour to prevent the development of gas gangrene and sepsis in wounds the War Office have arranged for the treatment of selected cases by penicillin to be commenced as soon after injury as possible.' Military reenactors watch the sunrise over Gold Beach in Arromanches-les-Bains, Normandy, on the 81st anniversary of the D-Day landings (Gareth Fuller/PA) Injections of penicillin were to be given to them at intervals of not more than five hours and patients would be wearing a yellow label with the letters 'PEN'. The time and size of penicillin doses should be written on it, they were told. Dr Jessamy Carlson, modern records specialist at the National Archives, said: 'File MH 76/184 gives a glimpse into the extraordinary levels of preparation undertaken in advance of the D-Day landings. 'Only six weeks before, penicillin is just reaching our shores in quantities which will allow it to play a major role in improving the outcomes for service personnel wounded in action.' As Allied forces made inroads into Europe, restrictions on the use of penicillin for civilians began to relax, but only in special cases. In July 1944, Ronald Christie, professor of medicine, wrote to Prof Fraser to tell him: 'The War Office approves of American penicillin being used for medical conditions in service patients and for air raid casualties among civilians.' On the home front, demand for the new 'wonder' drug began to increase, according the National Archives. It was decided that penicillin for civilians should only be supplied to larger hospitals where the staff had been properly trained to administer it. Only in 1946 did it become fully available for the general public.

D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal
D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal

Powys County Times

time13 hours ago

  • Powys County Times

D-Day landings boosted by import of ‘wonder drug' to Britain, archives reveal

The D-Day landings were boosted by the import from America of a 'wonder drug', unearthed documents reveal. Production of the antibiotic penicillin had struggled to take hold at a large scale in Britain, despite being discovered in 1928 in London by Sir Alexander Fleming. Attempts to produce substantial quantities of medicine from the bacteria-killing mould had not been achieved by the start of the Second World War. Then prime minister Sir Winston Churchill became increasingly frustrated that Britain had not been able to produce enough penicillin in the preparations for the Normandy landings in 1944. Official papers released by the National Archive – containing handwritten notes by Sir Winston – highlight efforts to boost quantities of the antibiotic, with Britain eventually forced to import it from America. The documents were released ahead of the 81st anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. In one report on February 19, after the issue had been raised in the House of Commons, Sir Winston scrawled in red ink on a Ministry of Supply report noting the Americans were producing greater quantities: 'I am sorry we can't produce more.' On another paper, he complained: 'Your report on penicillin showing that we are only to get about one tenth of the expected output this year, is very disappointing.' Elsewhere in the same file he instructs: 'Let me have proposals for a more abundant supply from Great Britain.' With preparations for D-Day ramped up, efforts to deliver enough American-made penicillin for frontline military personnel soon became a matter of urgency. Decisions needed to be made on the quantities of antibiotic imported, how much to administer to individual patients, and how to get medical staff trained in time. Most British doctors did not know how to issue penicillin – until this point, doctors had nothing available to treat infections like pneumonia and many people died of blood poisoning after minor injuries because no drug existed that could cure them. Early in January 1944, Prof FR Fraser, the Ministry of Health's adviser on the organisation of wartime hospitals, wrote that 50,000-100,000 wounded could be expected from the Second Front. He proposed the Emergency Medical Services might need as many as five billion units of penicillin per month for this. Further documents show discussions on whether the antibiotic should be supplied as calcium or sodium salts, or in tablet form. Ultimately, it was agreed powdered calcium salts would be issued for superficial wounds and sodium salts for use in deep wounds. On May 24 1944, less than a fortnight before D-Day, Prof Fraser reported: 'Sufficient supplies of penicillin are now available for the treatment of battle casualties in EMS hospitals, but not for ordinary civilian patients.' Plans were made for casualties from the frontline in France to be brought back to coastal hospitals in Britain for treatment. A week before D-Day, on May 30 1944, hospitals were instructed to treat battlefield patients en route: 'In an endeavour to prevent the development of gas gangrene and sepsis in wounds the War Office have arranged for the treatment of selected cases by penicillin to be commenced as soon after injury as possible.' Injections of penicillin were to be given to them at intervals of not more than five hours and patients would be wearing a yellow label with the letters 'PEN'. The time and size of penicillin doses should be written on it, they were told. Dr Jessamy Carlson, modern records specialist at the National Archives, said: 'File MH 76/184 gives a glimpse into the extraordinary levels of preparation undertaken in advance of the D-Day landings. 'Only six weeks before, penicillin is just reaching our shores in quantities which will allow it to play a major role in improving the outcomes for service personnel wounded in action.' As Allied forces made inroads into Europe, restrictions on the use of penicillin for civilians began to relax, but only in special cases. In July 1944, Ronald Christie, professor of medicine, wrote to Prof Fraser to tell him: 'The War Office approves of American penicillin being used for medical conditions in service patients and for air raid casualties among civilians.' On the home front, demand for the new 'wonder' drug began to increase, according the National Archives. It was decided that penicillin for civilians should only be supplied to larger hospitals where the staff had been properly trained to administer it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store