I would argue the overwhelming majority of consumers do not know alcohol is a proven carcinogen, and many would still choose to make more health conscious choices, even though the relative risk is lower than smoking.
While alcohol is a carcinogen, it only accounts for something like 3% of cancers deaths, mostly paired with liver disease. Hell, breathing air in a city causes more cancer deaths than alcohol.
This whole article reads like a modern temperance movement, trying to stamp out vice by comparing one harm to another, despite how different the harms are.
We know the harms of alcohol, they are different than the harms of tobacco. They should not be regulated the same. This article misses that completely.
Being a carcinogen is alcohols minor side effect. Don’t forget alcohol poisoning and the damage it does to families and relationships due to alcoholism, and another biggie, driving under the influence.
We know the harms of alcohol, they are different than the harms of tobacco. They should not be regulated the same. This article misses that completely.
I just didn’t list out the harms of alcohol, or how they’re regulated, because I thought everyone knew.
The list of proven and likely carcinogens is rather large. Do we put a similar health warning on every sausage and strip of bacon? Plus planks of wood (wood dust contains known carcinogen). If you extend the list to mutagens, rather than proven carciogens the list gets even longer
The answer is in the article: “ I don’t want to say that there are necessarily equivalent health risks,”
I would argue the overwhelming majority of consumers do not know alcohol is a proven carcinogen, and many would still choose to make more health conscious choices, even though the relative risk is lower than smoking.
While alcohol is a carcinogen, it only accounts for something like 3% of cancers deaths, mostly paired with liver disease. Hell, breathing air in a city causes more cancer deaths than alcohol.
This whole article reads like a modern temperance movement, trying to stamp out vice by comparing one harm to another, despite how different the harms are.
We know the harms of alcohol, they are different than the harms of tobacco. They should not be regulated the same. This article misses that completely.
Being a carcinogen is alcohols minor side effect. Don’t forget alcohol poisoning and the damage it does to families and relationships due to alcoholism, and another biggie, driving under the influence.
Yes
I just didn’t list out the harms of alcohol, or how they’re regulated, because I thought everyone knew.
He clearly didn’t forget, unless you think tobacco also carries the same family and relationship damage and driving under the influence problems?
The list of proven and likely carcinogens is rather large. Do we put a similar health warning on every sausage and strip of bacon? Plus planks of wood (wood dust contains known carcinogen). If you extend the list to mutagens, rather than proven carciogens the list gets even longer