The dangers of drinking and the absurdities of health ministers

Together with some observations on sneezing

 
From The Weekender,  10 May 2008

 
It has become fashionable, at least in recreational drinking circles, to extol the health virtues of moderate wine consumption. The wisdom of this position was recently confirmed when Health Minister Manto Tshabal ala-Msimang gazetted regulations governing the compulsory application of a “health message” on all alcoholic beverages, including wine. Given that she is wrong about almost everything, it’s a racing certainty that this campaign is also misguided.

Some of the messages, however ungrammatical, espouse noble sentiments, such as “Alcohol increases your risk to (sic) personal injuries.”  I’m also sure that the average consumer of a R600 bottle of Ernie Els needs to be told, “Don’t drink and walk on the road, you may be killed.” (I’m doing my best to encourage French suppliers with whom I have dealings that this is the slogan they should submit with the labels of Lafite and Cristal.)

As with her views on AIDS, the minister is not alone in her prohibition mind-set. Two weeks ago The Weekender reported Barbara Holtmann, who leads the Crime Prevention Research Resources Centre at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research as saying that “the root of most crime and deaths from unnatural causes in SA is alcohol”.  I found this information enor mously helpful. For a start it explains the wis dom of Jackie Selebi’s apparent views on policing. Successful crime prosecution can be replaced with a strategy that simply weans people off alcohol — perhaps by facilitating the availability of other mind-altering substances.

Holtmann evidently illustrated her argument that SA is a society of drinkers by observing SAB Miller, “the biggest brewery company in the world, derives its second biggest slice of profits from its South African operations”.  Lightly dismissing Anheuser Busch — longtime occupant of the biggest brewer in the world slot — she also confused margins with sales volumes. This is a commendably creative way of avoiding the readily available data of per-capita liquor consumption (where SA is lower on the world achiever list than Bafana Bafana on a comparable soccer log).

No one denies the dangers of alcoholism or the irresponsible use of alcohol. If only we could get people to consume moderately, pass their driving tests before taking to the road, or learn to swim before abandoning a capsiz ing dinghy, wine producers, car manufacturers and boat builders would not have to post “health messages” in strategic places.

Meanwhile, when it comes to product-related health risks (as opposed to user-related ones), wine is not entirely harmless. Our eagle-eyed health minister recently compelled producers and importers to add “contains sulphites” to their labelling. This way asthmatics will know that wine, like fruit juices packed in foil bag-in-the-box containers, could be injurious to their health.

Why do wine producers persist in using sulphur dioxide (SO2 ) in the winemaking process, and is it the cause of the increasingly evi dent allergic reactions to this oth erwise health-inducing beverage?

The first question is easily answered: sulphur serves as a disinfectant and preservative. It kills off wild yeasts, particularly in sweet wines (where sulphur levels are necessarily higher) and thus prevents uncontrolled fermenta tions after the wine has already been bottled. Improved cellar hygiene (as well as public health pressure because sulphur can trigger attacks in asthmatics) has led to a gradual reduction in the legally permitted sulphur levels over the past century.

In 1910 a threshold of 500 parts per million (ppm) was the statu tory limit, whereas now, at least for dry wines, the ceiling has been set at between 150 and 200ppm, depending on the country. News that the Spier Winery had been certified ISO 22000 and BRC4 Grade A compliant — two of the highest attainable gradings for food safety — encouraged me to check on the sulphur levels in the Spier wines. Unsurprisingly I discovered the total SO2 levels were low with all but one under 100ppm and a significant percentage under 70. Free sulphurs were significantly lower — mostly under 40ppm. The general consensus is that this is about as low as a producer can safely go if he wants to prevent premature deterioration. Even fanatics who work without sul phur additions expect levels of around 20ppm in unsulphured wines, since the element is natu rally occurring during the fermen tation process.

Spier is not the only producer to manage its sulphur regime in a way that meets the safe consumption requirements of asthmatics, nor is the sole route to this nirvana a game of chicken played with dangerously low dis infectant and preservative levels. A recent announcement that a product called Surepure was being used experimentally by wineries such as Steenberg and L’Ormarins to reduce the need for sulphur offers the prospect of alternative technologies to minimise the need for SO2 .

Unfortunately for wine drinkers who suffer allergic reactions to their favourite tipple, it is possible (especially if the reaction is to bottled red wine that gener ally requires less sulphur) the problem has nothing to do with the sulphites. South African red wines tend to be quite high in histamines: so if you find yourself sneezing at everything except the price of the bottle, it’s time to seek treatment or to find another drink. 

Copyright © Michael Fridjhon 2008

COMMENT

From winemaker Adam Mason:
Someone (unrelated to the dear widow) suggested that we do away with the warnings and just put a mugshot of the health minister on the back label instead...