Alcohol Consumption and Cancer

....

I think it is rather silly to equate a warning label with "tyranny" but we live in weird times.
I presume you are referring to my quote of C.S. Lewis. I assure you that I have no objection to warning labels. What I do object to are the nattering nannies of negativity who presume to know what is best for me and feel that they have some license to compel me to do it for my own good. They should mind their own business.
 
Here's what I don't understand:
Just about everybody knows that alcohol use can have serious implications. Liver problems, social problems, shortened lifespans, legal problems, deadly accidents to name just a few.

So suddenly just now, we need to put a label warning you about.......cancer? What, the other side effects weren't all that bad that we didn't need to be warned?
This is good point. If they put a warning label about all of the dangerous things alcohol can lead to, it would make sense to me. At least then one would go into it being informed. I do not think this is a "nanny" thing, as you still can choose to consume or not.

It is funny though, that current society seems more concerned about banning soft drinks over a particular size than warning about alcohol. It was "interesting" that, during the pandemic, liquor stores were deemed "essential" over much less potentially harmful (and even harmless) things... just sayin'.
 
I have no issue with a warning label being placed on alcohol. Actually, I think it is a good idea for people to be aware and informed about the health risks of products they use.

California "requires businesses to warn consumers about products that contain chemicals that may cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm." I learned this when a friend commented on snacks I gave him (bought at Costco). He said one of the snacks had a "cancer warning." Since then, I have checked for the warning levels before buying processed food products. Over time, I see Costco carrying fewer products with the warning level. I think the companies found substitutes for the cancer-causing chemicals.
 
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
I agree with this philosophy. However, I think people should be apprised of risks that they might not otherwise be aware of. Don't run my life but let me know the risks as they become known. I'll make the decision from there. YMMV
 
In the big picture, isn't it amazing that, as a species, we've made it through the millenia without warning labels, helmets, seat belts, regulations, antibacterial wipes, product bans, child seats and such? How on earth did we get this far? Why didn't they ban fire the first time someone's hut burnt down? How did we survive the filth of the Middle Ages?

As kids growing up, we did things that today, they'd take us away from our parents! Yet almost 73 years later, here I am and looking at 20 more. I just wish they'd leave me alone. (harumph!)
 
Last edited:
So, not too long ago, there were numerous articles espousing the "benefits" of 1-2 glasses of wine (red, I think), for heart health. Not sure who paid for that research. But then who paid for the "causes cancer" research?

Statistics and research are funny things...

As I mentioned earlier, and someone else also pointed out, the numbers are pretty small and probably a statistician could make them swing either way. There are FAR more other consequences to drinking that everyone already knows about, but make their own decisions regarding their personal situation or history.

Are their warnings of the health hazard impact to "state sponsored" drug paraphernalia distributed for those addicted?

I think time and effort could be better spent. In problem solving terms, I think entities could utilize the Pareto Principle and focus on the biggest issues to make huge improvements. It certainly worked for me in my career and was a hallmark of all of my successes. I think it led to my burnout as I was utilized and "rewarded" for this improvement reputation by being presented the "opportunity" on a continual basis! ;)

Flieger
 
^^^ It is unfortunate that nutrition science doesn’t have a better track record.

Then: “Wine has benefits!”
Now: This report.

Then: “Avoid fat!” So we get sugar-filled products instead.
Now: “Fat is fine. Avoid sugar!” Then we get studies on how artificial sweeteners are bad for us.

So contradictory, self-appointed experts eagerly fill the gap, confusing everyone further about consuming:
Meat
Carbs
Fruit juice
Wheat
Corn
Rice
Seed oils
Dairy
Peanuts
Soy
Protein amounts and sources
Vitamins of all sorts
Antioxidants
Cholesterol
Inflammation
And at the moment, alcohol…

One starts to tune the “experts” out.
 
In the big picture, isn't it amazing that, as a species, we've made it through the millenia without warning labels, helmets, seat belts, regulations, antibacterial wipes, product bans, child seats and such? How on earth did we get this far? Why didn't they ban fire the first time someone's hut burnt down? How did we survive the filth of the Middle Ages?

As kids growing up, we did things that today, they'd take us away from our parents! Yet almost 73 years later, here I am and looking at 20 more. I just wish they'd leave me alone. (harumph!)
This is survivor's bias. Those who did not survive aren't currently here to congratulate themselves on surviving.

Billions of people have died in the history of humankind, some of whom would have survived if "helmets, seat belts, regulations, antibacterial wipes, product bans, child seats, etc" had been invented in their time. The truth is that it was pure luck that our ancestors made it through all those perils to produce us!
 
meat gonna kill me. sunshine gonna kill me. dairy fat gonna kill me. booze gonna kill me. microplastics gonna kill me. air pollution gonna kill me. falling gonna kill me. staying stationary so I dont fall gonna kill me. seeing a theme here? living is 100pct gonna be fatal.
 
This is survivor's bias. Those who did not survive aren't currently here to congratulate themselves on surviving.

Billions of people have died in the history of humankind, some of whom would have survived if "helmets, seat belts, regulations, antibacterial wipes, product bans, child seats, etc" had been invented in their time. The truth is that it was pure luck that our ancestors made it through all those perils to produce us!
I had a professor tell me something 50 years ago that still sticks with me.
He maintained that we are weakening the species to the point that humans won't be around in 400 years because we allow the weak to survive long enough to pass along their genes.

Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't be here myself were it not for antibiotics and I'm all for it at the ground level, but I always thought about that. All of us are the result of our ancients passing through some very tight "filters" and as a species are better and stronger for it. Those of us of European heritage still have a "note" in our genes from those who survived the plague.
 
Last edited:

Alcohol warnings unsettle industry

By Andrew Barker, Editor at LinkedIn News

Dry January has gotten off to a bracing start, with Surgeon General Vivek Murthy proposing adding cancer warning labels to alcoholic beverages. His comments haven't gone down smoothly with beer, wine and liquor sellers, according to USA Today. Although it would take an act of Congress to add compulsory new language to booze bottles, beer giants Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors saw their share prices dip after Murthy's comments, and some independent spirits retailers worry that the discussion will further depress business. Alcohol sales broadly declined for many manufacturers last year after a pandemic-era boom.
 
I didn't read all of the comments. But from what I can glean from the study it appears there is an equal amount of "correlation" vs "causation." Maybe I missed something that contradicts that. As a very occasional drinker, 2 drinks daily (or even one) seems excessive to me; such a drinker may have other unhealthy habits contributing to cancer. I'm not convinced about this particular study's conclusions.
 

Alcohol warnings unsettle industry​

By Andrew Barker, Editor at LinkedIn News
. Although it would take an act of Congress to add compulsory new language to booze bottles, beer giants Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors saw their share prices dip after Murthy's comments, and some independent spirits retailers worry that the discussion will further depress business.
Sounds like a "buy" opportunity.
 
Common sense would say this assertion is "probably" correct, but I don't trust much of anything, coming out of the BELTWAY at any level these days. So is it really as bad as they are saying? I know, I know, but it was "generalized".
 
Last edited:
^^^ It is unfortunate that nutrition science doesn’t have a better track record.

Then: “Wine has benefits!”
Now: This report.

Then: “Avoid fat!” So we get sugar-filled products instead.
Now: “Fat is fine. Avoid sugar!” Then we get studies on how artificial sweeteners are bad for us.

So contradictory, self-appointed experts eagerly fill the gap, confusing everyone further about consuming:
Meat
Carbs
Fruit juice
Wheat
Corn
Rice
Seed oils
Dairy
Peanuts
Soy
Protein amounts and sources
Vitamins of all sorts
Antioxidants
Cholesterol
Inflammation
And at the moment, alcohol…

One starts to tune the “experts” out.
The Movie "Sleeper" was way ahead of its time :) :

 
This is survivor's bias. Those who did not survive aren't currently here to congratulate themselves on surviving.

Billions of people have died in the history of humankind, some of whom would have survived if "helmets, seat belts, regulations, antibacterial wipes, product bans, child seats, etc" had been invented in their time. The truth is that it was pure luck that our ancestors made it through all those perils to produce us!
Well put...I am one who is very thankful we humans have tried to learn from the past and make our day to day lives safer. While not always perfect cause after all we are humans it can save lives. Regulations probably saved my life that day last year when a human coming in the opposite direction made an error and turned left in front of me. Thank goodness for seatbelt laws, airbags and higher crash standards. Had I been in a 70s clucker who knows.

IMG20231201154928.jpg

IMG20231201142924.jpg

As far as labels and latest recommendations for health concerns yes it can feel like a dog chasing it's own tail. Do what you feel is best for you. I think moderation is a good idea. But yeah we should still be researching as science is always changing.
We can all agree Cancer sucks. Hopefully one day we will be able to defeat all types.
Stay safe and buckle up...
 
I'll be happy as we go away from making drinking a national sport and tieing drinking alcohol to virtually every sport, activity, event, gathering.

We had a Confirmation Banquet for our 3rd kid. There was an open bar and the pastor had several dark/strong beers. I couldn't stop crying inside and laughing at the same time. A parody of a parody.

I tell people I retired from alcohol. Like I retired from softball, bowling, basketball, etc.
 
IMO, the press coverage of the dangers of alcohol are a classic reason why we should never trust the media for health information. My guess is that the scare part of this news will be de-fanged within a month.

I write this as somebody who has cut back his already limited alcohol consumption by a lot. Not because I am afraid that a glass of wine daily with dinner will give me cancer, but because my aging body does somewhat better in the test results I get during my yearly wellness visit. And, I don’t really miss alcohol.
 
IMO, the press coverage of the dangers of alcohol are a classic reason why we should never trust the media for health information. My guess is that the scare part of this news will be de-fanged within a month.
I don't think the link to cancer is a new finding, or the result of one study. I've been hearing about it for several years now.
There actually ARE warning labels on alcohol already: "Government warning: (1)according to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risks of birth defects (2)consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery and may cause health problems"
The current warning labels were put on alcoholic beverages in 1989.
 
Just got back from the funeral of a cousin who had a fatal heart attack at 75, drafted right after HS minor leagues. Regular Joe, umpired and refereed basketball for 30 years, social drinker. Another cousin from another sibling, I found out that he had his 6th operation to remove another tumor yesterday. This time it was a brain tumor, a second time. At 69, he has had 22 cancer diagnosis' over the past 25 years, originally pancreatic. I think that he has had more chemo than I had had wine. Like me, he never smoked, but unlike me, he never drank alcohol. we each shared a grandfather that died at 76 (he smoked), and a grandmother who died at 94.

Anecdotal evidence of nothing really, even warning labels. After this double strike of bad news, I'm trying to figure out my own mortality, and letting off some steam.....
 
In the big picture, isn't it amazing that, as a species, we've made it through the millenia without warning labels, helmets, seat belts, regulations, antibacterial wipes, product bans, child seats and such? How on earth did we get this far? Why didn't they ban fire the first time someone's hut burnt down? How did we survive the filth of the Middle Ages?

As kids growing up, we did things that today, they'd take us away from our parents! Yet almost 73 years later, here I am and looking at 20 more. I just wish they'd leave me alone. (harumph!)
Realistically, humans only need to live to about 40+ on average to reproduce a viable replacement generation. In fact, around 40+ used to be pretty much average age at death. It's been in the past 100 years that we've made such strides in age at death.

So living as long as we typically do now gives us a better chance of getting all kinds of diseases we never used to live long enough to get.

Dose over time is the real issue with most carcinogens, so older generations died out before their alcohol usage (over time) could cause such risks that we can now (sorta) quantify (or, more accurately, correlate.)

IOW good news - bad news!:ermm:
 
If it's good science, then a label is appropriate. But if the agency has been taken over by the nannies and there's not certain causality proven, then a label is not appropriate.

In the case of smoking and cancer, the epidemiologic signal is so large, there can be no other explanation except for a casual relationship. But when the signal is smaller, then confounders muddy the waters.

I don't see the science being strong enough to warrant a label, but I don't care which way the decision goes. Yet another rather meaningless topic to keep us arguing while important topics get no focus.
 
IDK I know 2 people who died of colon cancer in their 50s. Neither drank, smoked, or were overweight. . . not sure it is as controllable as people like to think.
I spoke to a leading oncologist at Mayo Clinic some years ago at a research conference - his opinion is that maybe 30-40% of cancer cases are truly avoidable. And the bulk of those preventable cancers is comprised of things like lung and skin cancer - i.e. don't smoke or inhale asbestos and use sunscreen. Those are pretty much the only "smoking gun" connections we have.

As @sengsational mentioned above, there are tons of hypothesized risk factors like processed meats, alcohol, and obesity, but the signal is too weak and there are way too many confounding factors to definitively conclude a edit: casual causal relationship. For example, most obese people eat a lot of processed meats and exercise very little, so how do you separate those effects?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom