
Here's the drinking conversation we need to have
It sounds macho, but there's science behind the idea that bigger men are better at holding their drink.
Size matters. A larger person absorbs more alcohol into their body tissue so that means that less goes to their brain, which is when you start to feel its effects.
Sex matters, too. It generally takes less alcohol for a female to get drunk than a male. This is
But those aren't the only reasons it's hard to predict exactly how much alcohol you can safely drink.
It also depends on how long it will take for your body to process it and the amount of pure drinking alcohol (ethanol) that is in your drink. That is measured by
In
A useful guide to safer drinking is a
For example, I weigh 85kg. An hour after drinking two glasses of wine, my BAC is about 0.03%, low enough for me to legally drive home. But if my wife, who weighs 61kg, drinks two glasses of wine over the same time, her BAC would be 0.056%, which is above the
While you might only feel really drunk at a BAC of
No safe amount
In fact, the
The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction has produced an excellent
A 2025 report on alcohol and cancer risk from the
Heavy drinking
In a 2024 global report on alcohol and health, the WHO estimated that
A study published in the
South African Medical Journal
in 2018 found that
Young people are at especially high risk. Using figures from the
But it's the immediate effects of heavy drinking that are most devastating for both the individual and society.
In a global analysis of alcohol and risk of injuries, researchers found that after having four or five drinks, you're at
The risk curve for alcohol is exponential, meaning that the rate of harm increases with every drink.
But every legal drink also contributes to jobs, tourism and taxes.
In fact,
Moderation
The findings present a dilemma for public health advocates in South Africa. On the one hand, we must inform the public that even one drink a day can have serious health consequences for an individual. On the other, drinking patterns here are so extreme that a call for such drastic reduction in drinking would be scoffed at.
While there is no doubt that heavy drinking is both bad for society and bad for the economy, we don't need to smash the liquor industry to combat heavy drinking. But we must intervene to optimise its social and economic benefits.
Based on the
Limit the advertising and promotion of alcohol, which
Close on-consumption liquor outlets (taverns and bars) at midnight, as required by the
Introducing minimum unit pricing so that liquor cannot be sold extra cheaply in poorer communities, which
Inequality in South Africa is so severe that it's hard to make a dent in the armour-proofed vehicles of violence — crime, toxic masculinity and the devaluation of human life. But we can starve them of their fuel, if our political leaders are informed and brave enough to act, to change our culture of heavy drinking in South Africa to one of moderation.
David Harrison is a medical doctor and the chief executive officer at the
, a public innovator based in Cape Town.
This story was produced by the
. Sign up for the
.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Putting a price on health — five key takeaways from Minister Motsoaledi's budget vote address
Minister of Health Dr Aaron Motsoaledi's budget vote address laid out spending priorities for the 2025/26 financial year, including infrastructure, National Health Insurance, and gaps left by Donald Trump's canning of Pepfar funding. Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi tabled the 2025/26 health budget vote in Parliament on Wednesday, 9 July, laying out the spending priorities for the current financial year. His speech centred around strengthening infrastructure, reversing the impacts of yearslong austerity measures, and addressing the withdrawal of US aid funding for South African health programmes. Wednesday's proceedings followed a tumultuous 2025 Budget process, which saw Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's Budget speech delayed twice and only finalised on 21 May. 'This [health] budget is being presented at a very challenging time in the history of our country, including geopolitical events of recent days,' said Motsoaledi. 'However, I must assert that challenging as the moment is, there is a lot we should be excited about.' A National Department of Health budget of R64.8-billion was presented to the National Assembly for consideration. Below are five key takeaways from Motsoaledi's address. 1. Strengthening infrastructure Motsoaledi spent a significant portion of his 15-minute time allocation on infrastructure, saying it was 'one of the biggest problems that the public health system encountered'. He referenced the health ombud investigation into allegations of poor management at Helen Joseph Tertiary Hospital in Gauteng, which found problems with infrastructure and human resources at the facility. He noted that South Africa's eleventh academic hospital, the Limpopo Central Hospital, was under construction in Limpopo and was 26% complete. Other hospitals under construction are: Siloam District Hospital in Vhembe, Limpopo — 90% complete; Dihlabeng Regional Hospital in the Free State — 30% complete; Bambisana District Hospital in the Eastern Cape — 82% complete; Zithulele District Hospital in the Eastern Cape — 50% complete; and Bophelong Psychiatric Hospital in North West. 'In addition to the hospitals currently under construction, the National Department of Health has prioritised several key hospital projects placed strategically to strengthen South Africa's public health hospital network, particularly in high-demand areas in Gauteng, but also in underserved areas,' said Motsoaledi. 'These include 17 major hospital projects which have been identified for development. They are in various stages of design and development.' While the budget didn't necessarily cover all the funding needed for the department's 'massive infrastructure injection', Motsoaledi said officials were also speaking to international and local financial institutions about financing options. 2. Reinforcing HIV/AIDS, TB programmes The loss of US foreign development assistance, particularly funds provided for HIV programmes through the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Pepfar), has been a major concern in the health sector over the past few months. Experts and activists have called on Motsoaledi and the National Department of Health to develop an emergency funding plan to prevent a loss of ground in the fight against HIV/Aids. 'In the aftermath of the withdrawal of Pepfar, we presented our plans to National Treasury and asked for help. At the same time, we approached other funders, both domestic and globally,' said Motsoaledi. He said the National Treasury had 'come to the party' by allocating R753.5-million. These funds will be used to provide: R590-million for provincial departments of health; R32-million for the National Department of Health; and R132-million for the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) to support health researchers around the country. The R132-million allocation for the SAMRC is part of a R400-million budget the Treasury has designated for health research over the next three years. Motsoaledi said the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust had each pledged an additional R100-million to South Africa. 'This means we are going to have a total of R600-million offered to researchers, despite Pepfar having pulled the plug on their work,' said Motsoaledi. 'These amounts are intended to cover the most urgent needs, and further allocations may be considered later.' 3. Reversing austerity measures On top of the R64.8-billion budget allocation for health, the National Treasury had earmarked an additional R6.7-billion to 'reverse years of austerity measures which have crippled the public health system', said Motsoaledi. The National Health Council (NHC), made up of Motsoaledi, Deputy Health Minister Dr Joe Phaahla, provincial health MECs and representatives of the South African Local Government Association and the military, has elected to use the additional funds to: Hire 1,200 doctors, 200 nurses and 250 other health professionals at a cost of R1.7-billion; Acquire 1.4-million articles for public hospitals, including beds, mattresses, bassinets and new hospital linen at a cost of R1.3-billion; Permanently employ 27,000 community health workers who have been in the system for close to two decades, but were supported through NGOs, at a cost of R1.4-billion; and Start paying accruals that have accumulated over the years in oxygen supply, blood and blood products, laboratory services, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals. The NHC originally announced its intention to fund an additional 1,650 public sector health worker posts in April. 4. Reaffirming commitment to NHI In their presentations before the National Assembly, both Motsoaledi and Phaahla reaffirmed the National Department of Health's commitment to implementing the National Health Insurance Act. Motsoaledi said one of the main objectives in the health budget was 'to lay a strong foundation in preparation for improvement of the public health system of our country, in preparation for the National Health Insurance (NHI). There are people who believe that we have no plans, nor inclination to do that. We want them to listen very attentively today.' Phaahla said the department was well on the way to implementing the NHI Act, 'despite the court challenges by those opposed to equity and transformation. When this Act is fully implemented, the aspirations of a preventative health scheme run by the state and free medical care at the point of service, as espoused in the Freedom Charter, will be realised in full.' There are currently six legal challenges to the NHI Act. 5. Parties push back While the ANC expressed its support for Motsoaledi's health budget vote, not all parties were satisfied with the minister's priorities. Key among those raising objections were the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party and the DA. Moshome Motubatse, an MK party MP, said the party opposed the health budget vote. 'This budget fails to provide meaningful healthcare for the people of South Africa,' said Motubatse, noting that the allocation for the 2025/26 financial year was increasing by only 1% when accounting for inflation. 'It represents a cut in real terms, even as the demand [on health] continues to grow.' Dr Karl du Pré le Roux, a former rural doctor, spoke for the DA, the ANC's largest partner in the Government of National Unity. He said that while there was much justified criticism of the inequity between the public and private health systems in South Africa, there were also large disparities in the resourcing of different areas within the public health system. He said managerial incompetence, poor leadership and corruption were among the largest problems facing the public health sector. Du Pré le Roux added that NHI was not the best way to achieve universal healthcare in the country. 'Though your aims are noble, most academics, analysts and ordinary South Africans recognise that the implementation of the NHI legislation by a government health system that is riddled with incompetence, mismanagement and corruption at every level, will be a complete disaster,' said Du Pré le Roux. DM


Mail & Guardian
9 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Microplastics act as ‘rafts', increasing the threat to environmental and public health
African countries, including South Africa, have limited waste infrastructure and uneven water treatment systems, which exacerbates the problem of antibiotic resistance. Photo: Sustainable Seas Trust While antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is commonly linked to the overuse of antibiotics in hospitals and animal farming, an environmental contributor is increasingly coming into focus: microplastics. These small plastic particles, typically less than 5mm in diameter, are increasingly recognised not only as environmental pollutants but also as active vectors in the evolution and dissemination of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Although the crisis is unfolding worldwide, low- and middle-income countries are especially vulnerable because of limited infrastructure and inadequate waste management systems. A perfect storm for AMR These plastic surfaces create ideal conditions for the formation of microbial communities known as biofilms. Within these clusters, bacteria can exchange genetic material more efficiently, including antimicrobial resistance genes. Moreover, microplastics tend to adsorb antibiotics and heavy metals from their surroundings, increasing the selective pressure that favors resistant bacteria. As a result, microplastics are transforming natural ecosystems into incubators of resistance. And these resistant bacteria do not remain confined. They can spread through water, air, food, and even within the human body. A global crisis with local vulnerabilities According to recent estimates, One illustrative example is the Further south, South Africa presents a particularly telling case. Despite being one of the continent's most developed countries, its waste management infrastructure continues to face serious problems. A 2024 study conducted in Health systems on the front line The African continent bears a high burden of infectious diseases, many of which are still treated with older, widely available antibiotics. If AMR continues to spread unchecked, the consequences will be severe. This includes not only loss of human life but also increased pressure on already fragile healthcare systems. Microplastics are complicating efforts to control resistant infections in ways that are not yet fully understood or reflected in current policies. Environmental reservoirs of resistance are rarely included in surveillance systems, and when they are, microplastics are often overlooked as a contributing factor. Towards sustainable solutions Addressing this complex and interconnected crisis requires action on multiple fronts. First, it is essential to reduce plastic production and improve waste management, especially in urban areas. Policies such as bans on single-use plastics and incentives for recycling can make a meaningful difference, provided they are properly implemented and enforced. Second, environmental monitoring systems should begin to include both microplastics and antimicrobial resistance genes as indicators of ecosystem health. This would allow policymakers to detect hotspots and take action before resistance spreads further. Third, the scientific community must broaden its focus. Although most research on AMR has concentrated on clinical and agricultural settings, the environment must now be recognised as a critical front. This shift requires interdisciplinary collaboration among microbiologists, environmental scientists, engineers, and public health professionals. Encouragingly, several promising innovations are emerging. Nature-based solutions such as constructed wetlands, which use plants and microorganisms to clean wastewater, have shown potential to reduce both microplastic pollution and the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes. These systems are cost-effective, adaptable, and well suited to the needs of many African regions. The role of public awareness Perhaps most importantly, we must acknowledge that this is not solely a scientific matter. It is also a social and political issue. People need to be involved in and empowered to reduce plastic consumption, demand improved sanitation, and understand the connections between environmental pollution and human health. Educational campaigns, particularly those aimed at young people and urban populations, can help shift behaviours and build public momentum for change. Public interest media play a vital role in making these connections visible and accessible to the broader public. Dr Jose L Balcazar is Senior microbiologist at the Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA-CERCA), Spain. His research explores the mechanisms and factors that promote antimicrobial resistance.


Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
There is no loneliness epidemic – so why do we keep talking as if there is?
We need connection, not panic. Most people experience periods of loneliness, isolation or solitude in their lives. But these are different things, and the proportion of people feeling lonely is stable over time. So why do we keep talking about an epidemic of loneliness? Before the Covid pandemic, several studies showed that rates of loneliness were stable in England, the US, Finland, Sweden and Germany, among other places, over recent decades. While Covid changed many things, loneliness levels quickly returned to pre-pandemic levels. In 2018, 34% of US adults aged 50 to 80 years reported a lack of companionship 'some of the time' or 'often'. That proportion rose to 42% during the pandemic but fell to 33% in 2024. That's a lot of lonely people, but it is not an epidemic. In some countries, such as Sweden, loneliness is in decline – at least among older adults. Despite these statistics, the idea that loneliness is increasing is pervasive. For example in 2023, the US surgeon general warned about an 'epidemic of loneliness and isolation'. The UK even has a government minister with an explicit responsibility for addressing loneliness. Loneliness is a problem, even if it is not an epidemic. Social connection is important for physical and mental health. Many people feel lonely in a crowd or feel crowded when alone. In 2023, the World Health Organization announced a 'Commission on Social Connection'. The WHO is right: we need to reduce loneliness in our families, communities and societies. But the idea that loneliness is an 'epidemic' is misleading and it draws us away from sustainable solutions, rather than towards them. It suggests that loneliness is a new problem (it is not), that it is increasing (it is not), that it is beyond our control (it is not), and that the only appropriate reaction is an emergency one (it is not). In the short term, loneliness is an undesirable psychological state. In the long term, it is a risk factor for chronic ill health. Loneliness is not a sudden crisis that needs a short-term fix. It is a long-term challenge that requires a sustained response. An emergency reaction is not appropriate – a measured response is. Initiatives by the US surgeon general and WHO are welcome, but they should be long-term responses to an enduring problem, not emergency reactions to an 'epidemic'. Medicalising normal human experience Conceptual clarity is essential if true loneliness is to be addressed. Pathologising all instances of being alone risks medicalising normal human experiences such as solitude. Some people feel alive only in crowds, but others were born lighthouse keepers. In a hyper-connected world, loneliness should be solvable, but solitude must be treasured. So, if there is no loneliness epidemic, why do we keep talking as if there is? Media framing of the issue and the human tendency to panic reinforce each other. We click into news stories based on subjective resonance rather than objective evidence. Human behaviour is shaped primarily by feelings, not facts. We dramatise, panic, and overstate negative trends. If trends are positive, we focus on minor counter-trends, ignore statistics and make things up. In the case of loneliness, the problem is real, even if the 'epidemic' is not. Loneliness is part of the human condition, but alleviating each other's loneliness is also part of who we are – or who we can become. Addressing loneliness is not about solving a short-term problem or halting an 'epidemic'. It means learning to live with each other in new, more integrated ways that meet our emotional needs. Loneliness is not the problem. It is a consequence of living in societies that are often disconnected and fragmented. The solution? We cannot change the essentials of human nature – and nor should we try. But we can be a little kinder to ourselves, speak to each other a little more, and cultivate compassion for ourselves and other people. We need to connect with each other better and more. We can. We should. We will. DM