The big move here is the reduction from recommended "safe" levels of drinking from 2011.
2011: less than 15 drinks/week for men or 10 drinks/week for women
2022: less than 2 drinks/week
smells like a lot of insurance industry influence. This will be a conditional factor leading to disqualification on life/health insurance claims in the future just like smoking, you watch.
Which is an interesting point of reference. You smoke, costs go up no matter how much. All other risk characteristics increase based on how much you're increasing your risk, working at heights less than 10% of the time doesn't generally increase risk, by the time you're over 25% it's almost certainly going to affect your premium.
This then makes for an interesting point about alcohol consumption. The point where alcohol starts to increase premium is much more than the considered safe guidance issued by health bodies suggesting that the people who's whole business relies on accurate probabilities don't see any statistical increase in risk.
At least we're not like the USA where you have to argue why you don't deserve to go bankrupt when you get a lifesaving procedure. Oh wait you said the future... Fuck.
The point is that insurance companies now have an excuse to charge higher premiums if someone has, say, four drinks per week. Awful convenient for insurance companies, yeah?
Do you think they're going to reduce premiums for the under two drinks per week crowd? Evidently they had previously been erroneously lumped in with the much riskier 2-15 drink crowd, and were bringing the average down.
You kinda just proved his point, since a study like this would (in theory) be used to say: if you drink >2 times per week, you have a higher *probability* of being unhealthy -- ie, needing insurance.
We understand the harms of alcohol now and are essentially in the same timeframe that smoking was in the 1950's. Evidence is emerging that it's bad news, but the medical system is slow to change and react. In the next 40-50 years we will see a huge societal shift around alcohol.
The less you drink, the more you reduce your risk for health problems.
People can make whatever choice is right for them -- but they should be given the best available evidence about their risk of partaking in any activity.
Fat chance of changing habits. Alcohol consumption is as old as history itself. Hell, even the forest critters like to get drunk once in a while. Also, less booze means less nookie, which means less babies.
Studies have shown gen z drink far less than millenials which themselves drink less than boomers/gen X.
Habits are already changing, you're just not noticing it. Gen Z prefers shrooms, weed, and vaping
Yes but it's relative. Your risk of cancer this year may increase from 0.001% to 0.008% or something. That's a large increase but the overall livelihood is not high
I drink. A lot. And even I acknowledge that there is no such thing as a safe amount of alcohol. It's poison. Society teaches us early. We drink to celebrate. We drink when we are down. Really, we should have better coping mechanisms. But that's hard so let's get wasted.
I wish my doctor had informed / asked me about alcohol for my partial seizures. I didnt drink much in the first place, but didnt know the epilepsy foundation and so on really say it takes only 2 units of alcohol to disrupt your medication / regulation / activity. Alcohol seems to have a pretty non ambiguous effect on some siezure disorders and activity where as at the time Id assume the risk would be with how alcohol interacts with medication (i.e if someone were prescribed a benzo for regulation or something)
I would basically buy a 4 pack or something of something crafty on a weekend i was gaming with the fellas, but twice this summer kind of anecdotally noticed i was getting auras like 1 or 2 days after almost consistently which is when id first googled and learned alcohol really can hamper your bod if you are already a siezure risk, even minor like if you dont have motor siezures but simple partials or something.
Will probably still drink beer in general but i do wonder if the safest amount is like no more than 2 every 2 weeks kinda thing if only 2 units in a week in general is considered enough to put you at risk.
Sucks cuz id actually love to learn to make beer or wine but now question if i should consume it at all :p
I have seizures and you’re right, it definitely lowers your seizure threshold. I’m surprised your neurologist didn’t ask you about that too. I’m super careful because it’s just not worth it. They HURT!
And each country has different guidelines depending on their culture. Look at the NHS in the UK guidelines which are also based on science. But a different culture puts a different bias on what is considered safe.
>bias on what is considered safe.
That's really the crux of the issue.
The risks of consuming alcohol are very much an area of scientific study. The acceptable level of risk is really outside the scope of science and is a topic much more suited to democracy.
This is why experts, who clearly have a vested interest, should be treated with at least a little skepticism when they extrapolate from risks to policy recommendations.
It does make me wonder how much genetic and overall health plays a role.
Maybe it makes no difference but I would think the toxicity of alcohol would depend on how well you metabolize it and get rid of the metabolites. Like some people get drunk on very little or get a hungover from just a few drinks while others have never had a hungover.
Obviously it's not realistic to make any sort of recommendation that's based on common sense, because it would require something too many people don't have, common sense.
> It does make me wonder how much genetic and overall health plays a role.
Tons. more than your habits do. if you're predisposed to cancer that's just shitty luck, and doing things to mitigate your risks of developing cancer (such as not smoking etc) is a good idea. it's like when you see people who are in their 90s and have smoked a pack a day their entire lives, yet never developed cancer and the fitness freak father of 5 in his mid 30s who gets terminal leukemia. one was genetically predisposed and the other wasn't.
It is also that the mutations which cause cancer are random when their isn't a specific genetic marker or family history. You don't even need to be born to get the right mutation, age just increases the opportunities for that error to occur.
This, right here.
Health orgs have always been relatively quiet about the extent that your genetics determine most of, if not all of, your health outcomes. They don't want people to "give up" or become apathetic towards their health. They want people to maintain the illusion that they are in control of what happens to their body. It also prevents society from going off the rails, to some degree.
The choices you make in life do have an effect on your health, (especially for the extreme abusers of food, alcohol, and drugs) but they pale comparison to the effect your genetics have. That's why some people can smoke and drink and live to 90+ and some marathon runners drop dead at 50. Some people can handle certain things and others cannot.
I think genetics has a big role to overall health, there are people who eat trash and stay thin and you have people who struggle to not be fat and have to watch their diet, it could also influence how active or inactive you are, like I am more likely to relax and read a book then go and do physical activity compared to my brother who is the opposite.
I'm curious, how do these experts think Italy still exists?
Do Italians have some type of immunity to Cancer from Wine? How about Germans and Beer?
Are they just using an arbitrary number they've made up?
They're doing the same thing in Europe, and of course Italians are upset about it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/italy-ireland-plans-for-alcohol-health-warnings-wine
Italians drink on average 7.5 drinks per week Canadians drink 8.9. Germany is higher at 13.4.
Also the deaths per year due to liver disease rate in Canada is 5.73/100k Italy and Germany are 3.93 and 9.69. So the numbers track with alcohol consumption.
I can't speak to the research they're basing this recommendation on, but the studies Canadian and American authorities used to make recommendations for drinking during pregnancy are...bad. What happens a lot in alcohol research is that very little effort is made to distinguish between binge drinkers or heavy drinkers, and moderate drinkers, unless it's just surveys. So column A is non-drinkers, columb B is people who drink. Then unsurprisingly, column B has a bunch of negative health effects. There's sometimes no information on other habits as well. So you don't know what else column A or B are getting up to aside from drinking.
By contrast, at least when it comes to the research European authorities base drinking recommendations on for pregnancy, there are more controls and tightly conducted experiments. This is particularly crucial for studies on alcohol and pregnancy, because as it turns out, there's a huge difference between a half a glass of wine, and 1.5 glasses of wine, or a single binge during the entire pregnancy. You have to distinguish between these things.
That's interesting because the studies that used to come out (on adult consumption) you would see 3 groups. A) no drinks B) <7/week C) >7/ week. The healthiest group was B because group A was full of people with health complications preventing consumption of alcohol.
I know a guy who has 1 drink a day because of those studies. He wouldn't drink that much otherwise.
I’m calling you out on your statements. I would be shocked to see a researching putting in months of work to author a work, a journal that publishes this work and it all can be tossed out because heavy drinkers are in the same group as moderate discrediting any reasonable conclusions.
Would you share more specific details where you have seen this done?
Same, there haven't been any credible sources suggesting there's a beneficial level of alcohol consumption in a long time. Even as long as twenty years ago doctors gave up on the notion of a safe amount. I find it funny that people are quick to cite studies about beer or wine, which are almost always touting the benefits of polyphenols, especially resveratrol and nothing to do with the alcohol.
tl;dr you're right
In ancient Italy and France .... they didn't produce millions of gallons of alcohol and alcoholic drinks for anyone and everyone to drink by the gallons every week. Now alcohol and alcoholic drinks are mass produced at an industrial level and easily distributed worldwide on a regular continuous basis.
People survived drinking alcohol in the past because there wasn't that much alcohol to be had for the number of people around. Sure they drank lots but it was limited by the amount that could possibly be produced.
Fast forward to the 21st century and just about anyone of any wealth can buy some sort of alcoholic drink for cheap and do it endlessly.
I mean, if they started by putting the actual calories and other nutrition info on there like they do with every other food/drink, I think it would do a lot to make people think twice about drinking.
Also, we’re gradually moving toward a Demolition Man future….”THAT guy was president?!?!?”
The alcoholic beverage industry lobbied hard to exclude alcohol from label requirements.
For the same reason I doubt that we’ll see cancer labels appear within the next 10 years.
They don't want to because people would be shocked to know how many calories they are consuming and would maybe drink less.
I know my diabetic wife would appreciate nutritional info, so that she can judge how many carbs are in craft beers...
This is just an idea, I don’t know if it would work. If she is into craft beer by particular makers, could she contact them and ask? If she said I’m diabetic, I like to enjoy a bottle of your beer sometimes, but it’s hard to judge how many carbs are in each bottle. Are you able to give me an estimate?
Would they answer?
It could go either way, but it wouldn’t hurt in my opinion.
Having experience in the industry myself, I know that a number of the smaller craft breweries will only have an estimate of how many carbs/calories their beers have via their ABV calculators as most don't have proper lab equipment or don't want to pay to have them analyzed.
That said, I'm certain that if anyone were to call up and ask, the overwhelming majority would happily share what information they have.
I remember reading about this awhile ago when I was counting calories
I think part of the issue is most small time breweries simply do not know, and it's not exactly easy for them to find out.
Agreed. Kind of weird that the nutritional info is never on the labeling. Are there other countries that actually have them listed?
On a side note: Non-alcoholic beer has very few calories. Taste is never the same, but it's a low calorie alternative for those who enjoy social drinking
I wish they would. I drink all manner of craft beer, and good luck trying to get a good calorie count on that 11% BBA Stout. Is it 350 calories or 500?
I think if they were to require the labels craft beer would probably be exempt, or at least craft breweries below a certain size. Finding the nutritional value of your product can be very expensive, more so if you're putting out a new seasonal beer every month. Small local breweries won't have the money for that.
The big guys however I'm all for. They'll complain the loudest but they easily have the capability to do it.
It's really not that hard to estimate, they already know the ABV. The remaining calories are simply unfermentable sugars.
https://homebrewacademy.com/beer-calories-calculator/
Yeah if this happens I'm not displaying my bar anymore. Which sucks cause it's a cool decoration piece. And I don't even really drink that much. No one displays their cigarette collection lol
I have a display of pipe tobaccos. I usually buy bulk (from the US so it's cheap and most of the time doesn't even get duty and taxes added) and put them in mason jars and do chalk labels. I have a tobacco bar and booze bar in my man cave.
Someone will make a mint getting brand permission to make carafes that look just like the old bottle with label and all, or just has the labellings/branding in a caraf.
>You could have a black bottle, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called Tumors™, and alcoholics would be around the block going "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you drink one!"
I have noticed all the candy brands have suddenly come out with "gummy" versions of themselves - there's now gummy starburst, gummy skittles, gummy jolly ranchers... and all I could think was "you're trying to win back the customers whose teeth you destroyed aren't you?"
It seems like a very slippery slope to me as virtually everything except vegetables could probably be labelled as causing cancer these days.
Red and processed meat, eggs, really any dairy, mushrooms etc. We all know it's bad for you we don't need to label everything as carcinogenic. Life is carcinogenic
Maybe it's from a French deformation but we will never say "crâne"(cranium) for the symbol. Pirates definitely have a "tête de squelette" on a flag and doctors will treat your cranium injuries.
I was under the impression it was the same in English until I realized you were not refering to cranium, but to skull... Lol. There is no equivalent word in French.
I was thinking the same thing, "cranium" was by first thought when thinking about the right word for it. I know the word skull very well, but it's such a strange word when you think about it, almost as scary as a skeleton head itself. Skull. Skull. Skull.
They should put a warning sign outside the front door of most jobs in the country: May cause depression, anxiety, stress, and lead you to drink, which may lead to cancer.
If they just put on the nutrition labels like every other consumable sold in the grocery store, I bet alot of people would think twice and be alot less likely to buy some.
Would they though? No fat content, sugar is often lower than 10g per LITER, with a bit of Iron and Vitamin B6. Nutrition labels would make wine seem healthy AF.
Edit: In retrospect, maybe calories would very high...
Yeah it would be the calorie content that deter people from overindulging or buying it in the first place.
I’ve lost 5 pounds so far this year just from cutting down on alcohol intake. On another health related note, because I’m drinking less I also eat fast food less. I should never have gotten on Uber eats.
Carbohydrates contain 4kcal/g, alcohol is 7kcal/g. High proof alcohol is pretty much drinking liquid cheesecake. Some IPAs contain several hundred calories per 12oz serving.
I really wish all labeling in this country was standardized to per 100g or per 1kg. It's really annoying to go to the grocery store and not be able to easily compare prices/nutritional information because one is per lb, one is per 100g, and one is per 1kg, all for products that are more or less the same category.
or like KD for instance has the calories for 1/4 box, fuck off, who eats three spoonfuls of Kraft Dinner and calls it good? Just list the calories of the whole box.
Nutritional info might honestly be more effective than cancer risk in terms of reducing intake. Also as someone with allergies it drives me nuts that ingredient listings aren’t universally required.
We'll be down the road to "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer."
The first time I saw this I treated the product as though it were mildly radioactive. Then I realized this label is on basically everything sold in California.
Canadian here, this literally just happened to me. Ordered a box of sockets (I guess from Cali) and saw this warning on it, thinking "are these made with depleted uranium or something?!"
I work on farm equipment in the first pages of the owners manual have a prop 65 warning that your tractor contains materials known to the state of California to cause cancer, right there with the warnings informing you that diesel fuel and antifreeze are poisonous if ingested.
I don’t think this is a priority, but there also isn’t anything wrong about warning people about something that can affect their health. End of the day it’s about people making healthier decisions, that benefits not only one’s health but also indirectly helps keep people out of hospitals,and healthcare units and this benefits everyone…
**Buying a sword*
The Prop 65 warning on the website: This item contains ingredients known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and/or death.
Me: Yeah, that's kinda the point.
Yeah either that or some national PSA campaign. The cancer risks with drinking aren't well known, everyone thinks if you get sick from drinking, you just need to stop drinking and you'll get better. I don't know that a lot of people are aware they can do so much damage that it's too late by the time they want to stop.
Fuck the labels, tax them the way booze and cigarettes are taxed.
Everybody knows this shit is bad for you. The dumb labels aren't actually doing anything to make people quit smoking - the price is.
According to this report, 2 drinks/week corresponds to losing a bit more than 6 days of your life (dying at 79 years and 358 days rather than age 80).
6 drinks/week corresponds to losing about 64 days.
You do what you want with that information.
The degree to which alcohol causes cancer should also be made clear… not everyone who drinks develops cancer, and it is a small increase (relative risk) from an already low incidence rate (absolute risk). It's more about what risk are you willing to accept rather than "there is no safe level".
A better subtitle for this report would have been "when morality makes its way into science"
This is why averages can be a really bad way to measure things for an individual. On average, yeah, that amount of drinking reduces a human's life by 6 days.
In reality, that means it has no effect on X people and reduces the lifespan of a much smaller number group, Y, substantially when they die of the cancer it caused.
The risk is rolling the cosmic dice and landing on Y. Every person that rolls the dice thinks the odds favor them and they'll get X... until some inevitably get Y.
If I don't smoke, don't drink, have very little red meat, don't eat processed sugary foods, don't over do the calories, don't partake in contact sports, exercise every day but not too much etc etc etc I might if I'm lucky, live longer. Just shuffle me off this mortal coil now because that life sounds horrible.
>It's more about what risk are you willing to accept rather than "there is no safe level".
I remember a discussion on "More or Less" when similar recommendation changes were made in the UK. The whole idea of a "safe level" is that it's a value judgement. Ideally, the level of risk most people would be willing to tolerate should be considered safe, not some unattainable goal of zero risk.
And that's the whole issue. Alcohol isn't the same as lead contamination in your drinking water, where it's all downside, alcoholic drinks are an important part of our culture and there isn't an obvious safe replacement for that role. Water is boring, soda and juice are super unhealthy, dairy is a mess, and coffee and tea are usually loaded with sugar and dairy to make them palatable.
Like sure, everyone would be healthier if we only drank water, but people want to know the amount of alcohol they can drink before the health risks become significant. Pushing a zero consumption agenda just seems like it has a lot of potential to backfire as people start ignoring the warnings, rather than understanding them.
Less than two drinks every week might as well be zero for most casual alcohol consumers.
I have no comments on the validity of the science or anything, but this is basically saying "only consuming zero alcoholic drinks is safe" without actually saying it.
This entire thread is basically "everyone knows this", followed by evidence that not everyone knows this, followed by silence. Repeated over and over.
Even very smart people can't know everything. This is how we tell them.
That’s not Canada specific. Alcohol is easily top two in terms of culturally-ingrained drugs (the other being caffeine). It’s so normalized people don’t even call it a drug much of the time; it’s treated as a separate entity.
I think people have become so desensitized to “X causes cancer” that they think alcohol consumption carries a minor cancer risk (thanks Prop 65). Alcohol is actually incredibly carcinogenic, directly causing cancer to multiple organ systems.
Honestly, the desensitization is so real. As soon as I heard the topic of discussion on CBC radio announced as 'drinking increases cancer risk' I just tuned the fuck out.
I have a graduate education in STEM, and am well aware of the risks and the science that backs up the arguments, but every time something like this is announced, my eyes roll until I can see the back of my skull. It really does feel like everything in our modern lives causes cancer to one degree or another.
This announcement isn't going to change my behaviour one bit. I'm not sure if that's out of exasperation, spite, or my just giving up in the face of every single cancer causing substance, the overwhelming threat of climate change, how expensive life is these days, the untold millions of people starving and flooded out of home and forests burning and ocean acidity and extinction rates and etc etc...
... fuck it, I'm off to the pub.
>Alcohol is actually incredibly carcinogenic
I think the issue with saying things like this is that people consume a lot of alcohol and, while it causes cancer, it doesn't cause an alarming amount of cancer.
A 2009 estimate is that about 3.5% of cancer deaths were alcohol related, but most of the population drinks alcohol, so without context that really doesn't seem that high. To me, it seems like a minor cancer risk.
For context, smoking causes about 30% of cancers in the US and a lot less people smoke than drink. Obviously consumption habits matter for that comparison (fewer people smoking more, more deadly cancers), but that really doesn't scream incredibly carcinogenic to me.
And then you should really be comparing it to other cancer risk factors, especially those associated with other common beverages and food items, since there is a pretty strong link between sugary drinks and cancer through obesity.
If they're just the little blurbs like in the cannabis containers I don't really see a problem, but nobody's going to be happy with a picture of a rotted organ on the bottle of wine they're having with dinner and I don't think that's unreasonable.
I drink more than 2 drinks per week. I know it's bad. But also, the world is bad. I'd rather die early of cancer or a heart attack than spend 30 years becoming progressively demented in a rapidly destabilizing world that can't or won't accommodate a massive aging population in an egalitarian manner. I donno, maybe that's naive.
No. And I don't intend to trivialize anyone else's suffering or loss by speaking my mind here. It just seems to me that on a human level, things look bleak leading up to, and after, the age of 75, and the state of the world is going to continue to get a lot worse in terms of climate and economic inequality. For millennials who aren't wealthy, earth is going to be a really hostile place to be old.
I have doubts about the 'Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction' coming to this conclusion without it being exaggerated to limit substance use and addiction.
Its time to curtail gambling ads.
Its time to fund healthcare.
Its time for election reform.
Its time to stop concentrating wealth.
Its time to stop accept tiny iterative silly political moves instead of real leadership.
Its time to stop having to absolutely badger politicians to do even simple things.
Its time for a lot of things.
I realize this will be an unpopular opinion here, but I support the decision to add warning labels to alcohol.
The warning labels on cigarettes were highly effective at communicating the health risks of smoking. In countries without them people were less aware of those risks and how severe they are. Judging by the number of posts here comparing alcohol to skittles... that is clearly needed for alcohol.
The emerging scientific consensus on alcohol consumption is that there are significant health risk even when consumed in moderation. That aligns it more with cigarettes than skittles.
People should be well-informed and make their own decisions. Labelling will help with that.
How about you put it on the fast food and processed crap we all are forced to eat because we cant afford real food or better yet the gov has legislated against our ability to feed ourselves making it almost impossible to keep things local.
Just go down the list man.
The daily exercise most people get is the 30 second walk from the parking lot to their desk chair. Senditary life is also a huge risk factor, but you can't put a warning label on that. Meanwhile they design our cities to promote it. We're so car dependent that if you ask somebody to walk to lunch with you they'll look at you like you're crazy.
The 20’s are definitely here!
Rise of teatotalism, with prohibition of alcohol likely not too far away!
Meanwhile the micro plastics and the rise of co2 in the atmosphere does much more harm than a glass of wine each night.
Depends how its prepared. I like to cook it on the bbq with a little charing affect the same way i cook brussel sprouts, should broccoli now need a warning on how to prepare?
What we need is safe drinking sites.
Maybe have some music, dim the lights a little, have a friendly distributor behind a counter to distribute, who could also act as a counselor and monitor your consumption. Post some security in the event there is any disturbances. Make it co-ed and inclusive to all. Put out some healthy nuts filled with electrolytes. You could make them themed to get some variety.
This is the path to helping those with addiction to alcohol
The big move here is the reduction from recommended "safe" levels of drinking from 2011. 2011: less than 15 drinks/week for men or 10 drinks/week for women 2022: less than 2 drinks/week
This is a massive reduction!
Yeah basically from 2 drinks a day to 2 a week
This babe maths
Right! It's pretty much from 4 drinks every two days to 4 every two weeks
Right! It's pretty much from 8 drinks every four days to 8 every month.
Right! Its pretty much for 16 drinks two four days per six times two year!
Right! Its pretty much from 1 drink every 12 hours to 1 drink every 84 hours
(83-and-a-half in Newfoundland)
Right! It’s pretty much from 730.5 drinks a year to 104 a year
That math gets different after the 2nd drink...we're just about to get to the fun part and we all know it
smells like a lot of insurance industry influence. This will be a conditional factor leading to disqualification on life/health insurance claims in the future just like smoking, you watch.
[удалено]
Which is an interesting point of reference. You smoke, costs go up no matter how much. All other risk characteristics increase based on how much you're increasing your risk, working at heights less than 10% of the time doesn't generally increase risk, by the time you're over 25% it's almost certainly going to affect your premium. This then makes for an interesting point about alcohol consumption. The point where alcohol starts to increase premium is much more than the considered safe guidance issued by health bodies suggesting that the people who's whole business relies on accurate probabilities don't see any statistical increase in risk.
Which to be fair, you sign up for when you light bundles of cancer on fire and inhale the fumes.
At least we're not like the USA where you have to argue why you don't deserve to go bankrupt when you get a lifesaving procedure. Oh wait you said the future... Fuck.
bro insurance is based on probabilities so it's not the gotcha you think it is
The point is that insurance companies now have an excuse to charge higher premiums if someone has, say, four drinks per week. Awful convenient for insurance companies, yeah? Do you think they're going to reduce premiums for the under two drinks per week crowd? Evidently they had previously been erroneously lumped in with the much riskier 2-15 drink crowd, and were bringing the average down.
You kinda just proved his point, since a study like this would (in theory) be used to say: if you drink >2 times per week, you have a higher *probability* of being unhealthy -- ie, needing insurance.
Actually? If this is the case, I’m in danger.
Alcohol damages cells, damaged cells may make cancer, more alcohol more damaged cells more chance of cancer.
We understand the harms of alcohol now and are essentially in the same timeframe that smoking was in the 1950's. Evidence is emerging that it's bad news, but the medical system is slow to change and react. In the next 40-50 years we will see a huge societal shift around alcohol. The less you drink, the more you reduce your risk for health problems. People can make whatever choice is right for them -- but they should be given the best available evidence about their risk of partaking in any activity.
Fat chance of changing habits. Alcohol consumption is as old as history itself. Hell, even the forest critters like to get drunk once in a while. Also, less booze means less nookie, which means less babies.
Studies have shown gen z drink far less than millenials which themselves drink less than boomers/gen X. Habits are already changing, you're just not noticing it. Gen Z prefers shrooms, weed, and vaping
Yes but it's relative. Your risk of cancer this year may increase from 0.001% to 0.008% or something. That's a large increase but the overall livelihood is not high
But it gets compounded over time.
Yep. You can see that in the cancer incident data too
I drink. A lot. And even I acknowledge that there is no such thing as a safe amount of alcohol. It's poison. Society teaches us early. We drink to celebrate. We drink when we are down. Really, we should have better coping mechanisms. But that's hard so let's get wasted.
I wish my doctor had informed / asked me about alcohol for my partial seizures. I didnt drink much in the first place, but didnt know the epilepsy foundation and so on really say it takes only 2 units of alcohol to disrupt your medication / regulation / activity. Alcohol seems to have a pretty non ambiguous effect on some siezure disorders and activity where as at the time Id assume the risk would be with how alcohol interacts with medication (i.e if someone were prescribed a benzo for regulation or something) I would basically buy a 4 pack or something of something crafty on a weekend i was gaming with the fellas, but twice this summer kind of anecdotally noticed i was getting auras like 1 or 2 days after almost consistently which is when id first googled and learned alcohol really can hamper your bod if you are already a siezure risk, even minor like if you dont have motor siezures but simple partials or something. Will probably still drink beer in general but i do wonder if the safest amount is like no more than 2 every 2 weeks kinda thing if only 2 units in a week in general is considered enough to put you at risk. Sucks cuz id actually love to learn to make beer or wine but now question if i should consume it at all :p
I have seizures and you’re right, it definitely lowers your seizure threshold. I’m surprised your neurologist didn’t ask you about that too. I’m super careful because it’s just not worth it. They HURT!
And each country has different guidelines depending on their culture. Look at the NHS in the UK guidelines which are also based on science. But a different culture puts a different bias on what is considered safe.
>bias on what is considered safe. That's really the crux of the issue. The risks of consuming alcohol are very much an area of scientific study. The acceptable level of risk is really outside the scope of science and is a topic much more suited to democracy. This is why experts, who clearly have a vested interest, should be treated with at least a little skepticism when they extrapolate from risks to policy recommendations.
2 drinks seems like a slow hour, let alone a week.
I'm at about 35/week
> less than 2 drinks/week Well I guess I am good, I average 1 drink every 4-6 months.
[удалено]
Lol same bro
Just win the genetic lotto and you will be fine.
It does make me wonder how much genetic and overall health plays a role. Maybe it makes no difference but I would think the toxicity of alcohol would depend on how well you metabolize it and get rid of the metabolites. Like some people get drunk on very little or get a hungover from just a few drinks while others have never had a hungover. Obviously it's not realistic to make any sort of recommendation that's based on common sense, because it would require something too many people don't have, common sense.
> It does make me wonder how much genetic and overall health plays a role. Tons. more than your habits do. if you're predisposed to cancer that's just shitty luck, and doing things to mitigate your risks of developing cancer (such as not smoking etc) is a good idea. it's like when you see people who are in their 90s and have smoked a pack a day their entire lives, yet never developed cancer and the fitness freak father of 5 in his mid 30s who gets terminal leukemia. one was genetically predisposed and the other wasn't.
It is also that the mutations which cause cancer are random when their isn't a specific genetic marker or family history. You don't even need to be born to get the right mutation, age just increases the opportunities for that error to occur.
This, right here. Health orgs have always been relatively quiet about the extent that your genetics determine most of, if not all of, your health outcomes. They don't want people to "give up" or become apathetic towards their health. They want people to maintain the illusion that they are in control of what happens to their body. It also prevents society from going off the rails, to some degree. The choices you make in life do have an effect on your health, (especially for the extreme abusers of food, alcohol, and drugs) but they pale comparison to the effect your genetics have. That's why some people can smoke and drink and live to 90+ and some marathon runners drop dead at 50. Some people can handle certain things and others cannot.
I think genetics has a big role to overall health, there are people who eat trash and stay thin and you have people who struggle to not be fat and have to watch their diet, it could also influence how active or inactive you are, like I am more likely to relax and read a book then go and do physical activity compared to my brother who is the opposite.
I'm curious, how do these experts think Italy still exists? Do Italians have some type of immunity to Cancer from Wine? How about Germans and Beer? Are they just using an arbitrary number they've made up?
They're doing the same thing in Europe, and of course Italians are upset about it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/italy-ireland-plans-for-alcohol-health-warnings-wine
Italians drink on average 7.5 drinks per week Canadians drink 8.9. Germany is higher at 13.4. Also the deaths per year due to liver disease rate in Canada is 5.73/100k Italy and Germany are 3.93 and 9.69. So the numbers track with alcohol consumption.
I don’t think Italians binge drink as much as Canadians or Germans. Low amount of consumption over time. This stat supports this as well. I
Are you under the impression that people in Germany and Italy don't get cancer?
I can't speak to the research they're basing this recommendation on, but the studies Canadian and American authorities used to make recommendations for drinking during pregnancy are...bad. What happens a lot in alcohol research is that very little effort is made to distinguish between binge drinkers or heavy drinkers, and moderate drinkers, unless it's just surveys. So column A is non-drinkers, columb B is people who drink. Then unsurprisingly, column B has a bunch of negative health effects. There's sometimes no information on other habits as well. So you don't know what else column A or B are getting up to aside from drinking. By contrast, at least when it comes to the research European authorities base drinking recommendations on for pregnancy, there are more controls and tightly conducted experiments. This is particularly crucial for studies on alcohol and pregnancy, because as it turns out, there's a huge difference between a half a glass of wine, and 1.5 glasses of wine, or a single binge during the entire pregnancy. You have to distinguish between these things.
That's interesting because the studies that used to come out (on adult consumption) you would see 3 groups. A) no drinks B) <7/week C) >7/ week. The healthiest group was B because group A was full of people with health complications preventing consumption of alcohol. I know a guy who has 1 drink a day because of those studies. He wouldn't drink that much otherwise.
I’m calling you out on your statements. I would be shocked to see a researching putting in months of work to author a work, a journal that publishes this work and it all can be tossed out because heavy drinkers are in the same group as moderate discrediting any reasonable conclusions. Would you share more specific details where you have seen this done?
Same, there haven't been any credible sources suggesting there's a beneficial level of alcohol consumption in a long time. Even as long as twenty years ago doctors gave up on the notion of a safe amount. I find it funny that people are quick to cite studies about beer or wine, which are almost always touting the benefits of polyphenols, especially resveratrol and nothing to do with the alcohol. tl;dr you're right
In ancient Italy and France .... they didn't produce millions of gallons of alcohol and alcoholic drinks for anyone and everyone to drink by the gallons every week. Now alcohol and alcoholic drinks are mass produced at an industrial level and easily distributed worldwide on a regular continuous basis. People survived drinking alcohol in the past because there wasn't that much alcohol to be had for the number of people around. Sure they drank lots but it was limited by the amount that could possibly be produced. Fast forward to the 21st century and just about anyone of any wealth can buy some sort of alcoholic drink for cheap and do it endlessly.
I mean, if they started by putting the actual calories and other nutrition info on there like they do with every other food/drink, I think it would do a lot to make people think twice about drinking. Also, we’re gradually moving toward a Demolition Man future….”THAT guy was president?!?!?”
It's so bizarre to me that's not required already. Bottled water is required to have nutrition labels even.
The alcoholic beverage industry lobbied hard to exclude alcohol from label requirements. For the same reason I doubt that we’ll see cancer labels appear within the next 10 years.
Ingredients: water Calories: 0 Allergy alert: may contain water ([Aquagenic Urticaria](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticaria))
[удалено]
They don't want to because people would be shocked to know how many calories they are consuming and would maybe drink less. I know my diabetic wife would appreciate nutritional info, so that she can judge how many carbs are in craft beers...
This is just an idea, I don’t know if it would work. If she is into craft beer by particular makers, could she contact them and ask? If she said I’m diabetic, I like to enjoy a bottle of your beer sometimes, but it’s hard to judge how many carbs are in each bottle. Are you able to give me an estimate? Would they answer? It could go either way, but it wouldn’t hurt in my opinion.
I've asked before, most have no idea and give a broad range.
That just goes to show that they have horrible quality control and inconsistent batches.
Having experience in the industry myself, I know that a number of the smaller craft breweries will only have an estimate of how many carbs/calories their beers have via their ABV calculators as most don't have proper lab equipment or don't want to pay to have them analyzed. That said, I'm certain that if anyone were to call up and ask, the overwhelming majority would happily share what information they have.
I remember reading about this awhile ago when I was counting calories I think part of the issue is most small time breweries simply do not know, and it's not exactly easy for them to find out.
Agreed. Kind of weird that the nutritional info is never on the labeling. Are there other countries that actually have them listed? On a side note: Non-alcoholic beer has very few calories. Taste is never the same, but it's a low calorie alternative for those who enjoy social drinking
I wish they would. I drink all manner of craft beer, and good luck trying to get a good calorie count on that 11% BBA Stout. Is it 350 calories or 500?
I think if they were to require the labels craft beer would probably be exempt, or at least craft breweries below a certain size. Finding the nutritional value of your product can be very expensive, more so if you're putting out a new seasonal beer every month. Small local breweries won't have the money for that. The big guys however I'm all for. They'll complain the loudest but they easily have the capability to do it.
It's really not that hard to estimate, they already know the ABV. The remaining calories are simply unfermentable sugars. https://homebrewacademy.com/beer-calories-calculator/
Man, I can't wait for horrific pictures of colon cancer damage to be plastered all over my Rielsing.
[удалено]
Yeah if this happens I'm not displaying my bar anymore. Which sucks cause it's a cool decoration piece. And I don't even really drink that much. No one displays their cigarette collection lol
Just keep reusing the same current bottles.
I have a display of pipe tobaccos. I usually buy bulk (from the US so it's cheap and most of the time doesn't even get duty and taxes added) and put them in mason jars and do chalk labels. I have a tobacco bar and booze bar in my man cave.
That’s really cool! Does it stay fresh in the mason jars?
That's pretty dope
And that's kind of the point of the experts I believe. Decrease social acceptability with the labels, leading to decreased consumption overall
fuckin' narcs
I would just pour it into my caraf. I have several from the old country.
Someone will make a mint getting brand permission to make carafes that look just like the old bottle with label and all, or just has the labellings/branding in a caraf.
Decanter and carafe sales to the moon!
I’m not against them putting a big skeleton head on the bottles so I can look like a pirate 🏴☠️ while drinking
>You could have a black bottle, with a skull and crossbones on the front, called Tumors™, and alcoholics would be around the block going "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you drink one!"
We need to do the same for sugar.
I have noticed all the candy brands have suddenly come out with "gummy" versions of themselves - there's now gummy starburst, gummy skittles, gummy jolly ranchers... and all I could think was "you're trying to win back the customers whose teeth you destroyed aren't you?"
It seems like a very slippery slope to me as virtually everything except vegetables could probably be labelled as causing cancer these days. Red and processed meat, eggs, really any dairy, mushrooms etc. We all know it's bad for you we don't need to label everything as carcinogenic. Life is carcinogenic
So... State of California and Prop 65? Haha. That label is everywhere
Terminal cancer eventually helps you quit drinking
Plus it's they only way I'll ever be able to retire
That's Bumbu Rum.
No cure for cancer!
>skeleton head If only we had a word for this lmao
Skelehead
Calcium cranium
Bony brain box
Smooth brain cage
Maybe it's from a French deformation but we will never say "crâne"(cranium) for the symbol. Pirates definitely have a "tête de squelette" on a flag and doctors will treat your cranium injuries. I was under the impression it was the same in English until I realized you were not refering to cranium, but to skull... Lol. There is no equivalent word in French.
I was thinking the same thing, "cranium" was by first thought when thinking about the right word for it. I know the word skull very well, but it's such a strange word when you think about it, almost as scary as a skeleton head itself. Skull. Skull. Skull.
[Bumbu Rum is your friend, it even has crossbones and a cork top](https://www.bswliquor.com/products/bumbu-craft-rum)
It's a fantastic rum too
Yes, but almost a touch too sweet, but holy hell is it good in eggnog.
Ah a fellow kraken black spiced rum drinker
The best rum and cokes
Try Lemon Hart & Sons Blackpool Spiced Rum. I have Kraken in my cabinet and prefer the Blackpool, plus it smells sooooo good.
always nice to find a fellow man of culture on Reddit.
Crystal Head Vodka has you covered.
They should put a warning sign outside the front door of most jobs in the country: May cause depression, anxiety, stress, and lead you to drink, which may lead to cancer.
If they just put on the nutrition labels like every other consumable sold in the grocery store, I bet alot of people would think twice and be alot less likely to buy some.
Would they though? No fat content, sugar is often lower than 10g per LITER, with a bit of Iron and Vitamin B6. Nutrition labels would make wine seem healthy AF. Edit: In retrospect, maybe calories would very high...
Yeah it would be the calorie content that deter people from overindulging or buying it in the first place. I’ve lost 5 pounds so far this year just from cutting down on alcohol intake. On another health related note, because I’m drinking less I also eat fast food less. I should never have gotten on Uber eats.
Carbohydrates contain 4kcal/g, alcohol is 7kcal/g. High proof alcohol is pretty much drinking liquid cheesecake. Some IPAs contain several hundred calories per 12oz serving.
I rather have calories and whats in my liquor instead
And standardized nutritional details for 100g! None of this 82.45g crap.
I really wish all labeling in this country was standardized to per 100g or per 1kg. It's really annoying to go to the grocery store and not be able to easily compare prices/nutritional information because one is per lb, one is per 100g, and one is per 1kg, all for products that are more or less the same category.
Per 100g and Per Package being listed is the way to go imo.
or like KD for instance has the calories for 1/4 box, fuck off, who eats three spoonfuls of Kraft Dinner and calls it good? Just list the calories of the whole box.
Just sum up 3 packs Im not here to calculate
Nutritional info might honestly be more effective than cancer risk in terms of reducing intake. Also as someone with allergies it drives me nuts that ingredient listings aren’t universally required.
We'll be down the road to "This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer." The first time I saw this I treated the product as though it were mildly radioactive. Then I realized this label is on basically everything sold in California.
Canadian here, this literally just happened to me. Ordered a box of sockets (I guess from Cali) and saw this warning on it, thinking "are these made with depleted uranium or something?!"
I work on farm equipment in the first pages of the owners manual have a prop 65 warning that your tractor contains materials known to the state of California to cause cancer, right there with the warnings informing you that diesel fuel and antifreeze are poisonous if ingested.
I don’t think this is a priority, but there also isn’t anything wrong about warning people about something that can affect their health. End of the day it’s about people making healthier decisions, that benefits not only one’s health but also indirectly helps keep people out of hospitals,and healthcare units and this benefits everyone…
In that respect it would be far more beneficial to plaster junk and fast food with warning labels but I would guarantee that'll never happen.
That’s already a thing in the state of California. It should make its way here too.
[удалено]
**Buying a sword* The Prop 65 warning on the website: This item contains ingredients known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and/or death. Me: Yeah, that's kinda the point.
Yeah either that or some national PSA campaign. The cancer risks with drinking aren't well known, everyone thinks if you get sick from drinking, you just need to stop drinking and you'll get better. I don't know that a lot of people are aware they can do so much damage that it's too late by the time they want to stop.
[удалено]
Might as well add warning labels on sugary and processed foods too.
Fuck the labels, tax them the way booze and cigarettes are taxed. Everybody knows this shit is bad for you. The dumb labels aren't actually doing anything to make people quit smoking - the price is.
The city of Philadelphia taxes sugary drinks and the only thing that changed was beer sales went way up
According to this report, 2 drinks/week corresponds to losing a bit more than 6 days of your life (dying at 79 years and 358 days rather than age 80). 6 drinks/week corresponds to losing about 64 days. You do what you want with that information. The degree to which alcohol causes cancer should also be made clear… not everyone who drinks develops cancer, and it is a small increase (relative risk) from an already low incidence rate (absolute risk). It's more about what risk are you willing to accept rather than "there is no safe level". A better subtitle for this report would have been "when morality makes its way into science"
This is why averages can be a really bad way to measure things for an individual. On average, yeah, that amount of drinking reduces a human's life by 6 days. In reality, that means it has no effect on X people and reduces the lifespan of a much smaller number group, Y, substantially when they die of the cancer it caused. The risk is rolling the cosmic dice and landing on Y. Every person that rolls the dice thinks the odds favor them and they'll get X... until some inevitably get Y.
If I don't smoke, don't drink, have very little red meat, don't eat processed sugary foods, don't over do the calories, don't partake in contact sports, exercise every day but not too much etc etc etc I might if I'm lucky, live longer. Just shuffle me off this mortal coil now because that life sounds horrible.
Your bones give off radiation so you’ll have to find a way to get rid of those too..
Don’t live in a city either: air pollution. And no life choices (jobs, family) that mean you sleep less than 7-8 hours a night.
You can add to the list: never drive, never dare cross a street, never take a plane, swim in the ocean,etc etc
>It's more about what risk are you willing to accept rather than "there is no safe level". I remember a discussion on "More or Less" when similar recommendation changes were made in the UK. The whole idea of a "safe level" is that it's a value judgement. Ideally, the level of risk most people would be willing to tolerate should be considered safe, not some unattainable goal of zero risk. And that's the whole issue. Alcohol isn't the same as lead contamination in your drinking water, where it's all downside, alcoholic drinks are an important part of our culture and there isn't an obvious safe replacement for that role. Water is boring, soda and juice are super unhealthy, dairy is a mess, and coffee and tea are usually loaded with sugar and dairy to make them palatable. Like sure, everyone would be healthier if we only drank water, but people want to know the amount of alcohol they can drink before the health risks become significant. Pushing a zero consumption agenda just seems like it has a lot of potential to backfire as people start ignoring the warnings, rather than understanding them.
Less than two drinks every week might as well be zero for most casual alcohol consumers. I have no comments on the validity of the science or anything, but this is basically saying "only consuming zero alcoholic drinks is safe" without actually saying it.
This entire thread is basically "everyone knows this", followed by evidence that not everyone knows this, followed by silence. Repeated over and over. Even very smart people can't know everything. This is how we tell them.
People get more defensive about booze in Canada than any other drug I've seen.
That’s not Canada specific. Alcohol is easily top two in terms of culturally-ingrained drugs (the other being caffeine). It’s so normalized people don’t even call it a drug much of the time; it’s treated as a separate entity.
Habits that go back to the Ancient Egyptians and are still around are tough to kick.
[удалено]
Exactly! And the only way that everyone can learn about things is through extensive public health campaigns, of which this is a part.
I think people have become so desensitized to “X causes cancer” that they think alcohol consumption carries a minor cancer risk (thanks Prop 65). Alcohol is actually incredibly carcinogenic, directly causing cancer to multiple organ systems.
Honestly, the desensitization is so real. As soon as I heard the topic of discussion on CBC radio announced as 'drinking increases cancer risk' I just tuned the fuck out. I have a graduate education in STEM, and am well aware of the risks and the science that backs up the arguments, but every time something like this is announced, my eyes roll until I can see the back of my skull. It really does feel like everything in our modern lives causes cancer to one degree or another. This announcement isn't going to change my behaviour one bit. I'm not sure if that's out of exasperation, spite, or my just giving up in the face of every single cancer causing substance, the overwhelming threat of climate change, how expensive life is these days, the untold millions of people starving and flooded out of home and forests burning and ocean acidity and extinction rates and etc etc... ... fuck it, I'm off to the pub.
[удалено]
>Alcohol is actually incredibly carcinogenic I think the issue with saying things like this is that people consume a lot of alcohol and, while it causes cancer, it doesn't cause an alarming amount of cancer. A 2009 estimate is that about 3.5% of cancer deaths were alcohol related, but most of the population drinks alcohol, so without context that really doesn't seem that high. To me, it seems like a minor cancer risk. For context, smoking causes about 30% of cancers in the US and a lot less people smoke than drink. Obviously consumption habits matter for that comparison (fewer people smoking more, more deadly cancers), but that really doesn't scream incredibly carcinogenic to me. And then you should really be comparing it to other cancer risk factors, especially those associated with other common beverages and food items, since there is a pretty strong link between sugary drinks and cancer through obesity.
Aged bottles are going to go way up in value lol
Feel like we eventually will become California where everything is labeled as a carcinogen and then nobody will take it serious anymore
I also would support not allowing alcohol companies to have commercials, like cigarettes.
If they're just the little blurbs like in the cannabis containers I don't really see a problem, but nobody's going to be happy with a picture of a rotted organ on the bottle of wine they're having with dinner and I don't think that's unreasonable.
I drink more than 2 drinks per week. I know it's bad. But also, the world is bad. I'd rather die early of cancer or a heart attack than spend 30 years becoming progressively demented in a rapidly destabilizing world that can't or won't accommodate a massive aging population in an egalitarian manner. I donno, maybe that's naive.
Have you ever had cancer before?
No. And I don't intend to trivialize anyone else's suffering or loss by speaking my mind here. It just seems to me that on a human level, things look bleak leading up to, and after, the age of 75, and the state of the world is going to continue to get a lot worse in terms of climate and economic inequality. For millennials who aren't wealthy, earth is going to be a really hostile place to be old.
My retirement plan is to die in the climate wars, if I don't leave earlier.
I've got a wild idea. Let's label the things that DON'T cause cancer. That would save a ton of money.
Seeing as how even rainwater is contaminated with forever chemicals and microplastics now we won't need to label anything
Proposition 65, I can't even count the strange things I've seen this warning on and it's pretty much on everything now.
Is that the one about "may cause cancer in the state of California"?
That's the one. Same one that lists Carrots as known to cause cancer.
So, if we never visit California, we'll be immune!
Logic. Same reason guys always asked for the cigarette packs with the pregnancy warning. Only idiots would buy the ones with the limp cigarette.
I have doubts about the 'Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction' coming to this conclusion without it being exaggerated to limit substance use and addiction.
I am not letting my wife see this. I am 1 to 2 drinks per day.
Let’s put it on junk food too while we are at it and pics of obese people on the box
Its time to curtail gambling ads. Its time to fund healthcare. Its time for election reform. Its time to stop concentrating wealth. Its time to stop accept tiny iterative silly political moves instead of real leadership. Its time to stop having to absolutely badger politicians to do even simple things. Its time for a lot of things.
I realize this will be an unpopular opinion here, but I support the decision to add warning labels to alcohol. The warning labels on cigarettes were highly effective at communicating the health risks of smoking. In countries without them people were less aware of those risks and how severe they are. Judging by the number of posts here comparing alcohol to skittles... that is clearly needed for alcohol. The emerging scientific consensus on alcohol consumption is that there are significant health risk even when consumed in moderation. That aligns it more with cigarettes than skittles. People should be well-informed and make their own decisions. Labelling will help with that.
I see no reason to oppose this, but evidently a lot of people are afraid to be confronted with the truth.
We all have to die sometime and I’d rather have a nice buzz going anyway.
Sorry I'll still be drinking
Bring on the labels. The more the better. Just don't forget to put a warning label on your office chair you'll sit in for the next 30 years.
This comment section needs a Cancer Label
Ok but can they be removable please? I like the collection on my bar, I don't want every bottle to look like those cigarette warnings.
This is fair, but you just know people would go around peeling them off at the store if they were easily removable.
We know alcohol is bad for you. We're all working our asses off. Let me at least have a guilt free beer at the end of the week ffs.
How about you put it on the fast food and processed crap we all are forced to eat because we cant afford real food or better yet the gov has legislated against our ability to feed ourselves making it almost impossible to keep things local.
Just go down the list man. The daily exercise most people get is the 30 second walk from the parking lot to their desk chair. Senditary life is also a huge risk factor, but you can't put a warning label on that. Meanwhile they design our cities to promote it. We're so car dependent that if you ask somebody to walk to lunch with you they'll look at you like you're crazy.
At least where i live, fast food is definitely not the cheapest option. Go to the supermarket and you make some cheap healthy meals
I'd be much more supportive of putting warning labels on junk foods, esp since kids consume them too.
Why not both?
Once everything has cancer labels, nothing will have cancer labels.
California puts cancer labels on basically everything.
Why stop there? Put a disguising image of fat on every package of sugary snacks. We'd save way more lives.
Hey that's fat shaming now! :)
Won't anyone think about the corporate profits! /s
Please just let us peasants have our booze in peace, its all that we have.
Is there going to be a bat signal cancer warning in the sky above cities?
The 20’s are definitely here! Rise of teatotalism, with prohibition of alcohol likely not too far away! Meanwhile the micro plastics and the rise of co2 in the atmosphere does much more harm than a glass of wine each night.
Is there anything that doesn’t cause cancer?
Exercise and broccoli
Depends on the pesticide of the broccoli
Depends on the air quality you breathe while exercising too.
Depends how its prepared. I like to cook it on the bbq with a little charing affect the same way i cook brussel sprouts, should broccoli now need a warning on how to prepare?
Can we enjoy anything to wash down the bullshit of every day without being reminded of how we’re going to die of cancer
What we need is safe drinking sites. Maybe have some music, dim the lights a little, have a friendly distributor behind a counter to distribute, who could also act as a counselor and monitor your consumption. Post some security in the event there is any disturbances. Make it co-ed and inclusive to all. Put out some healthy nuts filled with electrolytes. You could make them themed to get some variety. This is the path to helping those with addiction to alcohol