pull down to refresh

Alcohol is a leading cause of cancer, a risk that should be clearly labeled on drinks Americans consume, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy proposed on Friday.
Americans should be better informed about the link between alcohol and cancer, in particular, Murthy argues in his advisory, noting alcohol consumption is to blame for nearly one million preventable cancer cases in the U.S. over the last decade. About 20,000 people die every year from those alcohol-related cancer cases, according to his advisory.
Consuming alcohol raises the risk of developing at least seven types of cancer diseases, including liver, breast and throat cancer, research has found. His advisory also notes that as a person’s alcohol consumption goes up, so does the risk for developing those illnesses.
It's serious but who cares?
Any effort to add a cancer warning label to alcohol would face significant push back from a well-funded and powerful beverage industry, which spends nearly $30 million every year lobbying Congress.
Here's one more article about 'binge drinking' and 'high-intensity drinking' to support Murthy's proposal. I'm not in Congress though.
I don't see any cut in alcohal consumption even when it has warning 'Cancer Risk'. Here in India every tobacco product comes with such warning printed at least on the 50% of the wrapper, the use of tobacco products has increased over the years. Yes, one more thing, more labels mean more cost as well.
What do you say?
Would you like to see such a labeling on your favourite bottle of rum, or any other type?
Society accepts the drawbacks of alcohol because it brings a lot of social benefits. People get together and share more when they're tipsy and for most people that's where it ends. For some it's deadly but evidently that's a small enough set that we deal. Add to this that anyone can make alcohol and that we've been learning that there's risk in everything and the end result is going to be: not much change.
reply
36 sats \ 4 replies \ @Cje95 3 Jan
The Biden Admin just hates America.... if they didn't make us so miserable we wouldn't need to drink I am just saying.
reply
So, you won't drink in Trump administration. Right?
reply
11 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 3 Jan
Woah woah woah I work for Congress so I am not a good measure!
On a side note because of how Congress works and esp. Congressional Committees we haven't even been told if we have a job moving forward. Since we have a new Chairman the staff has not been decided and essentially they are taking the next month to decide who to keep and who to let go. Its a hell of a pickle because no one know if they need to look for a job or if they will continue to have their job.
reply
Okay, I understand. You'll have to keep drinking no matter who comes in and who goes out.
reply
One day I dream on not having to numb the mind but at this time.... yeah I'm SOL on that front hahaha. I mean I get it I did agree to work here but sometimes like right now its hella bad.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @galt 5 Jan
Imagine the state of the UK economy if Brits scaled down of the pub culture, pretty much nothing left
reply
Print a hotline number on the bottle like its done on cigarettes. This makes sense with alcohol, so you can call somebody when you are drunk and they have to listen.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ge 4 Jan
Truth is everyone knows whats good and bad for you...and it's universal that most people like alcohol it's been glorified even more in the recent years with development of communications and the internet...Doesn't matter if it has a label or not some of this consumption is generational...good post by the way thank you for that
reply
Wow, just think of it, warnings on products really mean something to some people. Especially those warnings put on products at the command of the state! People ignore those warnings left and right because they know that many of them are nothing but nanny state bullish. If it were really bad the word would get out and you would see sales go the way of Lite Beer.
One thing more to notice: Where were these cancer cases years ago? Were we just ignoring them, attributing them to other causes, or were they just not there? I would go with the “just not there” answer to this one. People have been drinking for a hell of a long time and until about 1920s cancer cases were very rare. So, my question is, “What is really causing these cases of cancer that are popping up at such alarming frequency?” Could it be SV40?
reply
It doesn't need to be forced by government. We just need companies to be subject to liability when their products cause known, but undisclosed, harms to consumers.
They'll slap a warning on their own products, if it means not getting sued for billions of dollars.
reply
The catch here is the word "known". It would be easy enough for companies to trot out an army of scientists to give them plausible deniability as to their knowledge of any health risks
reply
True, but it would be similar to the tobacco cases from the 60's. Plus, they would be subjected to "reasonable person" standards in front of juries, so feigning ignorance would only get them so far, especially since civil courts have much lower burdens of proof than criminal.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 3 Jan
Just nonsense 'nudging' from governments, justifying the right of government to behave like a mom, create departments and make life less fun in every way possible.
I don't drink much at all, so have little skin in the game. But life was more fun without statist fools. Just sayin
reply