Monday, August 26, 2013


No subject seems to be irrelevant for surveys and studies by investigative scientists and journalists as reflected by the recent report that some one in the US has "discovered" that certain brands of alcoholic beverages cause more injury to the drinkers compared to others! It is least realized that drinking is not a nice habit though exercising restraint in consuming these inebriating beverage may bring some limited benefits for some people. The trouble is most people do not know how much can be consumed safely or how frequent they can be consumed without any damage to the health. According to the studies reported below malt liquor universally is responsible for more hospitalization than mild beverages like beer. Here is the gist of this report.

"According to the study, Steel Reserve Malt Liquor came in second to Budweiser, but proportionally, it blew the brand out of the water. Steel Reserve Malt Liquor makes up .8% of the beer market, but a whopping 14.7% of the ER market, only .3% less than Budweiser. Even more revealing, malt liquors as a whole make up a paltry 2.4% of the US beer trade, but a full 46% of the alcohol consumed by emergency room goers. After Steel Reserve, the third and fourth most popular ER alcohols are also malt beverages: Colt 45 and Bud Ice. Bud Light and Barton's, a discount brand of vodka, take the next two spots. So why are malt beverages so prolific in hospitals? The most obvious answer is the comparatively large amount of alcohol per drink. While a bottle Budweiser contains 5% alcohol, the highest percentage among Amerca's top five best-selling beers, it's nothing compared to Steel Reserve's 8.1% alcohol content. While the study should shed light on which brands are most correlated with injury, more research is still needed. David Jernigan, the study's director, cautioned that the study only included interviews with 105 hospital patients, and all from one hospital in Baltimore".

Whether the above study will be allowed to go unchallenged by those brands indicted here remains to be seen. Coming to such a conclusion as being done by the authors, based on a limited survey of 105 subjects is also a matter of concern. Why such studies are undertaken at the first instance is not clear. After all drinking in a country where there is no mandatory prohibition is a matter of personal preference but those who drink excessively have no right to be a public burden whether causing nuisance in the public or straining the public health system which cannot be condoned.   


No comments: