Is it irrational to be concerned about trace elements of alcohol in things like vinegar and bread and such?

[user801028]

Since I saw the good Dr. David Nutt state that any amount of alcohol is toxic and that there is no safe amount it made me shun it in every form. Not that I was a drinker before that, having hated it for years, but it made me think of those foods which may contain it in small quantities.

I read that even the smallest amount can have effects for up to 30 years before you would turn to none alcohol exposure equivalent status, similar to smoking.

As such is it rational to avoid foods that contain only incidental trace amounts as byproducts?

Vinegar has a little doesn't it, since it is made from wine? I do love salt and vinegar snacks but have generally stuck to only salted due to the above reasoning.

Strangely enough I have not been as strict about bread, which I would sometimes make myself. I have read it can even contain up to one beer's worth of alcohol in a loaf. No specific reason for thinking this is different it is just since I was making the bread myself I did not think about what the by products would be as much. Haven't made it for some time though due to not having an oven any more.

I suppose there would be tiny amounts in other foods that I eat that I am just not aware of? I am not sure what though and maybe not because I eat only legumes and pulses and rice mostly now. Lots of fruit so maybe if I eat a tiny bit of bruised fruit the fermentation would have a little in there. :D

Fermented foods I think are more likely to have them aren't they? These have their own health benefits and are usually very tasty so I wonder if the puritan view of alcohol consumption, or lack thereof, is rational? Would such trace amounts of alcohol increase risks of cancers or other alcohol related diseases to any real degree?

Or is it like in quantum mechanics where anything is theoretically possible, like falling through a solid wall but the chance is so infinitesimally minute as to be inconsequential?

[iNow]

Details matter, but so do orders of magnitude and scale. Yes, I think concern on this topic is a needless anxiety.

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, user801028 said:

Since I saw the good Dr. David Nutt state that any amount of alcohol is toxic and that there is no safe amount it made me shun it in every form.

There is a bit of an understanding in how toxicity and safe limits (or no-effect concentrations) are determined (specifically this is a lack of data issue, not so much of a clear esatblished low-level toxicity profile), but I the short version is that no it does not mean that tiny amounts will lead to long-lasting effects (typically is related to cancer effects, which makes things even more problematic evidence-wise).

In short, we do not have data on trace amount, and it is unlikely to do any harm over your regular diet. I will note, for example, that you likely have (very) low levels of alcohol in your gut right now. We carry a number of bacteria and yeasts in our gut that can produce some levels of ethanol as part of their regular metabolism (there is also a rare so-called auto-brewery syndrome, but that is probably not part of this discussion). But to put it really short, other factors in your diet (e.g. sugar) are likely going to have more impact on your overall cancer risk than a the residual ethanol levels you find in bread or vinegar.

 

 

[sethoflagos]

There have been a multitude of studies on mortality vs alcohol consumption. High on the search-engine listings is Alcohol Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review

Quote

Conclusion statements and grades

• Primary comparisons (among those who currently drink alcohol)

  • Moderate evidence indicates that higher average alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with lower average alcohol consumption among those who drink. (Grade: Moderate)
  • Moderate evidence indicates that binge drinking (consuming 5 or more drinks for men or 4 or more drinks for women during a drinking occasion) is associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, and that more frequent binge drinking is associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with less frequent or no binge drinking among those who drink. (Grade: Moderate)
• Secondary comparison (between those who currently drink alcohol and those who have never consumed alcohol)

  • Limited evidence suggests that low average alcohol consumption, particularly without binge drinking, is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with never drinking alcohol. However, in light of the many scientific and public health issues associated with alcoholic beverages, any conclusions about low average consumption compared to never drinking alcohol require careful consideration. (Grade: Limited)

The balance of the evidence is perhaps surprisingly in favour of limited consumption of alcohol being a healthier choice over total abstinence. The argument isn't proven, but it suggests your fears are indeed difficult to justify.

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The balance of the evidence is perhaps surprisingly in favour of limited consumption of alcohol being a healthier choice over total abstinence. The argument isn't proven, but it suggests your fears are indeed difficult to justify.

I think there is another meta-review out focusing on cancer, where a steady increase of risk was found with alcohol consumption. The issue is that the lack of low concentrations as OP is asking for.

Incidentally, this is a situation where fine details matter in communication and why it might trip up folks.

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, user801028 said:

Since I saw the good Dr. David Nutt state that any amount of alcohol is toxic and that there is no safe amount it made me shun it in every form. Not that I was a drinker before that, having hated it for years, but it made me think of those foods which may contain it in small quantities.

I read that even the smallest amount can have effects for up to 30 years before you would turn to none alcohol exposure equivalent status, similar to smoking.

As such is it rational to avoid foods that contain only incidental trace amounts as byproducts?

Vinegar has a little doesn't it, since it is made from wine? I do love salt and vinegar snacks but have generally stuck to only salted due to the above reasoning.

Strangely enough I have not been as strict about bread, which I would sometimes make myself. I have read it can even contain up to one beer's worth of alcohol in a loaf. No specific reason for thinking this is different it is just since I was making the bread myself I did not think about what the by products would be as much. Haven't made it for some time though due to not having an oven any more.

I suppose there would be tiny amounts in other foods that I eat that I am just not aware of? I am not sure what though and maybe not because I eat only legumes and pulses and rice mostly now. Lots of fruit so maybe if I eat a tiny bit of bruised fruit the fermentation would have a little in there.

Fermented foods I think are more likely to have them aren't they? These have their own health benefits and are usually very tasty so I wonder if the puritan view of alcohol consumption, or lack thereof, is rational? Would such trace amounts of alcohol increase risks of cancers or other alcohol related diseases to any real degree?

Or is it like in quantum mechanics where anything is theoretically possible, like falling through a solid wall but the chance is so infinitesimally minute as to be inconsequential?

Yes, it is irrational to be concerned about trace amounts of alcohol.

[sethoflagos]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think there is another meta-review out focusing on cancer, where a steady increase of risk was found with alcohol consumption. The issue is that the lack of low concentrations as OP is asking for.

Incidentally, this is a situation where fine details matter in communication and why it might trip up folks.

 

Sounds like the one I scanned through on Jstor recently, and yes of course, what you say is unarguably so. Your own point regarding natural gastric alcohol production suggests that the concept of 'total abstinence' is illusory. We all consume alcohol to a certain extent. Gauging the effects of one extra milligram here or there would be challenging in the extreme.

Edited October 30 by sethoflagos
deletion of fake news

[CharonY]

24 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Sounds like the one I scanned through on Jstor recently, and yes of course, what you say is unarguably so. Your own point regarding natural gastric alcohol production suggests that the concept of 'total abstinence' is illusory. We all consume alcohol to a certain extent. Gauging the effects of one extra milligram here or there would be challenging in the extreme.

Yep, and I have come a cross a few other examples where folks are confusing no established safe levels to toxic/harmful at any levels. I think in part it is because the common assumption is that we understand toxicity (or harm, which is even more complicated) in a more complete way than we really do.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, user801028 said:

I read that even the smallest amount can have effects for up to 30 years before you would turn to none alcohol exposure equivalent status, similar to smoking.

That I don;t believe for one moment. What was the article and what was it peddling ?

 

Dare I say that you are far more likely to suffer harm from your diesel powered cooker ?

 

 

Edited October 30 by studiot

[OldChemE]

While it is admittedly unscientific, and there don't seem to have been any good studies of the effects of trace amounts of alcohol. I think its worth pointing out that humans evolved in an environment which provided a more or less constant exposure to trace amounts of alcohol in their diet (natural fermentation of food in the absence of preservatives or refrigeration).  So, if we gained anything from our evolution, it could well be a tolerance for low levels of alcohol.

[KJW]

On 10/31/2024 at 3:54 AM, exchemist said:

Yes, it is irrational to be concerned about trace amounts of alcohol.

And I will add that it is irrational to be concerned about trace amounts of methanol from the normal consumption of aspartame.

 

[user801028]

On 10/30/2024 at 5:45 PM, CharonY said:

I think there is another meta-review out focusing on cancer, where a steady increase of risk was found with alcohol consumption. The issue is that the lack of low concentrations as OP is asking for.

Incidentally, this is a situation where fine details matter in communication and why it might trip up folks.

 

Yes that was the crux of the statement that there is no none toxic level of alcohol as it was debunking the long held belief that one glass of wine a day is good for you.

I just looked it up again and it seems David Nutt is also advocating the moderation approach so not sure when he changed his tack.

However I just found this who article which is rounding up what I was getting at.

From the above article:

Quote

“We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn’t matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker’s health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is – or, in other words, the less you drink, the safer it is,” explains Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, acting Unit Lead for Noncommunicable Disease Management and Regional Advisor for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs in the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

So it is the 'first drop' argument that is in question. Perhaps it is hyperbole and we have no clear data that just one drop is harmful and as alluded to above in the thread we can assume it probably isn't due to trace elements existing in the body already?

On 10/30/2024 at 5:54 PM, exchemist said:

Yes, it is irrational to be concerned about trace amounts of alcohol.

I am asking for the reasoning for holding that view.

On 10/30/2024 at 5:59 PM, sethoflagos said:

Sounds like the one I scanned through on Jstor recently, and yes of course, what you say is unarguably so. Your own point regarding natural gastric alcohol production suggests that the concept of 'total abstinence' is illusory. We all consume alcohol to a certain extent. Gauging the effects of one extra milligram here or there would be challenging in the extreme.

Well what all I am trying to get at is whether the trace elements coming from outside of the body consumed as food would increase the baseline risk to any degree above the static gastro levels.

Edited November 2 by user801028

[exchemist]

57 minutes ago, user801028 said:

 

I am asking for the reasoning for holding that view.

 

You've been given some reasons by other respondents.

Also, it takes a lot of research to establish a safe level. The mere statement that this has not been done does not in any way imply that trace levels are actually significantly harmful. You can flip it around and say with equal justification that there is "no evidence" trace level are harmful.