I have spent a lot of my working life as a GP dealig with all illnesses, and the majority of these comments reveal a passion for justification of any habit. Obviously there is no possibility of a quantity of alcohol which is suitable for every individual, to be recorded as safe, healthy etc without attracting adverse comment from someone resentful of classification. Without classification, the appropriate limits are just right, and with or without further evidence, observation over 30 years of hard work in UK, Europe, and S Africa makes me support the present limits.
Lesley, Trinidad

lesley, Port of Spain, Trinidad

I read a article in metro (high brow paper !) the other day about women's drinking habits and the women were quoted as drinking between 28 - 34 units a week. But the article talked about them going out 3 to 4 times a week and having 4 glasses of wine and more... I dont think they got the units right it sounded more like 40 - 60 units a week. Most people I know drink up to or over the recommended amount and I dont think they have a problem. They seem on the ball and healthy to me, I know what a problem drinker looks like and its more excessive tha this. The limits are too low.

Lucy Morgan, London,

As a recovering alcoholic, I obviously am aware of the dangers of excess alcohol consumption. However, alcoholism is an issue that concerns the individual, not alcohol itself.

I have long known that the "official" guidelines were completely arbitrary. Indeed, even more ridiculous than the male guidelines are those for a female, which were chosen on the basis that they should be less for the "fairer sex."

My experience has led my wife to be concerned about her alcohol intake and it is unfortunate that what should be a simple ( and healthy) pleasure for her has been tinged with a touch of guilt due to misleading information Indeed, if the official guidelines were correct, most of the world's population would have died out by now, survived only by Mormons and Baptists!

Like most things in life, the key is balance and common sense and enjoying, with others, every moment to its fullest!

P, Kent,

It is just disgraceful that our lives can be affected and controlled to the degree they are by well meaning but ultimately misguided political correctness.

It really makes you wonder what else is being suppressed. The alcohol level thing always felt wrong. I suspect the 5 portions may be the same.

What is really scandalous is that the health advice to the public should have been the exact opposite of that given out, and health ministers have deliberately ignored this for years to follow a politically correct line.

Peter, York,

Never mind actual units of alcohol.
Never mind counting your fingers after you shake hands with a politician, or your wallet in the case of a government. Far more worrying is that a so-called 'learned institution', The Royal College of Physicians, no less - felt constrained to lend their authority with an 'intelligent guess', subsequently shown to be wildly inaccurate; what price professional integrity? I shall continue to treat all pronouncements by the Chief Medical Officer et al, supported by medical 'evidence', with the same scepticism as I always have, except that since this revelation I now know why my social acquaintances have failed to drop like flies since 1987. I suggest that we all, including pregnant women, continue to live our social lives with what we are comfortable with, as people used to without any dire consequences.

MikeM, St. Albans, England

Steve P - Roy Castle attributed the lung cancer that finally killed him to passive smoking. He died 13 years ago. I'm sure there have been many more victims since.

Dave, Fort Worth, Texas

eat too much, drink too much, exercise too little, get fatter, sicker, die earlier......just as well we are not an endangered species but over populating this planet.
Maybe... this is nature's way of getting rid of it's biggest problem? ;)
Survival of the fittest and all that...

David, Andover, Hants., England

I've always said that the definition of binge drinking that gets bandied about was arbitary and very poor science. They (the so-called experts) take the established recommended amount of alcohol per week and divide it by seven to get a daily amount. Fair enough so far.

Then they take the daily amount and claim that more than twice this value consumed in a single session is "binge drinking". Why twice the daily amount? And what length of time constitutes a single session?

Now it appears that not only is the formula quite arbitary, but the initial figures are too! Astonishing when you consider that some pedantic health "professional" can therefore accuse me of binge drinking because i supped three pints of Guiness last Friday night, regardless that i didn't touch a drop the rest of the week.

SK, Manchester, UK

If our own bodies belong to ourselves, and if the taxation that we are mulcted for on stuff that we choose (legally!) to put inside our own bodies is paid, then what are the pressure-groups complaining about?

Are they all trying to say that we do not own our own bodies? If so, then who does? If we may not put inside our bodies what we want, at the order of another, then we are his farm-animals.

Or....are they all bust and do they just want money? if so, then they ought to say...."look, the guvmint is bust, we can't afford to pay all these people whom we pay to work for us, so that they will all gratefully vote for us for ever, so we need to increase taxation, and the simplest way is to hit those of you who do some real work for real money outside in the realworld, but in a way you won't notice coz' you need the booze (coz' we hate you) and we know it, and you know we know it, and we know you know we know it....'coz you'll still pay!"

David Davis, Southport,

I sincerely hope that my daily half bottle of wine IS doing me some harm. I have seen people suffering the indignities of the extreme old age that the medical profession and nanny state strive to sentence us to and it appals me.

We all have to die of something so most of what we do is probably harmful and contributes to our eventual demise. Get used to it - and enjoy the year 2000 clarets while they last.

Chris Williams, Tonbridge, Kent

The following points should be noted when considering this article. The last review of recommended guidelines was in 1995. Its report was published in December 1995, under the title "Sensible Drinking", and recommended a shift to specifying the benchmarks in daily rather than weekly terms by evaluating medical and scientific evidence. The Group paid close attention to the distinction between association and causality.

The old weekly guidelines are no longer used today. The current sensible drinking guidelines (daily benchmarks) are 2-3 units in one day for women and 3-4 units in one day for men.

To name but a few, cancer risk increases incrementally with every additional unit drunk above these benchmarks (bowel, breast, mouth); high blood pressure is twice more likely; there has been a 90% increase in alcohol-related liver disease over the last decade; 20%-30% of accidents at work are alcohol related. Considering these consequences, are these limits really useless?

Liz Burns, Manchester,

What is happening is that the government need more taxes so that they can waste more of our money. They are creating a fuss about the dangers of table wine so that they can get away witha big tax rise.
There are people around who give drinking a bad name but that is a separate issue

Tom Bloomfield, Carmarthen, Carmarthenshire

Kirsty from Glasgow, there's no evidence that Roy castle died from passive smoking - indeed many people have died from lung cancer who have never significantly been exposed to cigarette smoke. If there was any substance to the purported passive smoking risk then there should be millions of deaths.

Peter, Bristol, UK

Terry from France is 'still waiting for the first passive smoking victim'... every heard of Roy Castle?????

kirsty, glasgow,

Just type "beer" into Wiki quotes and be reassured that greater men than us have enjoyed this lovely drink.
Just reading this new revelation takes away the guilt I have had over the years that I am doing great harm to myself.
Time to relax.

Steven Linay, Enfield, England

Any sentient being will have decided a long time ago that the "safe" amount of units per week were laughably low. Most people I know would be dead a long time ago if those were really the "limits". As the limits were obviously nonsense, they were ignored. I would have thought a big-drinking profession like doctors would have noticed this before now.

J. C., Brussels,

Et voila! I'll drink to that!

Sarah Phillips, Angers, France

So the harm a drug causes isn't quite what it seems? Quelle surprise. But imagine this argument being put forward in connection with an illegal drug like cannabis: no one would take it seriously. "Killer drug", "sends youngsters mad", and all the rest would drown out any and every claim to the contrary, no matter how sober or well-researched. I think it's time we put aside our assumptions, prejudices and hunches and had a hard look at *all* drug use in Britain - legal, illegal, and prescription. The government should announce a Royal Commission.

Robin Prior, London, uk

In my opinion, it's all a result of both the public's and the media's desire for an answer to questions and politicians' desire to appear to be a font of knowledge.

We all need to be honest with ourselves: pleasure in moderation be it drink, drugs, sex, computer games, TV, fatty food even religious chanting and prayer is good for us; That's why it feels good.Too much on a regular basis can has negative effects. That's why it doesn't feel so good.

Our great, great grandparents didn't need life quantified in terms of 'safe amounts' and neither should we. We should return to traditional values and reject all this numerical nonsense.

Gordon Callan, Carnwath, Scotland

The control freaks will invent "guidelines" so that they can continue nannying us. Alcohol units. 5-a-day fruit & veg, 2 litres of water daily ... none of these is supported by any shred of evidence whatsoever.

Terry Dell, Weybridge, UK

But this has been common knowledge for years, ever since the publication of two studies that actually provided the missing evidence. It was widely reported at the time... and then ignored because it was inconvenient to the health industry. I even remember (and have often quoted to my biology pupils!) the wonderful revelation that you have to drink a bottle of red wine every day in order to be as unhealthy as a teetotaller.

Simon Mawer, Roma, Italy

Bugger the guidelines, Granny knew best when she said a little of what you fancy does you good. Common sense says that binginging on anything from Mars Bars to Paracetamol will seriously affect your health and drink, in whatever form, is the same.

David Mills, Altea, Spain

Come on...When the fanatics banned smoking. You should have known the ale would be next . I can't wait to see how they are going to regulate the fatties.......
We shall have to see how many people will be willing to pay £6 a pint in thier smoke free pubs...

Suckers.....

Non drinking smoker :-), wilmslow,

So Nanny State doesn't KNOW best, so maybe now she will shut up in all of her various guises and let us get on with living our short lives as the responsible adults most of us are.

Bill McCann, Suzhou, China

Like a majority of health reports that seem to surface nowadays, no one has a clue as to what is healthy and what is not. Have we turned into such a nanny state that we can't make up our own mind, but must have Government tell us what we can and can't drink?
This report proves perhaps the opposite - that drinking is in fact good for you - as long as you drink 20-30 units. I don't drink 1 bottle of wine a day, and so these so called 'health organisations' are actually going to make me pay more, in the form of a 10% tax, to stay healthy?
I think this is ridiculous.
Or maybe not - maybe if I drink 20-30 units, a 10% tax is perfect to line the government coffers.
Yours appalled.

Daniel Jarrett, Deal, Kent, England

Look at the life expectancy figures of the people of gascony france. there fantastic,pleanty of wine,red meat and cook in goose fat. Its the food addatives that get you and the trans fats etc. P.S.
go lewis and the rugger lads

jon, Doncaster, England

Alcohol is known to be a poison, so isn't it misleading to suggest any quantity is safe? But then, oh yes, they HAD to say something! (and it had to be politically acceptable?).
There, I've given my opinion, now I'm off to the pub. Cheers!

Jim Oliver, Syston, England

I think that one of the problems with collecting statistics on drinking volumes is that people are notoriously economical with the truth. Whatever volume people admit too needs to be doubled. My girlfriend applies this equation to me and she is normally right. On a serious note how will any clinical study collate reliable data that is based on peoples honesty.

Nigel Preston, Manchester, UK

There was thorough investigation done by American scientists and they too came to the conclusion that a bottle of wine a day did more GOOD than harm for ALL diseases. Where I live you see 90 year olds drinking wine in the morning and then carrying their shopping up 5 flights of stairs. You never see any old teetotallers they're all dead.

Doug George, Antibes, France

A "one size fits all" approach to preventive health (such as guidelines alcohol consumption) are always destined to fail. Humans are variable (hence the difference in allowances between the sexes) but variation within a single sex is also enormous. A small, sedentary male with a poor diet and predisposing genetic factors may be badly affected by drinking close to the limits recommended whereas a hefty and physically active one with low body fat might not even get close to the drink driving limit drinking 4 units a night.

I think one knows in one's heart of hearts if alcohol is getting the better of you. Comparisons of drinkers with tee-totallers in health and mortality rates are also unfair as the latter group include all the people who for one reason or another (e.g ex-alcoholics or hepatitis sufferers) are unable to drink. If you compare drinkers and elective tee-totallers without medical conditions or already-compromised health then the difference all but disappears.

Paolo Bagarino, Roma, Italia

The British Government also suggests nearly 13% of Britons are alcoholic - a figure I would guess is rather low from my observations as I begin my 5th year in residence in this green and pleasant country. I am deeply attached to Britain, and to the British people who have been very welcoming to me, but my, what a boozy culture! Alcoholism is a progressive, fatal disease unless the sufferer abstains. Most alcoholics don't die of liver failure, they die of the disease, but in ways that don't attribute directly to alcohol. Yet "Nanny Hewitt" took advantage of the EU’s quite serious democratic deficit to ban smoking in British pubs, while one remains free to sit and get as stoned as one might like on drink - ultimately killing every alcoholic that does not abstain. My beloved, adoptive country is in denial about this disease. If you drink "44 units" a week, you're a lush, my friend. The continued social acceptability of alcoholic levels of consumption in Britain is a killer!

Rod, Woodstock, Oxfordshire

Type "acohol concentration cancer" into a search engine (I used Google today) and there are a number of clinical papers that show a correlation between acohol concentration in drinks and cancer. The one I read also concludes that wine and beer (being lower concentrations) less so.

Terry, Aquitaine, France

I'm still waiting for the first passive smoking victim.

Steve P, Leeds, England

Another example of feral government.
Oh look! There may be an issue here, so let's make up some half-baked story about it, and impose a tax on the people with the problem!!

DavidintheUK, London, UK

Just like Gordon Brown's "five economic tests" and his "red lines," Government policy is shown to be a fraud.

Joe Jones, London, UK

There once was a time these were just guidelines, bringing no more scorn than a tut-tut from the GP when you visited. The appropriate levels of drinking were more subjective on an individual level; if it ain't broke don't fix it, or if it isn't harming anyone (including yourself) then why not enjoy a tipple?

At the other end of the scale was (and is) the perceived macho status of drinking 15 pints of lager on a saturday and fighting - clearly idiotic.

To target middle class wine drinkers was also clearly idiotic. Or could it be the first step in increasing taxation on alcoholic products? Petrol has gone up so much it is now a very sensitive subject, as is council tax. Could beer and wine be next? Certainly not spirits because of the whiskey lobby and our Scottish parliament.

Justin, Nr. Lincoln, UK

Justifies my feelings all along that these figures bore no resemblance to studies carried out in other countries - Sweden for example. Sure; Alcohol is not good for some people and a downright danger to others who have a predetermined uncontrolled need for it - similar to smokers unable or unwilling to give it up when it starts to control your life. I have no problem with a bottle of wine a day and a recent thorough medical exam indicated excellent health - including liver. Question is what will they do now about these discredited figures?

Paul Davis, london, UK

Well how do you square this with the recently published findings that women who drank even 50% more than they're supposed to (ie 21 units instead of 14) were at a 30% higher risk of developing breast cancer?

I've been really cutting down how much I drink recently and it's a bit bloody depressing to be honest, so I wish they'd make their minds up.

Josie, London,

Lies, lies and yet more lies from the people we elect to represent our interests.

Can anyone suggest any reason why anyone should believe a word any politician says about drugs, alcohol, smoking, driving, the climate/environment, animal welfare, taxation, immigration, crime, etc, etc, etc?

JonathanL, Newcastle, UK

I agree with Mr Balchin; when politicians hoodwink the electorate and leave office before the penny drops there should indeed be recourse, regardless of Parliamentary privilege.

Si , Maidstone, Kent

Oops, sorry Dennis!

Si , Maidstone, Kent

People generally know what their limits are. We don't need a Government to tell us. People choose to drink too much and producing 'limits' will have no effect at all, as it has already been proven.

Judy , Liverpool, england

I'll drink, to that! Cheers!

Michael Chilestone, Bristol,

Phew! This is comforting news to me. I'm, ex-Royal Navy.

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England

The same is true of drink-driving limits, and especially of reductions in these. Statistics exist to prove the case - the alcohol levels of drivers involved in serious accidents are recorded - only they don't, so they're suppressed. In how many major incidents is the more-inebriated driver between the old and the proposed new limits, as opposed to over the old and under the new? Why - why ELSE - isn't this collated and released to the public?

Of course drunk driving can't and mustn't be tolerated. We would, however, obey such laws more enthusiastically if we were allowed to know the rationale for their limits.

Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France

Lets see who did the studies... or paid the piper....

Pete Balchin, Solicitor , Bristol, UK

Which government was in power then? So, there is no change there then, each government continually misleads the voter. Then next big thing will be Mr Brown was not truthful about the new European Treaty, the so-called red lines. There should be recourse when a politician/s misleads the public.

Dennis, Norwich, UK,

Read the Guidelines on a bottle of Tesco Whisky. I can't make head or tail of them, and I'm up to speed with metric. Assume every bottle of alcoholic beverage has the same garbled recommendations. A relief to know this information can be disregarded. Cheers.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa

What about the 70mph speed limit? Another arbitary decision made it the 1960s, now far too slow for the modern vehicle and damaging for the economy.

James, London, UK

No doubt the World Health Organisation's '5-a-day' vegetable rule is founded on a similar lack of evidence.

These speculation-based guidelines are not helpful.

Bob, Hampshire, UK

Great news.My life expectancy has just risen 20 years!

DJ, Glasgow, Scotland