In a report published today by the House of Commons science and technology committee MPs are recommending that:

- in the context of the current daily guidelines, the public should be advised to take at least two alcohol-free days a week.

- the sensible drinking limits should not be increased.

Their view is that while the general public’s awareness of alcohol limits is high their understanding of those guidelines is poor and reported health benefits of alcohol publicised in the early 90s were oversold and led to confusion. When recommended limits were first published in 1987 these were set at 14 units a week for a woman and 21 units a week for a man. These were subsequently revised to 14-21 units a week for a woman and 21-28 units a week for a man.

According to the report “The committee found a lack of expert consensus over the health benefits of alcohol and is therefore skeptical about using the purported health benefits of alcohol as a basis for daily guidelines for the adult population, particularly as it is clear that any protective effects would only apply to men over 40 years and post-menopausal women, yet the guidelines apply to all adults,”

The Royal College of Physicians supported the committee’s call. “The RCP believes that in addition to quantity, safe alcohol limits must also take into account frequency. There is an increased risk of liver disease for those who drink daily or near daily compared with those who drink periodically or intermittently,” said Sir Ian Gilmore, RCP special adviser on alcohol.

‘We currently recommend consumption is limited to between 0 - 21 units a week for men and 0 - 14 units a week for women provided the total amount is not taken in binges and that there are two to three alcohol free days a week. At these levels, most individuals are unlikely to come to harm.”

The college also wants the government to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. “There is a clear relationship between price, alcohol consumption and health harm,” said Gilmore. “A minimum unit price of 50p would prevent around 10,000 deaths, 100,000 hospital admissions each year and over 10,000 fewer violent crimes. The total direct costs saved in England would be £7.4bn over 10 years.”

Higher alcohol prices curb drinking.

The relative cost of alcohol as a proportion of income has been declining steadily for over 50 years and is now only a fraction of what it was in real terms in the years following the Second World War. This trend has been matched by an almost unbroken rise in consumption per capita of alcohol here in the UK over the same period of time. Despite this, successive governments have shied away from linking duty on alcohol to affordability and have been willing to forgo the revenue this would have raised. Meanwhile consumption in other parts of Europe has declined by as much as two thirds in some countries over the same period of time. It is only recently as a result of mounting public concern over the impact alcohol abuse is having on society, partly as a result of an ever increasing body of evidence to this effect, that government is considering a minimum pricing policy. In the Scotland this is already going ahead and south of the boarder consultations with interested parties and agencies are ongoing.

Advocates of this measure will have been encouraged by the findings of the latest research on this topic, recently published by the Centre for Addictions Research in British Colombia, Canada, where analysis on minimum pricing and alcohol sales in British Colombia shows a clear link between variations in price fixing and sales. Here price hikes of 10 percent in the prices of alcoholic beverages led consumers to drink 3.4 percent less than they otherwise would have, with consumption of certain types of alcohol falling even more.

Using data for the period 1989-2010 the researchers found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic drink, consumption of spirits and liqueurs fell by 6.8 percent, wine by 8.9 percent, alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9 percent and beer by 1.5 percent.

With this link clearly established alcohol pricing is likely to play an ever increasing role in government health policy in years to come.

Scottish drivers ignore festive period drink driving campaign.

According to figures released on the 4^th of January - in spite of the usual high profile media campaign warning against the dangers of drink-driving - this season drivers in Scotland appear to have disregarded this advice, with a 12 percent increase in the number in the number of people caught over the limit behind the wheel. This despite recent changes in the law allowing the authorities to permanently confiscate the vehicles of guilty drivers.

Affected numbers rose to 478 drivers during the annual crackdown on drink drivers, an average of 17 a day. In addition the number of motorists found to be under the influence of drugs behind the wheel rose by 44 per cent on last year. One hundred and four of these drivers will now have their cars either sold or crushed, depending on their value.

Condemnation of this news has been widespread and included the following comments by the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who said driving under the influence of alcohol was “reckless”, “totally unacceptable” and was “putting lives at risk”, as he promised that the Scottish Government would not let up on drink drivers.

The government, through the Department of Transport, is appointing a panel of experts composed of academics and scientists to look into the possibility of changing the law on drug-driving. Their goal will be to establish whether or not a revised law could be implemented in the same way as the drink-driving law is enforced at present.

The demand for this from safety campaigners and other interested parties arises out of mounting evidence of drugs being a contributing factor in a significant number of non fatal and fatal road accidents. This includes evidence of consumption of illegal drugs on their own, in combination with legal drugs and finally in combination with alcohol. The impact of legal substances is also under scrutiny.

At present motorists can be charged with being unfit to drive as a result of being under the influence of drugs. However in the absence of any equivalent tool to the breathalyser, adequate proof of consumption is relatively difficult to obtain and means prosecutions are rare. As things stand the law relies on, arguably, fairly subjective impairment tests to determine a subject’s capacity to drive. These include counting to thirty, walking forwards and backwards in a straight line for nine paces, and touching finger to nose with eyes closed. If after this the police have reasonable grounds to suspect drug use this needs to be confirmed by a doctor before the requisite blood test can be performed. In practical terms this can take a significant period of time and given the limited window of detection of a blood test, by the time an analysis is performed evidence of consumption may no longer be obtainable.

There are many tests available capable of determining whether an illegal substance has been consumed at some point in the last few hours or days. One of the challenges the authorities would face is selecting a test which not only confirms recent consumption but which is also able to determine whether a subject, at the time of being stopped, is still under the influence of the substance in question. Tests of this kind already exist, are the subject of continuing development, and are in use abroad by some police forces. The State of Victoria in Australia can tests drivers at the roadside for MDMA (methamphetamine found in speed and crystal meth) and THC, the active component in cannabis. In the UK the dugs the Department of Transport is theoretically interested in testing for are cocaine, MDMA, cannabis and opiates. However the presence of certain combinations of legal substances and alcohol, even within legal limits is also a concern.

Given that most of the substances in question are illegal anyway many interested parties favour a zero tolerance policy should consumption be established regardless of the impact on driving ability.

Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said:

“The big question is – how can you talk about an acceptable level of something that’s illegal to possess? If it’s zero, then you have a law that’s about the use of a substance and not driving. Our members are definitely in favour of a law that affects you if you’re impaired, and 75% want it to be zero tolerance.”

This view was echoed by Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation who said: “There is no doubt that drug-driving is a very big and growing problem, particularly when combined with drink. Reliable screening devices are being developed and it is hoped approved equipment will soon provide legally acceptable proof of drug-driving.

“The RAC Foundation believes there is also a strong case for a law which sees motorists detected driving with illegal drugs in their system penalised, without impairment itself having to be proved.”

He said official statistics showed more than 1,000 accident casualties yearly were due to drugs and that this was “thought to be an under-estimate”.

Alcohol is a topical subject at this time of year; the authorities are concerned about the dangers of drink-driving and the general public will be bombarded with advice through the media on how best to recover from their Christmas excesses, amongst them, a higher than normal alcohol intake. Special diets and even selective fasting have long been the currency of these solutions, amongst them the so called “Janopause” when devotees completely eliminate alcohol from the their diets during the month of January in the belief and expectation of benefiting from the perceived impact this will have on their general well-being, most specifically, their livers.

It appears however, according to recent pronouncements from the charity the British Liver Trust, that these measures offer false hope to those who follow them and are basically pointless, especially if there has been an increase in alcohol consumption over the Christmas period. It says drinkers would be much better advised to abstain for a few days a week throughout the year rather than concentrate all their efforts over the first month.

According to Andrew Langford, chief executive of the British Liver Trust:

“People think they’re virtuous with their health by embarking on a liver detox each January with the belief that they are cleansing their liver of excess following the festive break.”

“A one-hit, one-month attempt to achieve long-term liver health is not the way to approach it.”

“You’re better off making a resolution to take a few days off alcohol a week throughout the entire year than remaining abstinent for January only.”

Dr Mark Wright, consultant hepatologist (hepatology: the branch of medicine that incorporates the study of liver, gallbladder, biliary tree, and pancreas as well as management of their disorders) at Southampton General Hospital supported this view explaining that detoxing created its own problems.

“Detoxing for just a month in January is medically futile. It can lead to a false sense of security and feeds the idea that you can abuse your liver as much as you like and then sort everything else with a quick fix.

“It makes about as much sense as maxing out your credit cards and overdraft all year, then thinking you can fix it by just eating toast in January. The figures just don’t stack up.”

This isn’t the first time the multimillion pound detox industry has come in for criticism. In 2007 the the government’s food watchdog chief scientist Dr Wadge posted the following in his blog:

“There’s a lot of nonsense talked about ‘detoxing’ and most people seem to forget that we are born with a built-in detox mechanism. “It’s called the liver. So my advice would be to ditch the detox diets and supplements and buy yourself something nice with the money you’ve saved.”

His advice was to:

“First, drink a glass or two of water (tap is fine, cheaper and more sustainable than bottled); second, get a little exercise - maybe a walk in the park - and third, enjoy some nice home-cooked food.”

As part of its efforts to tackle the problems associated with liver disease the British Liver Trust is launching a campaign called “Love your liver” aimed at encouraging behaviour likely to ensure a healthy liver.

David Cameron is understood to be keen in adopting a new strategy to address the health threat caused by excessive alcohol consumption. Moving away from the voluntary approach favoured by his cabinet colleagues, the Prime Minister is reported to support a new proposal to introduce a minimum price for alcohol sales in England.

The scheme could be modelled on the Scottish proposals and ban alcohol sale below 45p a unit; an other option could be the introduction of a tax system linked to the number of alcohol units in a drink.

A Whitehall source told the Telegraph: “The prime minister has decided that, when it comes to alcohol, something pretty radical now has to be done and he is keen on the minimum price”.

A recent study suggested that a minimum price of 50p would prevent more than 2,000 deaths a year.