Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen(thecounter.org)
thecounter.org
Less than half of Americans know that alcohol is a carcinogen
https://thecounter.org/public-health-groups-alcohol-label-warnings-carcinogen-cancer-link-awareness-prop-65/
187 comments
I was curious, so I googled:
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition...
> By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer
> the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime
That feels very strict.
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/general-info/proposition...
> By law, a warning must be given for listed chemicals unless exposure is low enough to pose no significant risk of cancer
> the "no significant risk level” is defined as the level of exposure that would result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year lifetime
That feels very strict.
Yes, prop 65 is absurd. Pro 65 among other things requires labels on:
* Parking garages
* French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one)
* Toast
* Seaweed
* Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal...
* Sand
You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not require to be labelled as cancer causing.
* Parking garages
* French fries - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-acrylamide-warni... (This sign is real; the McDonald's by my house has one)
* Toast
* Seaweed
* Coffee has been a battleground: https://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/2019/06/what-now-cal...
* Sand
You would be hard pressed to find something that prop 65 does not require to be labelled as cancer causing.
The most comical one of these I know of is Disneyland’s, which I can only assume to be warning about cancerous IP law ;)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyla...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Disneyla...
So... are we suppose to consume... Disneyland? Like... with a knife and fork?
It's about exposure in general, not just food. The Disneyland sign is likely because they use gasoline engines in various places - same reason as parking garages. Might also be from sand in kid play areas or anything involving dust.
Every apartment building I've lived at in recent memory has one of these signs at the entrance.
> Yes, prop 65 is absurd.
...known to the state of Cancer to cause California...
...known to the state of Cancer to cause California...
Oh hi there AvE.
Prop 65 is a good example why citizens shouldn’t make laws. Lack of debate or understanding the consequences.
Ooooh so that is the reason of all the crazy Cancer warnings that I see in California when I go. I remember at some point while boarding an airplane in California that I saw some cancer sign in the worm-aisle (what's the name in English?) that you pass while boarding
fries - completely ok: a lot of people get in contact with them, but putting sign on them while not putting warning over any other harmfully (over)fried products seem at least illogical(yea, creating regulations doesnt work in us, or at least there's no efficient mechanism, but still)
sand - widespread construction material, i wonder why they only put label regarding cancer instead of placing usage restriction over maximum allowed radiation flux produced from square meter area of material(some decorative stones would not fit into safe range but are ok for a lifetime risk of any person)
sand - widespread construction material, i wonder why they only put label regarding cancer instead of placing usage restriction over maximum allowed radiation flux produced from square meter area of material(some decorative stones would not fit into safe range but are ok for a lifetime risk of any person)
this is wild.
Using smartphone must be falling into this category as well, no? It would be fun to see those pretty iPhone boxes with cigarette like label on it.
Also how do they test this because trial lasting 70 years with 2x 100,000 people would not be enough to conclude in most cases.
Also how do they test this because trial lasting 70 years with 2x 100,000 people would not be enough to conclude in most cases.
I think that was the idea. If the warnings were effective, then business processes are affected. If consumers can be trained to ignore them, then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.
> then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.
You've just described California politics perfectly.
You've just described California politics perfectly.
This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed about Californians is that there is a sense that government inaction is worse than government action. In other words, if there is some problem (real or perceived), the state can't simply do nothing about it. And, the politicians of California are enthusiastic about creating new bureaucracy to enforce the newly minted laws. Which they usually pay for by creating some specific tax/fee on some specific transaction or type of product, which then creates more complexity and bureaucracy.
That's the legacy of Reganomics and the collapse of the New Deal coalition. Sucks, but we'll do better soon hopefully.
s/California politics/politics/g
I think over time it helps to "dilute the brand" of government institutions, so to speak, meaning people lose faith in the effectiveness and necessity of the policies being foisted on them.
“The state” has nothing to do with it. This was voted into law by regular voters. Think of it every time someone assumes the common citizen should be involved in writing laws.
There's no penalty for putting the label on a product that has none of the substances in it. But the penalty for not putting the label on something that does end up having a carcinogen in it is very high. So it's really in the best interest of the manufacturer to just put the label on it anyway.
This is precisely the situation.
I'll take a stab at the research if you link the bowl? I'm curious now. I appreciate California's proactive stance, and I guess I fall into the minority because I do pay attention to those labels.
I think the labels are over the top. If you make people put big cancer labels on everything which causes cancer and ignore the relative risks of one versus the other, it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue.
Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.
Even a simple color guide would be a huge help.
It should be possible to quantify the increased risk from exposure, use that to weigh disability adjusted life years, and bake a color code from that.
French fries known to cause cancer, but daily consumption would impact by <1 DALY on average -> a far less aggressive label than goes on a bottle of benzene.
French fries known to cause cancer, but daily consumption would impact by <1 DALY on average -> a far less aggressive label than goes on a bottle of benzene.
[deleted]
> it is impossible to make a rational choice about the issue.
I think this is over-reaching. I agree there should be a better system, but I am perfectly willing to do the work and research the warning. Thus, I am able to make a rational decision based on the best information I can find. As with all science, what is rational today may change as new information becomes available. THat is the price we pay to stay informed, versus ignorance.
I think this is over-reaching. I agree there should be a better system, but I am perfectly willing to do the work and research the warning. Thus, I am able to make a rational decision based on the best information I can find. As with all science, what is rational today may change as new information becomes available. THat is the price we pay to stay informed, versus ignorance.
The current state of making everything share the same warning directly benefits the companies who sell the most dangerous chemicals.
This is literally the exact opposite outcome of what the measure is supposed to have.
This is literally the exact opposite outcome of what the measure is supposed to have.
Not following. Are you're saying this is "Gish Gallop" tactic [1]: flood your opponent with so much BS they can't possibly respond?
If so, I see what you are saying: the same level warning for thalidomide vs. something less deadly is a problem. If everything is bad, the bad guys sneak by?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
If so, I see what you are saying: the same level warning for thalidomide vs. something less deadly is a problem. If everything is bad, the bad guys sneak by?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Process engineers know this as "alarm fatigue":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue
And it's a real thing. It kills people in hospitals because nurses tune out the constant beeps of machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue
And it's a real thing. It kills people in hospitals because nurses tune out the constant beeps of machines.
I can verify. In the ED I work at, we recently "upgraded" our monitors for vitals in every room. The new system has insanely ill-thought-out defaults that cannot be changed - the settings revert with every new patient. A patient moving a little and thus creating artifact in his/her cardiac rhythm frequently triggers a "v-tach" alarm. It sometimes signals the v-tach alarm even if the patient is in normal sinus rhythm with a slightly widened QRS. If a patient removes the pulse ox for just enough time for the machine to alarm, but then puts it back on, the machine will continue WAILING until somebody can shut it off. Unfortunately, if that patient happens to be a COVID-suspected or positive patient, we do not just walk in the room and fix the issue. The respiratory rate measurement takes its measurement from the cardiac rhythm signal. It works sometimes, but I never have found it to be reliable or accurate. However, the machines default to sounding the exact same loud alarm if it thinks somebody is apneic (nevermind an SPO2 of 100% with a good waveform). Since there are so many rooms being monitored at the staff station all at once, the exact same alarm goes off almost every minute for one thing or another.
Ok, here is the point of my agreement with parent - the usual alarm tone went off on a patient with an all-too-familiar "V-Tach" message. I hit the button to silence the stupid thing and found a button to "view event". I hit that button (feeling very annoyed again) just for the sake of never having seen that function yet (like I said, the system is new). What do you know... the patient was in a run of v-tach for several seconds. Pretty useful diagnostic information (and if they never converted, pretty damn important to know to keep them alive).
Yep, that's what I thought you/they meant. I'm glad you admitted it, because it is clearly a matter of opinion, and it seems the only people bothered by this have similar political affiliations (if their post history is any indicator).
I think you are commingling "Think it should be fixed" with "Think it should be trashed entirely". I like the idea of warning labels. I don't like that they are currently not very good at communicating what is actually dangerous. That doesn't mean I want to get rid of them, it means I want them improved.
Mate, going by politics alone I'd wager "those people" would write my opinions off – I'd get called a filthy statist at best, and if they only knew what I really believed... ;)
But I think you've got this wrong. I absolutely want to know what my exposure is to carcinogens, but in the absence of context it isn't helpful. Very few people are equipped to understand and evaluate the real risks they face – and I count myself in this bucket. That's why regulations and governments are a good thing. That's why I want meaningful warning labels that indicate what risks I face over time, not just "there's a carcinogen here".
But I think you've got this wrong. I absolutely want to know what my exposure is to carcinogens, but in the absence of context it isn't helpful. Very few people are equipped to understand and evaluate the real risks they face – and I count myself in this bucket. That's why regulations and governments are a good thing. That's why I want meaningful warning labels that indicate what risks I face over time, not just "there's a carcinogen here".
I agree, and I'd rather know than not know. Especially with things like off-gassing formaldehyde in furniture. It's easy to look around and find something without formaldehyde in it.
So I'm curious what was in the bowl. Is it possible that it had a coating of some sort? The CA website doesn't list kitchen products as a category...
https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/
So I'm curious what was in the bowl. Is it possible that it had a coating of some sort? The CA website doesn't list kitchen products as a category...
https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/
Prop 65 cancer labeling did actually reduce the incidence of many of the more potent carcinogens in products when it was first enacted. So in that sense it was very successful.
But because of the wording of the measure (no penalty for falsely labeling something as having carcinogens when it doesn't), and how many things can be considered carcinogens (caffeine is just one example), the effectiveness of the label was diluted dramatically in people's minds.
But because of the wording of the measure (no penalty for falsely labeling something as having carcinogens when it doesn't), and how many things can be considered carcinogens (caffeine is just one example), the effectiveness of the label was diluted dramatically in people's minds.
Do you take action based on the labels? I've thought about it, but half the things I own have them, and in some cases it's illegal to make non-california-cancerous alternatives (fire-retardant furniture).
Those who decide what gets a label have no downside to adding the wrong thing, and no upside to incorrectly leaving the label off something. As such if there is even the slightest possibility they mandate the label. Few bother to fight them, so everything has the label.
Roundup is the only case I know of that was successful: it has been well studied and found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies. So the few exceptions are not enough that they can be forced to but a label on - but it is still listed by California, it just doesn't have a label. Based on this success a few others are trying to get their label removed, but I'm not aware of other success.
Roundup is the only case I know of that was successful: it has been well studied and found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies. So the few exceptions are not enough that they can be forced to but a label on - but it is still listed by California, it just doesn't have a label. Based on this success a few others are trying to get their label removed, but I'm not aware of other success.
> found not cancerous in the vast majority of studies
I just spent 30 minutes googling and found the opposite, with CDC, WHO, EPA and EU all in disagreement with one another! Forbes, NYT, and several other sites indicate increases in leukemia, other new evidence, and even a $10B settlement by Bayer (Monsanto's owner) that will keep evidence sealed.
IMO, this is clearly not settled.
So I choose to make a rational decision to NOT to spray RoundUp on my lawn, and to try, to the best of my ability, to avoid purchasing products exposed to it. Hence, I would like a warning label. But if cannot avoid it due to opaque laws, then bummer.
I just spent 30 minutes googling and found the opposite, with CDC, WHO, EPA and EU all in disagreement with one another! Forbes, NYT, and several other sites indicate increases in leukemia, other new evidence, and even a $10B settlement by Bayer (Monsanto's owner) that will keep evidence sealed.
IMO, this is clearly not settled.
So I choose to make a rational decision to NOT to spray RoundUp on my lawn, and to try, to the best of my ability, to avoid purchasing products exposed to it. Hence, I would like a warning label. But if cannot avoid it due to opaque laws, then bummer.
The burden of proof in a court case doesn't require any science. Roundup is used in large quantities by farmers, but the rates of cancer are different only for reasons that are already explained by known causes. in expected amounts.
To the best of my ability. I like being informed as much as possible. But sometimes, yes, it _IS_ exhausting. But that is part of the price we pay to live in a world/country that basically wants to poison us for profit.
I bought it in person at a Korean grocery. It doesn't have any manufacturer label.
Oh, that explains it. I'd steer clear of that. I have two very large Asian grocery stores in my city and there ain't no way I'm going to eat premade frozen bao, gyoza, or noodles manufactured at some sketchball factory in Shenzhen!
<not-helpful-comment>
The ink on the label might cause cancer. Shouldn't the cancer label have a label on it?
</not-helpful-comment>
The ink on the label might cause cancer. Shouldn't the cancer label have a label on it?
</not-helpful-comment>
This would mean that the companies that put the label on their otherwise inocuous products "just in case" are in fact correct. A self fulfilling prophecy.
Source for all the folks asking specifically about risks: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
> an estimated 3.5% of cancer deaths in the United States (about 19,500 deaths) were alcohol related
> Moderate drinkers have 1.8-fold higher risks of oral cavity (excluding the lips) and pharynx (throat) cancers and 1.4-fold higher risks of larynx (voice box) cancers than non-drinkers, and heavy drinkers have 5-fold higher risks of oral cavity and pharynx cancers and 2.6-fold higher risks of larynx cancers
> esophageal cancer ... range from 1.3-fold higher for light drinking to nearly 5-fold higher for heavy drinking
> Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with approximately 2-fold increased risks of two types of liver cancer
> light drinkers have a slightly increased (1.04-fold higher) risk of breast cancer, compared with nondrinkers. The risk increase is greater in moderate drinkers (1.23-fold higher) and heavy drinkers (1.6-fold higher)
> Moderate to heavy alcohol consumption is associated with 1.2- to 1.5-fold increased risks of cancers of the colon and rectum
> an estimated 3.5% of cancer deaths in the United States (about 19,500 deaths) were alcohol related
> Moderate drinkers have 1.8-fold higher risks of oral cavity (excluding the lips) and pharynx (throat) cancers and 1.4-fold higher risks of larynx (voice box) cancers than non-drinkers, and heavy drinkers have 5-fold higher risks of oral cavity and pharynx cancers and 2.6-fold higher risks of larynx cancers
> esophageal cancer ... range from 1.3-fold higher for light drinking to nearly 5-fold higher for heavy drinking
> Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with approximately 2-fold increased risks of two types of liver cancer
> light drinkers have a slightly increased (1.04-fold higher) risk of breast cancer, compared with nondrinkers. The risk increase is greater in moderate drinkers (1.23-fold higher) and heavy drinkers (1.6-fold higher)
> Moderate to heavy alcohol consumption is associated with 1.2- to 1.5-fold increased risks of cancers of the colon and rectum
The crucial data that's missing from those figures (although they're probably buried in the references somewhere) is what the initial risk of cancer is.
If the risk of cancer of the larynx in non-drinkers is 0.0001%, then a 1.4-fold increase means that a moderate drinker has a risk of 0.00014%, an absolute increase of 0.00004%. Instead if it's 20%, then a 1.4-fold increase is 28%, an absolute increase of 8%.
You could potentially extrapolate back from the 3.5% of cancer deaths being "alcohol related", but that gives no context around the related risks of light / moderate / heavy drinking.
If the risk of cancer of the larynx in non-drinkers is 0.0001%, then a 1.4-fold increase means that a moderate drinker has a risk of 0.00014%, an absolute increase of 0.00004%. Instead if it's 20%, then a 1.4-fold increase is 28%, an absolute increase of 8%.
You could potentially extrapolate back from the 3.5% of cancer deaths being "alcohol related", but that gives no context around the related risks of light / moderate / heavy drinking.
This study provides absolute estimate:
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
10 out of 1000 men, and 14 out of 1000 women; those are excess cancer deaths which can be attributed to moderate alcohol consumption (one bottle of wine per week)
> The UK’s Million Women Study reported an excess incidence of 15 per 1000 cancer cases for each additional alcoholic drink consumed per day, 11 due to breast cancer [14, 16].
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
10 out of 1000 men, and 14 out of 1000 women; those are excess cancer deaths which can be attributed to moderate alcohol consumption (one bottle of wine per week)
> The UK’s Million Women Study reported an excess incidence of 15 per 1000 cancer cases for each additional alcoholic drink consumed per day, 11 due to breast cancer [14, 16].
My gripe with cancer stats presented in this way is that they tend to only give relative risks. It matters what the risk was in the first place.
What's the oral cavity cancer risk that I'm increasing by 80% if I drink? If it's 10% without alcohol I'll be teetotal. If it's 1/10000 I'm going to ignore the cancer risk.
What's the oral cavity cancer risk that I'm increasing by 80% if I drink? If it's 10% without alcohol I'll be teetotal. If it's 1/10000 I'm going to ignore the cancer risk.
Also:
> One bottle of wine per week is associated with an increased absolute lifetime cancer risk for non-smokers of 1.0% (men) and 1.4% (women). The overall absolute increase in cancer risk for one bottle of wine per week equals that of five (men) or ten cigarettes per week (women). Gender differences result from levels of moderate drinking leading to a 0.8% absolute risk of breast cancer in female non-smokers.
Source: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
> One bottle of wine per week is associated with an increased absolute lifetime cancer risk for non-smokers of 1.0% (men) and 1.4% (women). The overall absolute increase in cancer risk for one bottle of wine per week equals that of five (men) or ten cigarettes per week (women). Gender differences result from levels of moderate drinking leading to a 0.8% absolute risk of breast cancer in female non-smokers.
Source: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
Is this risk proportional to the strength of the alcohol you consume? I imagine a shot of 40% whiskey would be much worse for your throat than a bottle of 5% beer, despite the same total amount of alcohol.
https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/mono96...
> Epidemiological evidence indicates that drinking alcoholic beverages is causally related to cancer of the oesophagus. There is no indication that the effect of alcoholic beverage consumption is dependent on the type of beverage
> Epidemiological evidence indicates that drinking alcoholic beverages is causally related to cancer of the oesophagus. There is no indication that the effect of alcoholic beverage consumption is dependent on the type of beverage
Interesting, thanks!
What percentage of Americans even know that alcohol is a drug? As a Wisconsin native, I've seen first hand the toxic culture surrounding drinking in America, including having a relative die of alcoholism. Still, we don't seem to look at it like other drugs, even though it ruins lives just as effectively as something like heroin.
There are many drugs with many different properties. Some are medicinal, some are addictive, some are illegal, etc. They all effect people in varying negative and positive ways. The word "drugs" typically has a negative connotation since people tend to use the term "drugs" to refer to "illegal drugs". You don't really hear people calling "medicinal drugs" just "drugs"; well at least in everyday conversation.
Legal drugs are usually pushed by huge corporations with big budgets. They have heavy marketing and a lot of advertising that manipulates public opinion. All of this advertising of course portrays the "drug" in a positive way. You don't ever hear the word "drug" used in alcohol or pharmaceutical commercials.
Also, whenever a study comes out saying anything good about alcohol the media picks it up since that's what people like to hear. I'm not sure I've ever seen the news feature a study on the negative effects of alcohol. Another reason the media may focus on positive stories is that big alcohol is such a huge customer.
Any advertisement mentioning illegal drugs portrays them in a negative way since they are put out by groups that are against the drug since you can't promote a product that's illegal. So in conclusion, it's because alcohol is legal and the loads of advertising that give people such a positive view of alcohol.
Legal drugs are usually pushed by huge corporations with big budgets. They have heavy marketing and a lot of advertising that manipulates public opinion. All of this advertising of course portrays the "drug" in a positive way. You don't ever hear the word "drug" used in alcohol or pharmaceutical commercials.
Also, whenever a study comes out saying anything good about alcohol the media picks it up since that's what people like to hear. I'm not sure I've ever seen the news feature a study on the negative effects of alcohol. Another reason the media may focus on positive stories is that big alcohol is such a huge customer.
Any advertisement mentioning illegal drugs portrays them in a negative way since they are put out by groups that are against the drug since you can't promote a product that's illegal. So in conclusion, it's because alcohol is legal and the loads of advertising that give people such a positive view of alcohol.
Narcotics Anonymous was founded largely due to Alcoholics Anonymous treating alcohol as different from other drugs. That cultural delineation exists to this day. I'd ask... what percentage of patients and workers in addiction recovery agree with the assertion that alcohol is a drug?
Curious abut the Wisconsin specificness you added. Does WI have a larger percentage of alcoholics than other places?
I'd like to see a study on alcohol addiction that shows that all or some specific alcoholic drinks are as addictive as heroin.
Not about addictiveness, but about overall social harm: alcohol beats out heroin.
> MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Of the myriad drugs I've taken, alcohol is the least deserving of ready availability IMO. I suspect that if it were invented post 1950, and not so ancient and ingrained in our culture, there's no way we would let people buy the stuff.
> MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Of the myriad drugs I've taken, alcohol is the least deserving of ready availability IMO. I suspect that if it were invented post 1950, and not so ancient and ingrained in our culture, there's no way we would let people buy the stuff.
The comment said that it ruins lives just as effectively, not that it's as addictive.
Two things don't need to be equally strong or powerful to each get the job done.
Two things don't need to be equally strong or powerful to each get the job done.
That's an interesting distinction. Many people drink in moderation quite successfully without ever being addicted and without ruining their life. How many people successfully maintain a moderate heroin habit?
The distinction, at least to me, comes from the fact that alcohol is more prevalent, and even though the rate of addiction may be lower, still harms more lives given the much larger population of people who consume alcohol.
That is exactly my point. Additionally, if you do want to look at things statistically, alcoholism is far more prevalent, at least in the United States, than heroin. In terms of raw number, alcoholism affects are larger range of people and arguably therefore destroys more lives.
That's hardly a correct comparison. Alcohol is far more readily available and accepted than heroin.
Hence, if you consider the effect on the entire using population, alcohol has a greater potential for damage considering its greater availability. Heroin is a bomb. Alcohol is fireworks. One is legal, and arguably less dangerous, but there are far more fireworks injuries in the ER than bomb injuries.
"addictive" is not exactly the same as "effectively ruins lives". cigarettes are highly addictive, but they don't really ruin people's lives in the same way as alcohol/heroin.
[deleted]
Depends on the definition. E.g. alcohol withdrawal can kill you, heroin withdrawal can't.
This is a frustrating article, because it does not say how dangerous alcohol is. Maybe alcohol raises the risk of certain types of cancers, but only by a very tiny amount. Relative to other risks, even other risks from alcohol, do we really need to care about that?
Here are some actual numbers for risk increase. Heavy drinkers have a 5-fold increased risk of getting head and neck cancer, esofageal cancer, and 2-fold increase for liver cancer. The source also reviews colorectal, breast and head+neck cancer. My opinion as a medical professional is that these are significant, and not "very tiny amounts", of increased risk.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
Of course, it matters what the baseline frequencies of these cancers are. If these represent .1% of all cancers, even a tenfold relative risk only increases your absolute risk by 1%. That would be "significant" under some definition of the word significant. But it might not be decisive for someone considering whether they should drink.
On the other hand, if the baseline rate of those cancers is 8%, it would likely be enough to convince everyone to stop drinking.
On the other hand, if the baseline rate of those cancers is 8%, it would likely be enough to convince everyone to stop drinking.
The baseline risk of getting cancer['s whos risk is increased by alcohol] is somewhat low as it is. Simply refuted the above statement that alcohol doesn't affect cancer risk.
EDIT: Thank you asdfasgasdgasdg for the correction.
EDIT: Thank you asdfasgasdgasdg for the correction.
Cancer is the cause of ~22% of deaths in the US, not 1%?
https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.ht....
https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.ht....
Thank you, looks like I stand corrected. A very large part of that is prostate cancer which isn't really significantly affected by alcohol. But you're right, the total increased % mortality of cancer is higher than what I stated..
those are relative risks, you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions. If the absolute baseline risk of getting head and neck cancer is very low, then having a 5x risk over that isn't really important- it's still absolutely small enough to say "don't care, compared to other risks".
And in alcohol, there's a long list of risks that will cause the majority of deaths compared to cancer.
And in alcohol, there's a long list of risks that will cause the majority of deaths compared to cancer.
I mean cancer which risk is affected by alcohol is somewhat low as it is. I simply refuted the above statement that alcohol barely affects cancer incidence.
Cardiovascular disease however is the #1 cause of death in the Western world. And here alcohol alcohol plays a much much more significant role in contributing to mortality.
Cardiovascular disease however is the #1 cause of death in the Western world. And here alcohol alcohol plays a much much more significant role in contributing to mortality.
Cancer causes <1% of deaths? Not sure where you got that belief, cancer is #2 in the US and it's more like 25-30% of all deaths. Different in the developing world since many more people die of communicable diseases.
> you need to state them in absolute risk if you want people to be able to understand and make decisions.
I refute this on the grounds that an alarming number of people seem not to care about their own health given a 1/1000 risk of death (or worse for older or at-risk populations) from SARS-CoV-2. If half the country doesn't care about those odds, what makes us think any measurable amount of people will care about... don't know, 1/50k odds?
But I see where you're coming from. In a perfect world, you'd be right.
I refute this on the grounds that an alarming number of people seem not to care about their own health given a 1/1000 risk of death (or worse for older or at-risk populations) from SARS-CoV-2. If half the country doesn't care about those odds, what makes us think any measurable amount of people will care about... don't know, 1/50k odds?
But I see where you're coming from. In a perfect world, you'd be right.
The goal shouldn't be to get people to do what you want. It should be to give them sufficient information so they can make an informed decision on their own, even if you might disagree with it.
I'm not suggesting that personal liberty should trump SARS-Cov-2 precautions, but it's not really relevant to a discussion about whether risk should be framed in absolute terms or not. (Edited for clarity.)
I'm not suggesting that personal liberty should trump SARS-Cov-2 precautions, but it's not really relevant to a discussion about whether risk should be framed in absolute terms or not. (Edited for clarity.)
Society does not care about your personal liberties if you are endangering the lives and well-being of others. Case in point, most people won’t mind if you drink until your liver turns to dust, but they do care if you get in a car and endanger the lives of others. Similar to that, not taking precaution in public to avoid contracting and spreading covid is endangering the lives of others as everyone has to go out in public to survive. By not taking precautions someone would be effectively deciding for those around them that covid is nothing to worry about. Any actions a person takes that knowingly increases the risk of death and injury to persons other than themselves are generally criminal offenses.
I disagree for a simple reason: while liberty is a great goal, if the liberty comes at a cost to the commons, it needs to be restricted. For example, as much as I'd love to let people chose to smoke and die of cancer, smoking affects a lot more than just the smoker. Alcohol DUIs leads to many driving deaths.
The OP suggested that risk shouldn't be communicated in absolute terms because people can't be trusted to make sound decisions. Presumably it's therefore better to only share relative risk numbers, which are almost always more frightening.
That's what I was responding to. I probably agree with most of your views on personal liberty versus the common good, but I think it's tangential to the original point about risk communication.
That's what I was responding to. I probably agree with most of your views on personal liberty versus the common good, but I think it's tangential to the original point about risk communication.
> The OP suggested that risk shouldn't be communicated in absolute terms because people can't be trusted to make sound decisions. Presumably it's therefore better to only share relative risk numbers, which are almost always more frightening.
That's not actually what I said, but I love your reasoning, so I'll adopt it.
Why:
> The goal shouldn't be to get people to do what you want. It should be to give them sufficient information so they can make an informed decision on their own, even if you might disagree with it.
How much information do you figure that'll require? Because our perception of how much is probably the difference between your perspective and mine.
That's not actually what I said, but I love your reasoning, so I'll adopt it.
Why:
> The goal shouldn't be to get people to do what you want. It should be to give them sufficient information so they can make an informed decision on their own, even if you might disagree with it.
How much information do you figure that'll require? Because our perception of how much is probably the difference between your perspective and mine.
You're going to run into walls of denial with people refuting what they're hearing because the lifestyle change is hard or, worse, because they're coping with addiction and don't see a way out.
I agree. Talking about cancer risk is not the way to go to motivate people to stop drinking. There are far more significant and clinically relevant risk from using alcohol than cancer, such as cardiovascular disease.
> "A public health analysis published last year estimated that the cancer risk posed by drinking one bottle of wine a week was comparable to smoking five cigarettes for men and 10 for women in the same time span."
I'd like to have better statistics than this, but they did try to communicate something about the risk.
The problem with comparing the cancer risk to cigarettes is that tobacco does a lot of other bad stuff besides just the cancer - tar, nicotine affect your heart and lungs pretty strongly.
I'd like to have better statistics than this, but they did try to communicate something about the risk.
The problem with comparing the cancer risk to cigarettes is that tobacco does a lot of other bad stuff besides just the cancer - tar, nicotine affect your heart and lungs pretty strongly.
Alcohol does a lot of bad stuff besides cause cancer as well. Primarily damage to the liver, but other effects as well.
from the national cancer institute:
>"Pooled data from 118 individual studies indicates that light drinkers have a slightly increased (1.04-fold higher) risk of breast cancer, compared with nondrinkers. The risk increase is greater in moderate drinkers (1.23-fold higher) and heavy drinkers (1.6-fold higher"
Heavy and moderate drinking at the very least seems to be quite significant. Esophageal cancer is one that also came to my mind because I know of quite a few heavy drinkers who suffered from it, Christopher Hitchens for example.
>"Pooled data from 118 individual studies indicates that light drinkers have a slightly increased (1.04-fold higher) risk of breast cancer, compared with nondrinkers. The risk increase is greater in moderate drinkers (1.23-fold higher) and heavy drinkers (1.6-fold higher"
Heavy and moderate drinking at the very least seems to be quite significant. Esophageal cancer is one that also came to my mind because I know of quite a few heavy drinkers who suffered from it, Christopher Hitchens for example.
There are some indications on there:
> A public health analysis published last year estimated that the cancer risk posed by drinking one bottle of wine a week was comparable to smoking five cigarettes for men and 10 for women in the same time span.
> A public health analysis published last year estimated that the cancer risk posed by drinking one bottle of wine a week was comparable to smoking five cigarettes for men and 10 for women in the same time span.
I'd argue the other dangers of (significant) alcohol use far outweigh cancer.
Rule of thumb: if your food, beverage, dye, or aromatic scent readily undergoes chemical reactions, it might not be safe.
Alcohol is quite chemically reactive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Reactions
Burnt or charred food has loads of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that have lots of potential for chemistry (delocalized electrons = very reactive). They pose extreme cancer risk, and might be one of the most important things you frequently encounter that you can remove from your diet! Don't eat burnt food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbo...
If reactive substances reach your DNA, they could cause mutation. DNA mutation brings you closer to developing cancer. Even if these substances don't reach your DNA, they could cause other deleterious effects to your cellular biochemistry that might have downstream impact.
Proteins, fats, and carbs are much less dangerous than some of the other things we ingest, inhale, and apply.
It helps to know some basic chemistry and biochemistry. It's all about the chemistry. Cancer is a disease state caused by biochemical phenomena.
(Fun fact: Oxygen is one of the most reactive things you put in your body. But there isn't any escaping that. The reaction is how we sustain life.)
Alcohol is quite chemically reactive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol#Reactions
Burnt or charred food has loads of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that have lots of potential for chemistry (delocalized electrons = very reactive). They pose extreme cancer risk, and might be one of the most important things you frequently encounter that you can remove from your diet! Don't eat burnt food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbo...
If reactive substances reach your DNA, they could cause mutation. DNA mutation brings you closer to developing cancer. Even if these substances don't reach your DNA, they could cause other deleterious effects to your cellular biochemistry that might have downstream impact.
Proteins, fats, and carbs are much less dangerous than some of the other things we ingest, inhale, and apply.
It helps to know some basic chemistry and biochemistry. It's all about the chemistry. Cancer is a disease state caused by biochemical phenomena.
(Fun fact: Oxygen is one of the most reactive things you put in your body. But there isn't any escaping that. The reaction is how we sustain life.)
I think people know that a piece of meat on a grill that is totally burnt black is not healthy. And likewise I'd throw away or at least scrape off burnt toast.
Browning on foods is a huge source of flavor though (Maillard reaction I think), is this also a concern? It seems like an occasional steak with thin grill marks could be worth it, but I have no idea where to draw the line on this, compared to something like alcohol, because there is no study for how many grams of burnt food you can eat per week etc.
Browning on foods is a huge source of flavor though (Maillard reaction I think), is this also a concern? It seems like an occasional steak with thin grill marks could be worth it, but I have no idea where to draw the line on this, compared to something like alcohol, because there is no study for how many grams of burnt food you can eat per week etc.
I consider myself well informed and I had no idea burnt food was unhealthy. I would just figured it was carbon, and I don't have any reason to believe carbon would hurt me.
You're one of the 10000 today https://xkcd.com/1053/
I think this is a very well known thing that I learned as a small kid, but I (and my family) still rather eat a bit of black on the outside of the meat than eating still raw parts in the middle (for pork and chicken that is). It's all about juggling risks.
I think this is a very well known thing that I learned as a small kid, but I (and my family) still rather eat a bit of black on the outside of the meat than eating still raw parts in the middle (for pork and chicken that is). It's all about juggling risks.
People eat smoked foods all the time.
> Alcohol is quite chemically reactive
Every single reaction listed there involves a violently reactive partner: sodium, phosphorus tribromide, concentrated hydrochloric acid, you know, the stuff you ingest daily. Even the esterification needs a strong acid as catalyst.
> carbs are much less dangerous
Fun fact, carbohydrates have multiple alcohol groups and are in fact more reactive than ethanol. They actually react with proteins, even without the help of enzymes, while ethanol doesn't.
Something about your logic doesn't add up.
Every single reaction listed there involves a violently reactive partner: sodium, phosphorus tribromide, concentrated hydrochloric acid, you know, the stuff you ingest daily. Even the esterification needs a strong acid as catalyst.
> carbs are much less dangerous
Fun fact, carbohydrates have multiple alcohol groups and are in fact more reactive than ethanol. They actually react with proteins, even without the help of enzymes, while ethanol doesn't.
Something about your logic doesn't add up.
> Alcohol is quite chemically reactive:
All food is quite chemically reactive; that is one of the main points of eating.
All food is quite chemically reactive; that is one of the main points of eating.
I've never thought about it this way. Being very much not a chemist or biologist, are there any decent sources for reactivity of... commonly ingested things? Or any articles with more on this?
Reactivity is really hard to measure.
You'd have to specify the pressure and temperature first. Fine enough, human body fever temps to freezing, and then maybe a few atm to vacuum.
Then the really hard part comes in: you have to specify the reagents. Water, saline, air, ok. But the carcinogens really come in on all the ways the human body mixes with everything. You got all the enzymes, the buffers, the solutions, the biles and secretions, the hyper complex bio-chem that is a single pancreatic cell, etc.
I don't think such a matrix would be possible to report out without having a complete understanding of every human's biology in all it's strange wonderful forms.
You'd have to specify the pressure and temperature first. Fine enough, human body fever temps to freezing, and then maybe a few atm to vacuum.
Then the really hard part comes in: you have to specify the reagents. Water, saline, air, ok. But the carcinogens really come in on all the ways the human body mixes with everything. You got all the enzymes, the buffers, the solutions, the biles and secretions, the hyper complex bio-chem that is a single pancreatic cell, etc.
I don't think such a matrix would be possible to report out without having a complete understanding of every human's biology in all it's strange wonderful forms.
Another fun fact, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs or "paws") are commonly observed in interstellar space and a substantial reservoir of carbon overall!
The 3.6 micron band from the IRAC camera on the Spitzer space telescope has a strong PAH flourescence feature in the band (absorbs UV, emits vibrational mode IR). The 3.6 micron wavelength is commonly colored green in composites, so if you see lots of green nebulosity in images from Spitzer, those are likely mainly PAHS.
The 3.6 micron band from the IRAC camera on the Spitzer space telescope has a strong PAH flourescence feature in the band (absorbs UV, emits vibrational mode IR). The 3.6 micron wavelength is commonly colored green in composites, so if you see lots of green nebulosity in images from Spitzer, those are likely mainly PAHS.
> if your food, beverage, dye, or aromatic scent readily undergoes chemical reactions
That would also include anything acidic and basic, so essentially, any vinegar, baking soda, fruits, ...... Among proteins, there are enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions.
On alcohol and char, I agree. But, the general statement is too broad to be true or useful.
That would also include anything acidic and basic, so essentially, any vinegar, baking soda, fruits, ...... Among proteins, there are enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions.
On alcohol and char, I agree. But, the general statement is too broad to be true or useful.
What about carbonated beverages? Those react with a lot of stuff
Wait, what? Alcohol is a carcinogen? I didn't know this.
Here's link to the CDC's website, referenced in that article:
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/moderate-drinking.ht...
This part from the CDC's website is also interesting:
Here's link to the CDC's website, referenced in that article:
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/moderate-drinking.ht...
This part from the CDC's website is also interesting:
Although past studies have indicated that moderate alcohol consumption has protective health benefits (e.g., reducing risk of heart disease), recent studies show this may not be true.
It wasn't the alcohol in the wine that was conveying the benefits. Iirc, people were pointing to https://www.drugs.com/resveratrol.html
People that drink one glass of wine have very low propensity to over indulge. The latter trait has all sorts of benefits including health and income. It is the adult marshmallow test.
Or, possibly, their drug is just different.
My grandfather was an alcoholic. I have zero problem controlling my alcohol consumption and the older I get, the less I drink. I am currently somewhere in the proximity of 2-3 glasses of wine a week, it was even less in the summer. And there is no urge to consume more.
But I definitely overindulge on HN or Reddit.
My grandfather was an alcoholic. I have zero problem controlling my alcohol consumption and the older I get, the less I drink. I am currently somewhere in the proximity of 2-3 glasses of wine a week, it was even less in the summer. And there is no urge to consume more.
But I definitely overindulge on HN or Reddit.
So basically just correlation vs causation.
You can correlate virtually anything that requires foregoing immediate gratification with health and income. People that use condoms consistently have better health and income than those that do not. The list is endless.
It isn’t correlation vs causation, it is misattribution of a hidden variable.
It isn’t correlation vs causation, it is misattribution of a hidden variable.
It is unlikely that a glass of wine is healthy. Studies that show a correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and health are likely measuring the fact that unhealthy people are often unable to drink.
This is a "wet sidewalks cause rain" or "hospital beds are dangerous" type of conclusion.
This is a "wet sidewalks cause rain" or "hospital beds are dangerous" type of conclusion.
The health benefits of wine (if they exist) seem to stem from chemicals in the grape skin (e.g., resveratrol and other phenols). The alcohol is likely a net negative. Because of this a glass of white wine is unlikely to provide the same health benefits as a glass of red wine.
The alcohol industries have done an amazing job with their propaganda. Many people genuinely believe that a glass of wine every day is actually healthy for you.
That strikes me as a bad-faith interpretation of the history of this issue.
The reason for belief in the protective effect of alcohol consumption comes from data, not corporate propaganda. Many observational studies, conducted by a wide variety of institutions and government agencies, and consistently arrived at the conclusion that alcohol's effects on all-cause mortality (ACM) are dose-dependent, but these effects do not necessarily converge on the origin. That is, as dosage is reduced, eventually ACM dips >1 for low levels of consumption, before returning to the abstinence baseline. I.e., mild drinking is protective. There is no plausible or coherent way to suggest that these observations were due to industry influence given the wide variety of data sources, investigators, and institutions involved.
The problem with this data is one that is common to wide variety of health issues; it's very hard to observe small effects. Most of our data and understanding actually comes from relatively extreme effects; the worst smokers and drinkers, large radiation exposure, major occupational health risks like asbestos, etc. That gives us great information about the what effects these onslaughts have, but only for these extreme populations.
The next logical step is to observe less dosage/exposure and try to establish the nature of dose-dependence e.g. linear vs. some power law. The problem, however, is that experimentation is unethical, so you have to continue to rely on observational studies. But observational studies necessarily have confounding factors that can be extremely tricky to address. Furthermore, there is no authoritative way to determine whether these factors have been addressed or not.
So, despite the best and most sincere efforts of investigators, the data 'near the origin', i.e. the effects of low dosage/exposure to a potentially harmful thing, is extrapolation, not interpolation as one might believe intuitively. Even small errors - the kind that are endemic to observational studies - are amplified when considering these ranges.
The result of this is persistent controversy about issues broadly related to hormesis. The true impact of radiation releases from events like Chernobyl and famously uncertain for this same reason.
Specifically regarding alcohol, the most recent attempts to control the confounds has lead some to declare that the protective observation has been eliminated. I certainly agree that, as a health recommendation, this is the conservative interpretation and should be taken used to make health decisions. But as far as the data itself is concerned, I'm not so convinced. I still think the "J" shaped dose-response has not been adequately explained, and there are valid mechanistic hypotheses that warrant continued consideration.
But if you would like to carry on a cynical world view that neatly blames all that ails on evil corporations, by all means.
The reason for belief in the protective effect of alcohol consumption comes from data, not corporate propaganda. Many observational studies, conducted by a wide variety of institutions and government agencies, and consistently arrived at the conclusion that alcohol's effects on all-cause mortality (ACM) are dose-dependent, but these effects do not necessarily converge on the origin. That is, as dosage is reduced, eventually ACM dips >1 for low levels of consumption, before returning to the abstinence baseline. I.e., mild drinking is protective. There is no plausible or coherent way to suggest that these observations were due to industry influence given the wide variety of data sources, investigators, and institutions involved.
The problem with this data is one that is common to wide variety of health issues; it's very hard to observe small effects. Most of our data and understanding actually comes from relatively extreme effects; the worst smokers and drinkers, large radiation exposure, major occupational health risks like asbestos, etc. That gives us great information about the what effects these onslaughts have, but only for these extreme populations.
The next logical step is to observe less dosage/exposure and try to establish the nature of dose-dependence e.g. linear vs. some power law. The problem, however, is that experimentation is unethical, so you have to continue to rely on observational studies. But observational studies necessarily have confounding factors that can be extremely tricky to address. Furthermore, there is no authoritative way to determine whether these factors have been addressed or not.
So, despite the best and most sincere efforts of investigators, the data 'near the origin', i.e. the effects of low dosage/exposure to a potentially harmful thing, is extrapolation, not interpolation as one might believe intuitively. Even small errors - the kind that are endemic to observational studies - are amplified when considering these ranges.
The result of this is persistent controversy about issues broadly related to hormesis. The true impact of radiation releases from events like Chernobyl and famously uncertain for this same reason.
Specifically regarding alcohol, the most recent attempts to control the confounds has lead some to declare that the protective observation has been eliminated. I certainly agree that, as a health recommendation, this is the conservative interpretation and should be taken used to make health decisions. But as far as the data itself is concerned, I'm not so convinced. I still think the "J" shaped dose-response has not been adequately explained, and there are valid mechanistic hypotheses that warrant continued consideration.
But if you would like to carry on a cynical world view that neatly blames all that ails on evil corporations, by all means.
The alcohol industry you’re thinking of is more of beer and spirits. There are ton of studies showing benefits from wine, it’s not quite the same.
No, the more recent articles do show that the optimal amount of wine is zero. The one glass per day common wisdom was marketing.
The propaganda runs deep.
I thought everything is known to cause cancer in the state of California.
Jokes aside, things that "cause cancer" do this to a varying degree, there are substances where minimal doses cause cancer within your lifetime with certainty. Like plutonium. And there are substances, where a lifetime of heavy consumption increases your risk by just a measurable amount, like red meat. And then there is stuff that is known to cause cancer in mice, if you inject enough mice with multiples of their own bodyweight so they only just don't explode and maybe one of your 10k mice will test positive for a cancer marker.
Reporting should find a way to distinguish those properly and understandably, for experts as well as laymen.
Jokes aside, things that "cause cancer" do this to a varying degree, there are substances where minimal doses cause cancer within your lifetime with certainty. Like plutonium. And there are substances, where a lifetime of heavy consumption increases your risk by just a measurable amount, like red meat. And then there is stuff that is known to cause cancer in mice, if you inject enough mice with multiples of their own bodyweight so they only just don't explode and maybe one of your 10k mice will test positive for a cancer marker.
Reporting should find a way to distinguish those properly and understandably, for experts as well as laymen.
I didn't know this. I'm honestly shocked. Is there any information about what different levels of alcohol consumption do to cancer risk?
Here's a good start.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
Yes it's a well studied area in cancer research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=alcohol+cancer
I don't think there are many that consider alcohol healthy at this point. Plus most people are pretty moderate consumers of the stuff.
burnt foods also increase cancer. But its kinda marginal.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/warning-over-burnt-toast-chem...
burnt foods also increase cancer. But its kinda marginal.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/warning-over-burnt-toast-chem...
Everyone I know who drinks considers one or two a day to be healthy.
The CDC defines "moderate alcohol consumption" as one drink per day for females and two drinks per day for males. That's probably what they're referring to. It also states:
"This definition refers to the amount consumed on any single day and is not intended as an average over several days."[0]
I don't see any info about weekly consumption.
0. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm
"This definition refers to the amount consumed on any single day and is not intended as an average over several days."[0]
I don't see any info about weekly consumption.
0. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm
Nah they're referring to the media meme that a drink or two per day is good for you. Not not bad for you, but actively good for you.
Alcohol's poison at worst, empty calories at best.
Alcohol's poison at worst, empty calories at best.
It's worth noting, but effect size is also an important bit. The Wikipedia page links to a study suggesting that around 4% of cancers are attributable to alcohol consumption [1]. In some sense, that's a lot, but in another sense, it isn't really? It's also not clear to me how much of that burden is borne by heavy drinkers vs. moderate drinkers.
The studies I saw seemed to suggest a very clear causal association between alcohol consumption and cancer, and with no threshold (i.e. any consumption increases your risk). However, although the evidence was strong, the effect sizes were mild, especially at mild levels of consumption. I would love to be better informed on this, but my current stance is that alcohol is super fun, and the number of life-years you lose on average from consuming it aren't too numerous. You have to die of something.
[1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.21903
The studies I saw seemed to suggest a very clear causal association between alcohol consumption and cancer, and with no threshold (i.e. any consumption increases your risk). However, although the evidence was strong, the effect sizes were mild, especially at mild levels of consumption. I would love to be better informed on this, but my current stance is that alcohol is super fun, and the number of life-years you lose on average from consuming it aren't too numerous. You have to die of something.
[1]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.21903
It what sense is 4% of all cancer cases not a lot?
This sense: giving up a cherished vice to reduce your risk of dying of cancer by 1/25 might not be considered a good trade, depending on one's preferences.
I hope alcohol gets the same treatment as cigarettes and other tobacco products in a couple of decades. People should be allowed to drink it if they chose to after being made aware of all the risks with every purchase. But hopefully the tremendous peer pressure to consume alcohol, especially for young adults, is no longer a thing.
I think people are already well aware that drinking alcohol is unhealthy, and I don’t think that anyone, who consumes it despite that, will stop after learning it is a “carcinogen”.
I very well might.
I honestly had no idea there was anything unhealthy about moderate drinking. Every so often we even see dubious headlines about "daily red wine has health benefits". I'm not aware of specific, nor do I particularly believe it's good for you, but I really had no idea that it's unhealthy.
I honestly had no idea there was anything unhealthy about moderate drinking. Every so often we even see dubious headlines about "daily red wine has health benefits". I'm not aware of specific, nor do I particularly believe it's good for you, but I really had no idea that it's unhealthy.
You had no idea there was anything unhealthy about consuming a neurotoxin until you heard "cancer"? : p
Some people get hammered. I know that's bad. So, yes, I had that idea.
I'm talking about moderate drinking. Like 1 per day or less.
Yes. I didn't know it was unhealthy. Every substance has a harmful dose. Some of them have safe doses. I didn't know that alcohol (apparently) has no safe dose.
I'm talking about moderate drinking. Like 1 per day or less.
Yes. I didn't know it was unhealthy. Every substance has a harmful dose. Some of them have safe doses. I didn't know that alcohol (apparently) has no safe dose.
Many societies and sub-societies practice daily light consumption of alcohol, although less so with better water quality.
Frequent "popular health" headlines claim that "a daily glass of wine" or "2-3 drinks per week" has some benefits for heart health of whatever[0]. It is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that light consumption of alcohol, like a glass of wine every other day, could actually be good for them.
It is false, but it is not a ridiculous belief. I'd guess that more than half of all Americans believe it.
0. https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/list-hearthealthy-wines-100... "While excessive alcohol consumption can have adverse effects on your health, moderate consumption of wine is linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease."
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/benefits-of-wine "Emerging research continues to suggest that drinking wine in moderation — about a glass per day — offers several benefits."
http://www.namhpac.org/5-healthiest-red-wine-choices-good-fo... "We’ve all heard that red wine has a health benefit or two to offer..."
https://www.health.com/nutrition/healthiest-wine "If you like wine, you've probably raised a glass (or two) to the reports that drinking it is good for you."
Frequent "popular health" headlines claim that "a daily glass of wine" or "2-3 drinks per week" has some benefits for heart health of whatever[0]. It is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that light consumption of alcohol, like a glass of wine every other day, could actually be good for them.
It is false, but it is not a ridiculous belief. I'd guess that more than half of all Americans believe it.
0. https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/list-hearthealthy-wines-100... "While excessive alcohol consumption can have adverse effects on your health, moderate consumption of wine is linked to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease."
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/benefits-of-wine "Emerging research continues to suggest that drinking wine in moderation — about a glass per day — offers several benefits."
http://www.namhpac.org/5-healthiest-red-wine-choices-good-fo... "We’ve all heard that red wine has a health benefit or two to offer..."
https://www.health.com/nutrition/healthiest-wine "If you like wine, you've probably raised a glass (or two) to the reports that drinking it is good for you."
It was surprising to me to learn that its harmful to your health and carcinogenic at every measured level (even low amounts)
Isn't it widely claimed that red wine can have some health benefits.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease...
It always seemed to me that the claimed benefits of wine also exist in grape juice.
Better still, grapes. Juicing removes fiber.
From the opposite angle, too much sugar.
I've personally found, when people ask why I'm not drinking, that "Well, did you realize Alcohol is right above Arsenic on the carcinogen list?" is by far – compared to "Oh, I just don't drink" or the other reasons I've given in the past – the fastest way to move onto other topics.
Does arsenic usually cause cancer or is it toxic in another way? While you can also get alcohol poisoning, this seems like an imperfect comparison.
I wasn't being facetious, I was just referencing the American Cancer Society's list:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/kno...
Arsenic is considered a carcinogen:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/arsenic.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/kno...
Arsenic is considered a carcinogen:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/arsenic.html
I understand that arsenic is a carcinogen, but my one minute of research suggests that it's usually/often more of a poison. There's also some difference between organic and inorganic variants that I don't quite understand.
I checked some of the references at CDC web page and seems that I won't die any time soon drinking one beer a day (male, non-smoker). E.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26286216/
I learned this from my brother who is a dentist. He said not to use mouthwash with alcohol in it, because there is a link with mouth cancer.
But yeah, also doesn't help that alcohol is blatantly advertised and the health benefits loudly promoted (e.g. glass of wine a day).
But yeah, also doesn't help that alcohol is blatantly advertised and the health benefits loudly promoted (e.g. glass of wine a day).
Story time!
My mom worked at a gas station convenience story in an rough part of Atlanta (Bankhead) in the late 1970s/early 80s. Alcohol sales in Georgia used to be prohibited on Sundays, so the most addicted alcoholics would come into her store and buy pretty much anything that had any type of alcohol in it. She said every Sunday that they would almost always sell out of mouthwash, cough syrup, rubbing alcohol, vanilla extract, nail polish remover, and even windshield wiper fluid.
My mom worked at a gas station convenience story in an rough part of Atlanta (Bankhead) in the late 1970s/early 80s. Alcohol sales in Georgia used to be prohibited on Sundays, so the most addicted alcoholics would come into her store and buy pretty much anything that had any type of alcohol in it. She said every Sunday that they would almost always sell out of mouthwash, cough syrup, rubbing alcohol, vanilla extract, nail polish remover, and even windshield wiper fluid.
This would have more novel potential by switching the word ethanol for alcohol in the title, i.e. methanol, which is an alcohol, is known to metabolise to formic acid (which is present as the formate ion) via formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen, in a process initiated by the alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver. "More than half" likely do not know of the carcinogenicity of acetaldehyde (systematic name ethanal).
> potiup
> potiup
"Ethanol is not carcinogenic, but is metabolised to acetaldehyde, which is carcinogenic."
The WHO specifies that it is ethanol in alcoholic beverages that is carcinogenic, i.e. what most people would call alcohol.
The WHO specifies that it is ethanol in alcoholic beverages that is carcinogenic, i.e. what most people would call alcohol.
Not related to the carcinogenic effect or to Americans but to the “life ruining” effect and the general association of alcohol as a bad thing: in India, the movies allowed for public screening are required by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC, also known commonly as the Censor Board), in scenes showing the smoking of cigarettes or the consumption of alcohol, a ticker with messages that they’re dangerous to health. This is shown in the language of the movie (India has 22 official languages). Cable broadcasts and streaming service providers sometimes include this message ticker or blur the bottle or glass in such scenes (or remove them outright).
Socially, women and children bear the brunt of alcoholism by the men in the house. So there have been long time protests favoring prohibition in many states. Some states have also officially prohibited alcohol (resulting in smuggling and also the preparation of bootleg liquor that tends to kill people often) while some other states have state run liquor shops. The governments do earn a lot of money from tax revenues, and wouldn’t want to completely give up alcohol.
Socially, women and children bear the brunt of alcoholism by the men in the house. So there have been long time protests favoring prohibition in many states. Some states have also officially prohibited alcohol (resulting in smuggling and also the preparation of bootleg liquor that tends to kill people often) while some other states have state run liquor shops. The governments do earn a lot of money from tax revenues, and wouldn’t want to completely give up alcohol.
What percentage of Americans even know what a carcinogen is?
It's amazing that alcohol gets such a free pass. Weed, cigarettes, heck even vaping somehow have a worse rap than alcohol in many people's eyes.
Thankfully, I'm a very light drinker only occasionally indulging and then in small quantities.
Thankfully, I'm a very light drinker only occasionally indulging and then in small quantities.
If anyone is interested in tempering their consumption based on this information (as I was), I made a free and open source iOS app a while ago that allows you to track your drinks and stay under a weekly limit of your choice. Features Untappd and HealthKit integration!
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/good-spirits/id1434237439
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/good-spirits/id1434237439
Increased oxygen correlates also nicely to increased cancer. Reduce it enough and cancer will no longer be a concern.
I assumed everything is a carcinogen, as you can tell if you travel to CA and look at the warnings on everything
Here is an informative video on the health effects of alcohol:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-any-benefits-of-alcohol-...
My experience is that I have to proactively educate myself as best I can about the physical risks of daily living. This includes a staggering amount of items: food, clothes, containers, cookware, makeup, cleaning supplies, paint, home goods, medicine, electronics. It's an impossible task, but I see a lot of people doing the same: building a personalized set of things to watch out for. (Buy organic, wash produce/grains/beans, avoid anything scented, avoid homeopathic, avoid styrofoam, avoid hydrogenated oil, avoid Teflon/PTFEs, avoid perc, avoid food dyes, avoid plastic fabrics, on and on)
Government has a role in making this information accessible at the time of purchase or use. I can read the food ingredients, the fabric material, the cancer warning, the VOC rating. And I can make a simple decision about what to buy if I so desire.
But there are untold cases where the information is not easily accessible, where it's difficult to identify a trustworthy source, and where we are advertised products that actively hide their harm.
I would like to have more confidence that I'm buying safe products. I don't know what the solution is, so I just keep adding to my list.
Government has a role in making this information accessible at the time of purchase or use. I can read the food ingredients, the fabric material, the cancer warning, the VOC rating. And I can make a simple decision about what to buy if I so desire.
But there are untold cases where the information is not easily accessible, where it's difficult to identify a trustworthy source, and where we are advertised products that actively hide their harm.
I would like to have more confidence that I'm buying safe products. I don't know what the solution is, so I just keep adding to my list.
Well put! I feel like the media is supposed to be doing a better job at warning people about these things. I have a hard time believing it's not profitable enough for them to do. Are they as in the dark about it all as everyone else?
What a coincidence. I drink maybe twice a year, because my father died of alcoholism, but I just poured myself a glass of wine I received as a gift before reading this article.
Maybe the benefit of alcohol has more value than the risk it imposes. For example, forgetting what happened yesterday, forgetting about covid and feeling great.
Uhh.... If you're getting that effect, you're drinking a lot of alcohol, and that is not healthy for you for a variety of reasons, cancer being the least of them.
I thought the main carcinogen were the liver byproducts of alcohol, mainly acetaldehyde.
[deleted]
Not to mention sugar.
Here is an interesting break down on why booze went from good to bad. https://www.popsci.com/moderate-drinking-benefits-risks/
Well, I didn't know, so I guess I'm half American. TIL.
Few Americans know that sunlight is a carcinogen. Big Outdoors wants to keep it that way.
It's all about the dose. Drink too much water and you will die. Most people will under report the amount of alcohol they drink. With 50ml per day, alcohol has a great hormetic effect. Wine, for example, is not just alcohol. Just like natural beer - it's full of nutrients.
This is true for its well-known other health risks.
Cancer risk doesn't care if you spread your seven drinks out over a week or over a night. Moderation might even be a riskier strategy from a cancer risk standpoint, if the imbibed amounts are otherwise the same.
Cancer risk doesn't care if you spread your seven drinks out over a week or over a night. Moderation might even be a riskier strategy from a cancer risk standpoint, if the imbibed amounts are otherwise the same.
Actually it does care about spreading over time. That's why plant toxins are good in small amounts and bad in large at once. It's always about weighing benefits and negative effects, not looking at things one-sidedly! I would never have vodka, cocktails, and other pure poison products, but I will have a glass of good red wine or a bottle of real beer! Pure ethanol is bad! Ethanol is metabolised as fructose! Sugary alcoholic drinks are the worst! So, let's not put all types of "alcohol" in the same bucket! With red wine and beer, you get benefits, which might outweigh the negative sides - even when not considering the hormetic effect of small amounts of ethanol!
We're talking about cancer risk here, not toxicity or effects on blood sugar. As far as I understand (as someone with no medical background), exposure is exposure. I'd love to be proven wrong if someone has some information to the contrary.
> exposure is exposure
Because damage to DNA adds up, and that's what causes cancer, right?
Turns out, DNA is constantly being repaired, because it constantly suffers chemical insults, mostly from reactive oxygen species. A carcinogen is dangerous once it overwhelms these repair mechanisms, and for that, it clearly makes a difference whether you take a single large dose or many small ones.
Because damage to DNA adds up, and that's what causes cancer, right?
Turns out, DNA is constantly being repaired, because it constantly suffers chemical insults, mostly from reactive oxygen species. A carcinogen is dangerous once it overwhelms these repair mechanisms, and for that, it clearly makes a difference whether you take a single large dose or many small ones.
And that's why hormesis works and explains a variety of phenomena that small amounts of disruptions is good to keep your mechanisms ready to take on challenges.
Well, I wonder how many of these studies have found a cause or just associations. I can tell you that most drinkers greatly underestimate how much they actually drink and even further if they have to report it to another person, so, a survey will always show people as moderate drinkers! Also, most regular drinkers have other unhealthy habits! Toxicity and cancer risks are also both about the dose. We all have cancerous cells in us, but they become a problem if they survive and grow (and by growing they get a bigger chance of mutating to the level they can trick the immune system). A cancer developers over the course of many years, except certain types, of course. Definitely alcohol is not an immediate killer - there are much worse things, but here we want to vilify one millenniums-old habit as the root of all evils!
I have this perspective too in large part due to the book "The Art of Fermentation" by Sandor Katz and the other resources/books that that book cites.
Yeah, arguing that it's not about the dose means you shouldn't eat ripe fruit or drink kombucha.
Those of us that do DON'T CARE!
Also, half of Americans are below average.
Maybe it would be better if there was a scale on it, like this is a 1 banana equivalent risk or something, but then how do you determine my exposure to the cancer in the metal bowl.