• twistedtxb@lemmy.ca
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The fact that wine and beer bottles are exempt from those Nutrition Facts labels is utter nonsense.

    If people knew how much sugar and calories are in their drink maybe they would think twice

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I was drinking a while claw with my mother-in-law, and reflected that 100 calories was pretty good.

      She responded she preferred her normal vodka sodas because they have 0 calories…

      • xpinchx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly I wouldn’t know if I didn’t have to take nutrition 101 in college.

        Actually who am I kidding if I didn’t know I probably would’ve googled it.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          There are a lot less calories in a litre of vodka than the alcohol content equivalent of beer. Hard liquor is much lower calorie than beer, but you’re not meant to sit around and drink a litre of fucking vodka dude. That’s definitely not on “the sources” lol

    • Rusty@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      There are nutrition labels on alcohol in Europe, but people there drink as much as here.

      • Blaidd@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Europe drinks way more alcohol than North America

        Excerpt from the article:

        If you feel that Europeans drink a lot, your hunch is correct: people across the continent consume more alcohol than in any other part of the world. Each year in Europe, every person aged 15 and over consumes, on average, 9.5 litres of pure alcohol, which is equivalent to around 190 litres of beer, 80 litres of wine or 24 litres of spirits. That’s according to the 2021 European health report by the World Health Organization (WHO).

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          The cans of beer that I buy have ingredients and nutrition info like a soda can does.

          Haven’t seen any on liquor bottles though.

          • Kalash@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t have any liquor bottles, but my wine bottles have ingredients info, but no nutrition info.

            • Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Depends on from where they were sourced.

              My Itallian red wine has nutritional info, French sourced white wine has nutritional info, American sourced red wine has nothing.

              A short search states that the US doesnt have to have labels on alcohol because it’s not regulated by the FDA.

              In Canada beer alcohol isn’t required to have nutritional info.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      The fact that wine and beer bottles are exempt from those Nutrition Facts labels is utter nonsense.

      I did not know that. That is nuts.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      This I fully agree with, and have no idea why they are currently exempted but assume lobbying.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’d like a ban on all forms of advertising.

      Marketing is nothing more than getting people to buy stuff they do not need.

      It is the reason we live in a consumer culture, and is the force behind some of the biggest problems humanity faces today.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Hell yes!

        The world would look so SO much better with advertising gone.

        Now we have to deal with 5x50 meters (sigh, 15 by 150 foot) video screens that illuminate the night sky and blind you while you are driving, but hey, BUY NIKE!

        This is not even mentioning brands buying up buildings and clubs and hospitals and what-not so that they can plaster their name over it. It sucks.

        Brand recognition has been a bane of our existence for the past century

        I might be up for a very VERY strictly limited form of advertising, limited to only a few spaces and times, but I’d love it that brands only show up when I ask them to. I need to buy a car? If I search “I want to buy a car” or something like that, then you can show me brands. Hell, even there, screw the shitty commercials, just show me the brand names and that’s it.

        • Dearche@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ha! It’s not just that!

          Where I live, they’ve got some sort of weird “The Future Is Electric” campaign going on. It’s on the busses, there’s a billboard of one near my place, and hell, that one’s powered so it shines brighter than the street lights at night!

          And what is it advertising? I have no idea. Just that our province paid for it. The province. For at least one powered, custom billboard along with who knows how many regular ads. For something that I can’t even start figuring out.

          Ads aren’t just ugly and a cheap way to make people spend money on things that they don’t need or even make their lives worse, but our tax dollars are spend on meaningless ads when there’s so many social and economic issues that are being actively ignored or even caused by the current governments.

    • worstcatintheworld@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think alcohol advertising will eventually be banned but it’ll take a long time. Governments are addicted to the revenues.

            • Anon819450514@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              User is I would assume German, asking on a Canadian instance, and on post about a Canadian news. I’d say that’s pretty reasonable. Canadian is part of America, as well as the USA.

              • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                America means USA

                It also refers to the combined area of North and South America. This the more likely usage here, as who would ask about whether or not the USA has such regulation in a Canadian forum? That would have no relevance.

            • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Canada is within America. America is exceedingly broad, with so many different jurisdictions, all with their own rules. There is no single answer as to what the rules are across all of America. Since this is a Canadian forum, Canada was a reasonable choice to narrow down to.

              There is still room for you to dive into some of those other jurisdictions, if you find it pertinent, but I expect nobody here actually cares about what is going on in, say, Mexico.

              • keefshape@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Canada is within the continent of North America.

                The concept of ‘America’ these days does not apply to continental plates, and you know that as well as i do.

                You know what I meant, and you are arguing disingenuously. We can all see it.

                • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Canada is within the continent of North America.

                  And North America is located within America.

                  The concept of ‘America’ these days does not apply to continental plates

                  The thing is, we keep a record of how words are commonly used, and that record tells that it absolutely does refer to a set of continents. But, I know, let’s not let facts and figures get in the way of random internet nonsense.

                  You know what I meant

                  Yes, I know you meant it in jest. Nobody would actually take time out of their day to write such a comment earnestly. We can all see that.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean, aren’t the cigarette companies famous for being extreme lobbyists?

      • Dearche@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        They did, if you look at late 20th century history. The lobbying and propaganda they did at the time was insane, but there was only so much they could do when people were dying from lung cancer, had trouble breathing, and even chewing tobacco was known to cause mouth cancer.

        They simply gave up trying so hard in the west and concentrated efforts in emerging markets. Do you remember the infamous video of the smoking baby a few years ago? Shit like that’s eerily common in places like Indonesia.

  • Sim@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    And sugar. Off topic a bit, but my addiction is sugar and some reminders might make the occasional difference.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I switched from coca cola to tea sweetened with a little honey, and one day I just dropped the honey. Without the coke, I think I’ve cut about 80% of my sugar intake. Now I drink loads of tea every day and even when we go to a fast food I will skip sugar beverages.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      One of the most overlooked influences on overall health and nutrition. Many people are not fully aware of their full intake. A lot of processed foods are 10% or more sugar by weight including breads, yogurts, and cereals. A few grams in everything you eat can really add up to a lot over the day.

      A more noticeable warning label of this food is x% of recomended sugar intake could help, but good luck forcing a corporation to do anything that could reduce sales.

  • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    Because alchol sellers aren’t widely considered as flat out evil as cigarette makers, meaning that they can still realistically grease the wheels of power with dump trucks full of money.

    I’m sure cigarette makers would love to the do the same thing, but no politician is dumb enough to risk taking “campaign contributions” from people who are widely considered to be the scum of the earth. Alcohol makers still have a level of respectability that lets them get away with it.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      no politician is dumb enough to risk taking “campaign contributions” from people who are widely considered to be the scum of the earth.

      And yet they’ll accept campaign assistance from foreign and domestic oil companies:

      https://canadians.org/analysis/when-big-oil-intervenes-canadian-politics-it-does-so-foreign-money-and-huge-scale/

      https://canadians.org/media/new-report-reveals-pervasive-influence-big-foreign-oil-canadian-politics/

    • Zammy95@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I can think of local brewers and stuff that do it as a hobby, and just happened to take a chance to start doing it professionally. I don’t think these people are evil at all, they’re just trying to have fun with their interest (albeit one that isn’t great for your health) and make some money while doing so.

      Can’t really say the same thing for tobacco. I’m sure in some places there may be a similar kind thing though, so that’s just a thought from my local perspective. All I know are big corporate brands for smoking.

      Edit: just to add onto this… I absolutely think we should include ingredients, nutritional facts, and warnings on alcohol still. Just my 2 cents about one being more evil than the other by a landslide.

      • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Very true. I was just comparing corporations to corporations. Craft breweries are certainly not evil; they’re the equivalent of local businesses for the most part.

        • bl4ckblooc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          IMO charging $16 a glass for another IPA with the same 3 hops that are in every IPA is pretty evil.

          • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Economists: The high price is meant to scare you away.

            Lemmy users: $16 and the same as every other IPA? Pour me another!

  • LakesLem@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Not really equivalent. Smoking permanently leaves all kind of nasty shit in your lungs and causes cancer. Also very addictive, making moderation physically difficult (alcohol can also be addictive but not to the same extremes). Alcohol in moderation isn’t really an issue. Pushing it more can give your liver a bad time, but as long as you give it a break before the point of disease it can bounce right back.

    There is a societal problem especially in the UK in that it’s seen as a sort of matter of pride to throw moderation out of the window and get as wasted as possible, but I have my doubts that graphic health warnings will do much about that. Either way it’s more an effect of society ignoring and sometimes even shaming moderation (how many times have you been shamed for going home before you fall over on a work’s night out) than the alcohol itself.

      • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        “Alcohol might be safe in moderation, but we don’t have the research to know for sure.”

        Not exactly the most interesting of articles.

      • WashedOver@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        In my books Strange Planet has it right with labeling it “Mild Poison”. Kind of changed the relationship for me the odd time I do drink socially.

      • Woofcat@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        less than 1.5 litres of wine or less than 3.5 litres of beer or less than 450 millilitres of spirits per week.

        The WHO considers that light? Holy crap… so if you’re drinking 2 bottles of wine yourself per week you’re a “light drinker”

      • LakesLem@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hmmm

        Still, as even they say, the less the safer. I’d say go after the low hanging fruit of binge drinkers (of which there are many).long before going after those of us who drink moderately.

        • Techognito@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I absolutely agree, and I didn’t mean to undermine your point in any way. I just wished to inform those that might not have been aware.

          Drinking less = less dangerous

          I also believe that “rewards” in moderation can be more healthy than avoiding everything that is unhealthy

          • LakesLem@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Yeah good input though. I’m surprised WHO sees it as worse than smoking. Not something I think I could ever find myself agreeing with, but honestly it seems every form of evidence/study these days has another one saying different so I don’t much believe in objective truth any more. Just going to enjoy life, as long as it lasts. Smoke literally feels nasty to me in a way that drinking (within reason) doesn’t.

    • Mike@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Smoking does not permanently leave anything in your lungs. The lungs constantly self clean and I believe after 10 years, all damage from any amount of smoking is removed.

      • LakesLem@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The scarring from all the heavy coughing etc?

        Still, rather not have all that sitting there for 10 years. The liver recovers from a few pints a lot quicker I believe, and even in the less favourable case of a fatty liver, a matter of weeks of abstienence rather than years. Disease of either, is probably a more dangerous situation.

  • KiloGex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    “I don’t want to say that there are necessarily equivalent health risks,”

    I mean, they said it themselves. Drinking responsibly and in moderation poses no recorded long-term health risks. But even 1 cigarette a day can cause serious harm.

    • mainframegremlin@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not quite. Even the accepted amount poses increased threats to being diagnosed with cancer (it is a carcinogen at the end of the day): https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohols-effects-body

      It is incredibly worse with breast cancer too.

      “Evidence is consistent that intake, even intake of less than 10-15 grams per day, is associated with increased risk of this disease”

      https://arcr.niaaa.nih.gov/volume/40/2/alcohols-effects-breast-cancer-women

      • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That study is a major failure in one key respect: Europeans drink far more than North Americans on average … and have longer lifespans than North Americans on average.

        Perhaps there is something coughobesitycough that might be better to address first instead of going full metal Karen on people who enjoy a tipple at the pub at the end of a day?

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          And we Europeans would have an even longer lifespan if we didn’t drink literal poison.

          I get it, it is fun. I partake in it every so often.

          But don’t claim alcohol isn’t harmful. It is one of the most harmful drugs to your body and to society. Even worse than heroin. According to a UK study.

          Don’t forget that 60% of aggression where the police needs to intervene has to do with alcohol.

          • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Aggressive drunkenness is cultural.

            Drunks here get loud and maudlin, but not aggressive; nowhere near the extent of, say, British drunkards or Canadian ones, or American ones. Same in Japan, incidentally, and Korea.

            Alcohol reduces your inhibitions. What’s being inhibited is purely on the person being exposed and the culture they’re from.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It looks harmless, since you need to drink in order to stay alive.

      But alcohol is nothing more than just poison. Which is why it gives our body the sensation of being poisoned.

      And it works in contrary, since it actively dehydrates the body.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Almost. It’s that first breakdown step of ethanol into acetaldehyde that is the worst, but the human body is remarkably resilient to it.

      Humans have a very interesting relationship to alcohol, for sure. It was very useful for preserving primitive beer for long periods which helped us survive and evolve. Hell, it is even theorized that we started to develop the ability to process the stuff so we wouldn’t get blasted out of our minds when we left the trees to forage for fruits that may have already been fermented.

      But, yes, it could be considered a toxin that has no purpose these days. Truth be told, it is still useful for it’s medicinal effects when combined with other medications for cold and flu relief. In highly stressful situations it can be beneficial for a quick morale boost. There are plenty of other uses for it as well.

      In full disclosure, I don’t drink anymore. My body has always metabolized it too well and led me to drink a lot, quickly. Hangovers were always short if I even had a serious one at all. This excessive drinking led to an addiction which took me years to overcome. But enough about me…

      My point is not to underestimate its benefits, s’all. Moderation is key and for those who cannot moderate, abstain.

      • bjorney@bjorney.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        It was very useful for preserving primitive beer

        The alcohol content in primitive beer was far too low to act as a preservative. The only reason it was useful back then is because it didn’t cause dysentery - which was purely because it was boiled and had nothing to do with the alcohol

        medicinal effects when combined with other medications for cold and flu relief.

        Alcohol is an immunosuppressant

        • remotelove@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Good correction, thanks. I must have been thinking of hops that was added later to preserve the beer. Boiling is a much simpler answer.

          Alcohol is an immunosuppressant, yes. To clarify my point, It’s proper function is as a solvent in, say, cough syrup, to ensure correct mixture. It can change the rate at which medicines are broken down by the body to some degree while also acting as an extremely mild sedative as well.

      • fades@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Wow, very interesting and informative!

        Also want to say congrats on the sobriety. I know all to well of what that kind of withdrawal is like (2 years bzd clean as of yesterday!)

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Dooo it. They’ll be a bit more tame, though, because moderate drinking is not nearly as deadly as smoking.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why are you so confident to say that? I think alcohol is probably worse than cigarettes

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean I could be wrong. The sense I’ve gotten is that a couple drinks is maybe on the same tier as a greasy meal.

        • rab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Alcohol affects every organ in your body and is one of the only things where withdrawal can kill you

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            I just searched around a bit, and it seems surprisingly hard to find actual numbers for each separately. Do you have any? Life expectancy reduction would probably be the best measure.

  • ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I wholly agree with the author of this article, but implementing something like this will meet a lot of resistance. Let’s not forget that cigarettes are a relatively new phenomenon, whereas alcohol is something we’ve consumed as a species since prehistoric times. There are a lot of cultural, social, and historical ties to the use of alcohol that people won’t let go easily and will make any attempt to reduce alcohol consumption an uphill battle.

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Or to the leading cause of death of Canadians: dietary cholesterol

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY0UY3FwoW4

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Roberts-14/publication/23313863_The_Cause_of_Atherosclerosis/links/551477890cf283ee08364f81/The-Cause-of-Atherosclerosis.pdf

    The leading cause of death of Canadians can be eliminated strictly through diet and avoiding animal products that contain cholesterol. And yet we pour millions of dollars into research each year for cutting edge new drugs that give you (so claimed) a 20% reduction in heart attacks, while having dozens of unwanted side effects.

    If you’re relying on the government and industry to teach you how to be healthy and to provide the tools you need to do it, you’re going to die young.

    • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Dietary cholesterol isn’t well correlated with serum cholesterol, which is what the paper you’ve linked is about. It even veers off into the natural conclusion if you believe that serum cholesterol is the only thing that matters: statin prescriptions for everyone!

  • arc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Warnings now do appear on the back of alcohol in the EU but they’re usually small things on the back of the label stating the units of alcohol in the bottle & warning about drinking while pregnant or whatever.

    • LakesLem@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Problem with these is they state some tiny amount equivalent to like half a glass of wine as the most you should have in a day, even though in the real world… basically anyone who drinks has a at least a little bit more than that and the moderate majority are fine and not on death’s door. I know 70 and 80 year olds in the pub who must drink 10+ units a day (I actually notice the oldies are the worst for wanting like 6%+ ABV beers) and are still there doing fine. So it has a bit of a “boy who cried wolf” effect to slap warnings on about drinking more than 14 units a week / 2 a day / whatever when at least in the UK like “everyone” drinks more than that. It just becomes a lauging stock, “look at that silly over-cautious nanny label”. If there should be any warning, IMO it’d be not to binge. If you can’t remember what happened the next morning, you drank too much, and it’s if you do that too often that it’s a major health risk.

      Drinking more than these labelled amounts isn’t good for you, but health warnings should be more closely aligned to “really bad for you” to be taken seriously imo.

      • Sodis@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well, because even those tiny amounts have a negative effect on your body. Instead of laughing about it, maybe you should consider, that you and everyone around you consumes too much alcohol? It’s exactly the 1 beer a day, that leads to addiction (and, possibly, cancer).

        • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          He’s talking about how the standard unit of alcohol definition bears no resemblance to anything people actually interact with in the real world. For example, one unit of alcohol is ~200mL of a typical beer. When was the last time you saw beer sold in 200mL containers?

          He is saying that if you want to communicate such ideas to people you need to speak to them at their level, not something geared towards scientists. If you ask random people on the street how much beer one drink is, they will likely tell you it is one pint (473mL), when in reality that is more than two drinks.

          And when one finds out that, they are not going to reel in horror, they are going to laugh at how out of touch someone was to communicate that idea so poorly.

          • LakesLem@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            More specifically (btw pint = 568ml) when I said about laughing at it I meant more at how it’s so little you might as well not drink at all. Which I get is their point as this poster obviously loathes alcohol and thinks it’s the most dangerous thing in the world, but yet we’re not all dropping left and right as you’d expect. If it was that dangerous the UK population would’ve been wiped out by now.

            No one, literally no one, goes out and has half a pint then says “well the label says that’s too much so I’m off home”. That’s where, right or wrong, the suggestion is kind of laughable.

            It’s an ideal, perhaps. But it’s such a tight ideal that no one will even try to follow it. Maybe if they aimed for “better” rather than “almost perfect” (with perfection being teetotality) they’d have more success. A label more like “if you can’t remember what happened when you wake up tomorrow, you’re severely harming your health” would at least get some of those in the biggest danger to rein it in a bit.

          • Sodis@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            People will still laugh, even if scientists say, that half a beer (250ml) is already bad for you. Scientists need to present facts, if people head their conclusions or not, is not really their problem in most cases. Our society is deeply ingrained with alcohol abuse. How do you think scientists or science journalism should present the fact, that even small amounts of alcohol are detrimental to your health, to the general public?

            • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              How do you think scientists or science journalism should present the fact, that even small amounts of alcohol are detrimental to your health, to the general public?

              Before we get too deep, is the intent to present the facts, or to guide behaviour? I always took it was the latter, but you could be right that it is the former. In which case, whatever we’re doing is fine. The facts are out there. If people want to laugh at the facts, so be it.

              Facts don’t guide behaviour, though. Human behaviour is guided by emulation of those envied in society. More simply, whatever a rich person does, the general public will soon try to copy them. And, indeed, alcohol has shown be to central to fortunes. That data shows a higher rate of alcohol use amongst those who are considered rich. In fact, some studies suggest that fortunes are built on the social connections greased by the lowering of inhibitions caused by alcohol.

              If the intent is to guide behaviour, scientists can develop something to see fortunes more likely to end up in the hands of the teetotallers. If sipping water in their mother’s basement and not getting completely blasted at the Kentucky Derby was what rich people did, attitudes would change pretty quickly.

              Of course, the data also shows a higher rate of alcohol use amongst those who succeed in academia ([1] i.e. the scientists themselves) ([2] something also correlated with being wealthier), so it may not be something they have an interest in.

  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    The answer is in the article: “ I don’t want to say that there are necessarily equivalent health risks,”

    • noride@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      I would argue the overwhelming majority of consumers do not know alcohol is a proven carcinogen, and many would still choose to make more health conscious choices, even though the relative risk is lower than smoking.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        While alcohol is a carcinogen, it only accounts for something like 3% of cancers deaths, mostly paired with liver disease. Hell, breathing air in a city causes more cancer deaths than alcohol.

        This whole article reads like a modern temperance movement, trying to stamp out vice by comparing one harm to another, despite how different the harms are.

        We know the harms of alcohol, they are different than the harms of tobacco. They should not be regulated the same. This article misses that completely.

        • FreeBooteR69@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Being a carcinogen is alcohols minor side effect. Don’t forget alcohol poisoning and the damage it does to families and relationships due to alcoholism, and another biggie, driving under the influence.

          • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            He clearly didn’t forget, unless you think tobacco also carries the same family and relationship damage and driving under the influence problems?

          • chaogomu@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes

            We know the harms of alcohol, they are different than the harms of tobacco. They should not be regulated the same. This article misses that completely.

            I just didn’t list out the harms of alcohol, or how they’re regulated, because I thought everyone knew.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The list of proven and likely carcinogens is rather large. Do we put a similar health warning on every sausage and strip of bacon? Plus planks of wood (wood dust contains known carcinogen). If you extend the list to mutagens, rather than proven carciogens the list gets even longer