A new study brings promising news for moderate wine drinkers, but the media has been quick to misinterpret the findings. While enjoying wine in moderation during meals can reduce mortality risk, reading reports from outlets like the New York Times or New York Post might just increase your risk of consuming misinformation.
“Confirmation bias” is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs, and it’s on full display this week as an important study on wine and health is being misrepresented by major publications. Researchers from Madrid examined data from 135,103 British seniors to determine if drinking wine, particularly with meals, is safer than consuming other types of alcohol or drinking sporadically.
Their findings were clear: the study, published in the *Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)*, reveals that moderate wine drinkers have a lower mortality risk compared to those who prefer beer or vodka. Additionally, it reinforces earlier research showing that wine drinkers have a significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular disease—over 10 percent lower, to be precise.
For those aged 60 and above who are healthy, not financially strained, and consume wine in moderation—defined as up to three glasses per day for men and one-and-a-half glasses for women—the study shows a lower mortality risk than for occasional drinkers. The evidence is laid out in the study’s tables and main text.
A key point missed by the New York media: “Wine preference (more than 80 percent of alcohol from wine) and drinking with meals showed small protective associations with mortality, especially from cancer.” This quote, found in the study’s “Results” section, underscores the benefits of moderate wine consumption.
Another important finding: “No associations (for higher mortality) were found for low- or moderate-risk drinking patterns versus occasional drinking among individuals without socioeconomic or health-related risk factors.” The study suggests that the reduced risks associated with wine are likely due to factors other than alcohol itself, such as antioxidants in wine and the slower absorption of alcohol when consumed with meals.
The research, titled “Alcohol Consumption Patterns and Mortality Among Older Adults With Health-Related or Socioeconomic Risk Factors,” can be found on the JAMA website. It’s a meticulously conducted long-term study that tracks participants’ drinking habits over 12 years, making it far more reliable than studies relying on self-reported past behavior.
Despite this, the New York Times and New York Post have misrepresented the findings, fueling the World Health Organization’s campaign against alcohol consumption. The Times headline, “Older Adults Do Not Benefit From Moderate Drinking, Large Study Finds,” is particularly misleading, ignoring the study’s clear evidence that moderate wine drinking during meals is associated with a reduced risk of death from cardiovascular disease.
The wine industry, constrained by U.S. law from promoting the health benefits of alcohol, relies on the media to tell the full story. Unfortunately, recent coverage mirrors the narrative from 1917 when Prohibition loomed large. The New York Post, for instance, ran the alarmist headline, “Even light drinking is harmful to older adults, study warns: ‘From the first drop’,” a phrase not found in the peer-reviewed study but rather lifted from the Times’ coverage.
The truth is, this study offers excellent news for wine drinkers, especially those in good health who consume wine in moderation. However, it might be wise to take media reports on alcohol with a grain of salt—misinformation can be harmful to your health.
