This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
World drinking guidelines ‘inconsistent’
Scientists who studied definitions of ‘standard” and ‘low-risk’ drinking around the world concluded that there is a “substantial” risk of misunderstanding.
The definitions of “standard” and “low-risk” drinking in 37 countries around the world vary widely
According to a report published by Stanford University School of Medicine in the latest issue of the journal Addiction, researchers, inconsistency between countries “hampers international research” and “confuses people attempting to drink responsibly”.
The team compared the definitions of “standard” and “low-risk” drinking in 37 countries around the world and discovered the results varied widely.
In Austria a standard drink contains 20 grams of alcohol, while in Iceland and the UK, it contains 8 grams, and in the US, 14 grams.
Low-risk drinking guidelines are also contrasting – in Australia, both men and women are told to drink no more than 20 grams each day; while in the US women are allowed 42 grams per day, but no more than 98 grams per week, and men are told they can safely drink 56 grams per day and up to 196 per week.
Keith Humphreys, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioural sciences at Stanford, said: “There’s a substantial chance for misunderstanding. A study of the health effects of low-risk drinking in France could be misinterpreted by researchers in the US, who may use a different definition of drinking levels.
“More and more countries are trying to give their citizens guidelines about how much alcohol is safe to drink, and for whom. At the very least, we should know whether it’s true that women should drink less than men. But even this is unclear.
“Inconsistent guidelines are also likely to increase skepticism among the public about their accuracy. It is not possible that every country is correct; maybe they are all wrong.”