4.7 Review

Derivation of tolerable upper alcohol intake levels in Germany:: a systematic review of risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 111-127

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.11.011

Keywords

alcohol; drinking guidelines; tolerable upper intake level; Germany; review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The objective of this study is to weigh the risks of moderate alcohol consumption against its benefits and, as a result, to derive tolerable upper alcohol intake levels (TUALs) for the German adult population. Methods. Human studies assessing the effects of moderate alcohol consumption (less than or equal to40 g/day) on coronary heart disease, stroke, blood pressure, diseases of the liver, gallbladder, bile duct, and pancreas, cancer of the mouth/pharynx/larynx/oesophagus, stomach, colon/rectum, and breast, foetal alcohol syndrome/foetal alcohol effects, as well as all-cause mortality, published in the 10-15 years before 1999, have been systematically reviewed. The quality of studies has been evaluated using a self-constructed evaluation scheme. As a result of comparing the critical endpoints of alcohol intake related to morbidity and mortality, the TUALs have been derived. Results. The TUALs have been set at 10-12 g/day for healthy women and 20-24 g/day for healthy men of the adult population (18 years and older). Additional guidelines on alcohol use have been defined, taking into account further important aspects like alcohol consumption patterns and high-risk groups. Conclusions. The TUALs are not intended to be recommended intake levels. However, if the TUALs and the additional guidelines are followed, a relation of alcohol consumption to an increased risk of alcohol-associated diseases is unlikely for the majority of the population. (C) 2004 Published by The Institute For Cancer Prevention and Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available