"Sweeping changes" in Australian alcohol guidelines.

I was reading the press on the proposed NICE guidance on alcohol and pregnancy, and ran across a very interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald. Extracts:

ADULTS will be advised that more than two drinks a day is a health risk, and teenagers and pregnant women will be warned not to drink at all under sweeping changes to Australia's alcohol guidelines.

Amid estimates that 2 million Australians are risking brain damage through dangerous drinking, the new Federal Government advice will be released today. Anti-alcohol campaigners have heralded the changes as "the most stringent safe-drinking guidelines in the world".

Until now, men have been told they could have six drinks a day, and women four, without risking long-term harm.

But the National Health and Medical Research Council's revised guidelines say both men and women should limit themselves to two drinks a day.

Expectant mothers, who were previously advised that up to seven drinks a week was safe, will now be warned there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

The same advice will be given to women trying to conceive.

And, for the first time, explicit advice will be given for under-15s not to drink at all. The council says 15- to 17-year-olds should only drink under parental supervision. Its advice comes amid growing concern over foetal alcohol syndrome and the effects of drinking on the adolescent brain.

A committee of medical experts has analysed scientific research from around the world over the past year to draft the three new guidelines, which have been reduced from 11 in 2001.

The chairman of the committee, Jon Currie, said the pregnancy advice brought Australia into line with Britain and the US.

"We know alcohol is a toxin and we cannot find a limit at which it is safe during pregnancy, because even at relatively low levels there are still some studies showing developmental changes," said Professor Currie, director of addiction medicine at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne. "Not drinking provides you with the safest option."

But as the federal election looms, the alcohol industry - which donates generously to all political parties - is expected to lobby hard against the proposals, now subject to a 60-day public consultation. Winemakers, who have long spruiked the benefits of a glass of red, will be concerned the new guidelines do not recommend alcohol in moderation as a protective health measure.

SMH.com.au

I found that last bit about alcohol lobbying quite telling. I'm a little conflicted, frankly, somehow it offends me that the liquor lobby is so powerful on interstate shipping, but lobbying on this issue which should really be science based in large measure seems ok.

Ah, well, there's an old saying about consistency and hobgoblins and with Halloween looming it's probably ok.l

Regards, Bob

Taken in moderate quantities, i.e. ... 750 ml a day, 1 litre for heavy workers, as part of a normal diet, [wine] is a good light stimulant and tonic and aid to digestion. ... These findings, confirmed by modern science, are not a modern discovery. The Salernian school formulated them in the twelfth century in one of its sentences, of which the following is a translation:

As for wine, on the choice, this is our doctrine:
Drink little of it, but let it be good;
Wine serves as a medicine,
Bad wine is a poison.

No adulterated wines, they are bad for the stomach.
A wine that is fresh, natural, sparkling, smooth
Ought to delight taste, scent and sight.

-- Larousse Gastronomique (Crown anglophone ed., 1961). A recommended reference (that edition specifically).

[Robin Garr]

[i]Taken in moderate quantities, i.e. ... 750 ml a day, 1 litre for heavy workers, as part of a normal diet, [wine] is a good light stimulant and tonic and aid to digestion. ... These findings, confirmed by modern science, are not a modern discovery. The Salernian school formulated them in the twelfth century in one of its sentences, of which the following is a translation:

What was the typical alcohol content of table wines in those days?

What was the typical alcohol content of table wines in those days?

Touché!

Same source doesn't mention it, but another from about the same time lists legal minima, like plain Beaujolais, 9%; Beaujolais Supérieur, 10%; etc. Of course these were usually exceeded. I'd assume around 12% average ABV in France in 1961 (like most unwatered table wines in modern times).

Sorry I don't have any 12th-century sources on alcohol content of wines.

That edition was not sanitized, and I agree with you Max that it is a wonderful book, just to read for pleasure.

One of my favorite lines about coffee houses in Paris in the 1600s: "But these miserable cafes were really no more than dirty little smoking-saloons, frequented only by confirmed smokers, travelers from the Lebanon, and several Knights of Malta."

It seems to be widely available in used book shops -- around $25 I think. Useful and fun for any food lover.

Not that it bears directly on Australian alcohol guidelines but Bob, have you been reading my cookbook postings elsewhere? (The word "sanitized" is a strong cue.)

That coffee line is an old favorite in my quotations file, I post it in reference-cookbook discussions. For instance Here (third article in the thread) and Here. The 1961 LG is especially savory for its uninhibited comments, so obviously removed in later editions (I recently checked a 1977 mezzanine edition which is a slight edit of the 1961, same graphics and jacket; already they are toning it down).

Comments like horror at corrupting influences on French restaurants, or bistro operators who list dishes under "pretentious titles which bedeck the worst mediocrities." Or attention to details of a menu prepared by Richelieu for foreign guests, the vegetables to be carved "into grotesque shapes on account of the Germans."

I may have read your stuff without knowing it Max, but I haven't connected "MaxH" with Max Hauser for some reason. Now that I have, I'll google MaxH and food and wine for some great reading.

I bought my copy of the book from a fellow in NYC about 20 years ago. He dealt in off beat books, not food necessarily, and always wrote up a little blurb for the spicier ones, especially on subjects you wouldn't think were spicy -- often the blurbs were better than the books -- which he stuck on a board near the checkout counter. "Specials." Located near the Flat Iron Building -- Donald Rice, I think his name was. (I've lost touch and see that his shop is no longer listed -- gone the way of so many independent book sellers I suppose.)

In any event, I've kept his blurb for the book as a marker. He wrote that the edition was "not sanitized" and quoted the coffee house footnote. He liked the quote because he detested smoking -- and perhaps smokers -- wouldn't let anyone smoke in his shop.

I'm off to find some good MaxH quotes to liven up my life. Thanks for the lead.

Regards, Bob

Interesting, Bob! Here is a tiny bit of history.

In 1988 when finally the new anglophone edition of Larousse Gastronomique appeared, I noticed two things. First the text was completely new, excellent color photos, respectful attention to foreign cuisines, little of the Gallic imperiousness that marked the 1961 (and 1938 French from which much of it came verbatim). Fortunately that wasn't all gone (see last pph under "Fork").

The second thing was reviews at the time that gushed about the book and implied long acquaintance with the title, but no mention of the radical changes in this edition, or what had previously been so quirky.

I nicknamed the 1988 the "sanitized" edition and used that online. Publicly archived example: a 1991 wine posting, part of a lively discussion on inexpensive Pinots Noirs "versus" Beaujolais. (Caution: My pph there on Yoxall's book, written offhand, was completely inaccurate.)

I went to look up "Fork" as you suggested and found a clipping from the Times about Christmas books. My book seller's note says: "Santitized for Xmas?!"

As you say, reviews were very positive; this review is actually still on line:

FLORENCE FABRICANT; FLORENCE FABRICANT, WHO WRITES THE FOOD NOTES COLUMN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, IS THE AUTHOR OF ''FLORENCE FABRICANT'S PLEASURES OF THE TABLE.''

Published: December 4, 1988

LEAD: Like any well-chosen guest, a book about food or drink should be thoughtfully selected. Whether the cook's taste is exotic or home-style, highly technical or rather haphazard, there are outstanding choices this season, ranging from lavish oversize volumes to stocking stuffers. *

Like any well-chosen guest, a book about food or drink should be thoughtfully selected. Whether the cook's taste is exotic or home-style, highly technical or rather haphazard, there are outstanding choices this season, ranging from lavish oversize volumes to stocking stuffers. *

For the serious and scholarly cook, there is no better holiday gift choice than LAROUSSE GASTRONOMIQUE: The New American Edition of the World's Greatest Culinary Encyclopedia, edited by Jenifer Harvey Lang (illustrated, 1,193 pp., Crown, $50). The encyclopedic volume, which contains more than 4,000 entries, is an adaptation for English-language readers of the 1984 revision of a classic cooking text. In this compendium of food history, reference notes and recipes, which now contains color photographs and illustrations, there is an emphasis on the French point of view. *

I would guess I bought the book in the spring of 1989 based on other things going on then.

Brings back a nice personal memory of a good retailer; I used to stop by on my way down/up to the Strand. Thanks for the memory.

Regards, Bob

This was the lead story on last Saturday's front page of the SMH! There was very little to indicate what was wrong with the previous 'safe' recommended drinking levels. It almost seemed like someone looked around and saw that the UK and US advice was different (is it?) and thought we'd better come into line, lest somebody suffer a legal action. And anyway, if the recommendations are only talking about brain damage, I guess it makes sense. One drink is less risky than two, which is less risky than three, which is less risky that thirty-six. Big deal. No mention of any possible benefits conferred in other aspects of health care - heart disease, for instance...

The 'alcohol industry' in Australia mainly takes the form of the Australian Hotels Association. Their main focus is to ensure that people can't just pop into a wine bar for a quiet drink. No, alcohol licences must be extremely expensive - so only large establishments can afford them (either big hotels so serious restaurants). Hotels also want to be filled with poker machines (slot machines), to extract large amounts of cash from your average mug punter. Large sums are donated to the major political parties to ensure this happens. The other focus is on opening hours of pubs, to keep the volumes up, and trying to avoid any responsibility for the social consequences of alcoholism.

It's irritating, and explains why there are so few decent wine bars (at least in NSW - some other states have it a little better), but on the other hand it explains the near-universal acceptance of BYO at restaurants, even quite flashy ones.

In Australia, the question of interstate shipping does not exist. Any consumer anywhere in the country can get onto any retailer's - or better still - winery's website, order away to their hearts desire, and have cases of wine show up on their doorstep within the week for a freight cost of US$14 a dozen, max (some wineries offer free shipping, and of course many are cheaper depending on the relative geographies of buyer and seller). Section 92 of the constitution says "Trade between the states shall be free..." and a bloody good thing it is too.

The retail trade has come to be dominated by the two large Australian supermarket chains (we've have the most concentrated levels of supermarket owndership in the world - imagine two Wal-Marts taking about 80% of the market) but their power is being largely used to screw suppliers at the moment, rather than consumers - depending on where you shop, of course - a foolish consumer can still be ripped off.

cheers,
Graeme