Why aren’t health warnings on cigarettes expanded to alcohol?
New cigarette regulations offer a point for public health to refer to that would advance solutions in alcohol consumption.
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
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...
There are nutrition labels on alcohol in Europe, but people there drink as much as here.
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).
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.
Not having to list ingredients is a real pain if you have uncommon food allergies.
Alcohol is required to list ingredients and allergy information.
But then when you do see the nutrition label, it ends up acting as an ad that it's a healthier drink.
This I fully agree with, and have no idea why they are currently exempted but assume lobbying.
Meanwhile cannabis beverages are required to have:
-Nutrition facts including calories, sugar, etc.
-Gigantic yellow warning with random health warning (e.g., don't use if pregnant)
-Huge red stop sign cannabis leaf logo
-KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
-Big pain in the ass plastic childproof thing
None of these required on a can of beer.
From a harm reduction perspective, it's a massive failure. Many cannabis beverages have very low nearly zero calories, sugar-free. For your physical health they are almost certainly less harmful than alcohol and I know many people would enjoy them as an alternative to alcohol.
We have faced a similar failure in harm reduction strategy regarding vaping versus tobacco. I think in both cases it's a result of vested interests (tax revenue, lobbying, don't know) trumping what is best for people.
The way Canada has handled cannabis legalization is embarrassing.
To who? Because we're still the only country with it fully legalized for recreational use. I fail to see how that's embarrassing at all.
We used to have weird rules on alcohol too, and just like those, cannabis rules have been getting better as time has gone on. You can't expect a world first system to be perfect right out of the gate.
This is what happens when you have a large segment of the population that is both opposed to something, and not terribly against acting in bad faith. You get poison pills in your regulations.
To me the worst part is allowing at parks, so now myself or young kids have to experience the stench of some asshat not caring about fellow citizens and they recreation time.
Cannabis, unlike alcohol and tobacco, has a high chance of causing long term and devastating effects on youth. This is a fact proven by science. Ease of access to alcohol should be heavily reduced and warnings should be places on them, Conservative ran alcohol lobbies always block that idea.
Vaping has been scientifically proven to be just as bad, if not worse for you health not to mention the negative environmental factor. It should follow the same path as tobaccos; no branding, no labels, health warning, removal of flavors, fines for vaping in public spaces.
Surprised to hear someone so confidently asserting that more prohibition is necessary. None of what you suggested really aligns with harm reduction and I would argue that more restrictions on vaping and on alcohol would backfire in terms of black market availability and less regulatory oversight.
I'm unaware of the proof that vaping is as bad or worse than tobacco. My understanding is that the consensus is vaping, while harmful, is significantly less harmful than smoking tobacco. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/vaping-substantially-less-harmful-than-smoking-largest-review-of-its-kind-finds
And for the record, typically how it works when you want to make a claim about proof and evidence is that you cite your sources. You can't simply use hyperbolic language, wave your hands and say the magic word "science" and expect people to just believe you.
I would like a ban on advertising, too.
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.
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.
Because it would be weird reading that smoking alcohol is dangerous for pregnant women.
This damn nanny state is out of control! /s
Lobbying
I mean, aren't the cigarette companies famous for being extreme lobbyists?
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.
They moved to vape stuff.
And sugar. Off topic a bit, but my addiction is sugar and some reminders might make the occasional difference.
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.
On US labels it has the percentage of daily intake for added sugars not all sugars. So there is some info on nutrition labels but everyone's 'daily' intake is different and is usually more than on the label.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Who do you think lobbied for banning flavored cigarettes and more control of vapes in the US?
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.
"Alcohol might be safe in moderation, but we don't have the research to know for sure."
Not exactly the most interesting of articles.
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.
WHO? Really?
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.
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.
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.
Alcohol is a literal fucking toxin
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.
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
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!)
Or to the leading cause of death of Canadians: dietary cholesterol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY0UY3FwoW4
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.
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!
For most people the level of cholesterol in food has little effect on blood cholesterol.
Fat, on the other hand...
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.
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.
“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.
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
The published "safe" levels of alcohol are generally completely arbitrary:
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?
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.
Dooo it. They'll be a bit more tame, though, because moderate drinking is not nearly as deadly as smoking.
I always thought the hypocrisy between alcohol and cannabis packaging is ridiculous. If cigarettes and cannabis need to be heavily restricted in terms of having simple, plain packaging with health warnings, anything for sale that can cause health issues should be subject to the same restrictions.
Everything will eventually cause health issues. Some substances are quicker to the punch than others, though. To avoid label fatigue, there is merit in limiting use to the worst offenders.
It has only been in the last few years that we are starting recognizing a greater danger in alcohol than earlier realized. And, indeed, Health Canada labelling requirements for alcohol have become more stringent in that time. As we learn more, it is likely the labelling requirements will continue to evolve as well.
@NightOwl a it's so normalized in our society that people are afraid to acknowledge the dangers.
Don't forget sugar too!
Alcohol is a massive tax revenue in pretty much everywhere in the world, but especially here in Canada. It's pretty obvious when you see the difference in price of a beer here compared to the states, as 90% of that difference is purely taxes. Hell, you can tell the difference between the beer/wine costs in Ontario vs in Quebec. There's a reason why people in Ottawa and Gatineau constantly cross the boarder to buy their poison of choice.
That said, there's also the fact that when the States tried to ban it, they basically created some of the richest criminals in the world in like a single year. Alcohol is so ingrained into modern society that people riot over it.
Tobacco is a comfort luxury that pretty much anybody can get off of with some effort. Alcohol is a crutch that far too many people use to avoid going to some pretty dark places.
Alcohol is a crutch that far too many people use to avoid going to some pretty dark places.
You could also argue, that alcohol leads to these pretty dark places in the first place. If your coping mechanism with problems in your life is to drink them away, well, that won't work in the long run.
It does. But for those that use alcohol as a crutch, its use makes those problems feel further away. Especially if you don't know how to deal with the problems, or just desperately need some relief before tackling the problem (even if it means that you never get to it until it explodes in your face), alcohol is an easy way to pretend that a problem doesn't exist.
Why do you think so many homeless are also alcoholics? I doubt all of them were alcoholics before becoming homeless, and even for those who were, there's a reason why they're still drinking tons of alcohol. All throughout human history, alcohol was known as man's best friend because life was tough, and it let you forget that fact for a while. Or at least make it feel less bad.
The answer is in the article: “ I don’t want to say that there are necessarily equivalent health risks,”
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.
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.
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
Because the alcohol industry is still profitable enough for special treatment.
Because those health warnings are meaningless to begin with. We know it's bad for us, we don't need a nanny state to hold our hands at the same time.
We know it's bad for us
You have the knowledge in the back of your mind. The warnings make you have it in active thought.
we don't need a nanny state
Do you truly believe consumers usually/always make rational and reasonable decisions, that don't go against their own interests?
You have the knowledge in the back of your mind. The warnings make you have it in active thought.
What kind of manipulative power trip behavior control bullshit logic is this?
Do you truly believe consumers usually/always make rational and reasonable decisions, that don’t go against their own interests?
Who the fuck cares? I decide how I live my life. If you want to wear bubble wrap and consume nothing but distilled water and unflavored soy bean paste so you can totally live forever and never need medical treatment, have at.
I'd rather live.
No one recreationally smokes the same way that people might drink every once in a while.
You also have a lot of money spent by various alcohol manufacturers to keep alcohol from being treated like tobacco. If anything, drinking went up a lot with millennials.
I know quite a few people who only smoke on the rare occasions they have a drink.
I was not one of them.
And coffee, and butter, and sugar, and artificial sweeteners, and cannabis, and cars.,,. prohibition is stupid. Mind your own fucking business. Stop trying to control others.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Argument from fallacy. Just because an argument contains a fallacy doen not mean that its conclusion is false. In this context I feel like it would be much more effective to point out that cigarettes are totally unnecessary, while owning a car (depending on where you live) is not. Putting a warning label on something like cigarettes is not comparable to putting warning signs on something that you actively need to survive.
Artificial sweeteners are very safe and sugar is carbohydrates, which you almost need for energy and a healthy diet. Coffee and butter is also quite safe.
But alcohol and tobacco? Any amount is harmful. Warnings wouldn't be unreasonable for people to make more informed decisions. You'd be surprised at how many think alcohol is harmless. And its stuff you quite literally don't need to live.
You clearly don't follow the news and aren't very educated on the topic of carcinogens.
Artificial Sweeteners are being found to be carcinogenic. Sugar causes obesity and diabetes. Coffee is addictive and causes vascular disorders. Butter causes high cholesterol and heart attacks.
Tobacco and alcohol have no notable adverse impacts for at least 20 to 40 years (unless you drink to the point of alcohol poisoning, that is immediate).
You clearly aren't interested in knowledge or having a productive conversation. You just want to do the propagandist prohibitionist circlejerk.
In fairness, cigarettes contain known carcinogens. You are ripping apart your DNA with every dart. Can the same be said for having a few drinks a week?
I say this as someone who's never taken a single drag or had even a drop of alcohol (cooking notwithstanding).
Alcohol is a carcinogen.
Because it would hurt sales. Duh!