- twistedtxb ( @twistedtxb@lemmy.ca ) 132•1 year ago
The fact that wine and beer bottles are exempt from those Nutrition Facts labels is utter nonsense.
If people knew how much sugar and calories are in their drink maybe they would think twice
- Rusty ( @Rusty@lemmy.ca ) English19•1 year ago
There are nutrition labels on alcohol in Europe, but people there drink as much as here.
- Blaidd ( @Blaidd@lemm.ee ) English17•1 year ago
Europe drinks way more alcohol than North America
Excerpt from the article:
If you feel that Europeans drink a lot, your hunch is correct: people across the continent consume more alcohol than in any other part of the world. Each year in Europe, every person aged 15 and over consumes, on average, 9.5 litres of pure alcohol, which is equivalent to around 190 litres of beer, 80 litres of wine or 24 litres of spirits. That’s according to the 2021 European health report by the World Health Organization (WHO).
- cheery_coffee ( @cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca ) 8•1 year ago
24 litres of spirits is about 4 bottles of whiskey or vodka every 3 weeks.
That does seem like a lot to me.
- hobovision ( @hobovision@lemm.ee ) 5•1 year ago
In beer form, it’s a bout a pint per day. Not too bad actually. I probably average close to that, since I’ll have a can of beer most nights, and a few pints and/or cocktails on weekends.
- cheery_coffee ( @cheery_coffee@lemmy.ca ) 2•1 year ago
That does not sound bad at all actually
Kind of high food an average still, but an individual doing that won’t be terrible.
- Locorock ( @Locorock@artemis.camp ) 2•1 year ago
wouldn’t that come out as 2 bottles per month?
- hobovision ( @hobovision@lemm.ee ) 5•1 year ago
750ml is the typical size of a bottle, so it would be more like 32 bottles per year, or 2.67 bottles per month.
- Papamousse ( @Frederic@beehaw.org ) English2•1 year ago
True, one of my neighbour drank 1 bottle of wine at diner and 1 at supper, he died of cirrhosis of liver at around 60 though.
- Kalash ( @theKalash@feddit.ch ) 6•1 year ago
Yup, just checked my beer. Lists ingredients and calories. In 2 langauges!
- snooggums ( @snooggums@kbin.social ) 3•1 year ago
The cans of beer that I buy have ingredients and nutrition info like a soda can does.
Haven’t seen any on liquor bottles though.
- Kalash ( @theKalash@feddit.ch ) 2•1 year ago
I don’t have any liquor bottles, but my wine bottles have ingredients info, but no nutrition info.
- Hyperi0n ( @Hyperi0n@lemmy.film ) English2•1 year ago
Depends on from where they were sourced.
My Itallian red wine has nutritional info, French sourced white wine has nutritional info, American sourced red wine has nothing.
A short search states that the US doesnt have to have labels on alcohol because it’s not regulated by the FDA.
In Canada beer alcohol isn’t required to have nutritional info.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 16•1 year ago
The fact that wine and beer bottles are exempt from those Nutrition Facts labels is utter nonsense.
I did not know that. That is nuts.
- salton ( @salton@reddthat.com ) 10•1 year ago
Not having to list ingredients is a real pain if you have uncommon food allergies.
- Hyperi0n ( @Hyperi0n@lemmy.film ) English2•1 year ago
Alcohol is required to list ingredients and allergy information.
- snooggums ( @snooggums@kbin.social ) 1•1 year ago
This I fully agree with, and have no idea why they are currently exempted but assume lobbying.
- elxeno ( @elxeno@lemm.ee ) 41•1 year ago
- polle ( @polle@feddit.de ) 27•1 year ago
I would like a ban on advertising, too.
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 11•1 year ago
I’d like a ban on all forms of advertising.
Marketing is nothing more than getting people to buy stuff they do not need.
It is the reason we live in a consumer culture, and is the force behind some of the biggest problems humanity faces today.
- phoenixz ( @phoenixz@lemmy.ca ) 3•1 year ago
Hell yes!
The world would look so SO much better with advertising gone.
Now we have to deal with 5x50 meters (sigh, 15 by 150 foot) video screens that illuminate the night sky and blind you while you are driving, but hey, BUY NIKE!
This is not even mentioning brands buying up buildings and clubs and hospitals and what-not so that they can plaster their name over it. It sucks.
Brand recognition has been a bane of our existence for the past century
I might be up for a very VERY strictly limited form of advertising, limited to only a few spaces and times, but I’d love it that brands only show up when I ask them to. I need to buy a car? If I search “I want to buy a car” or something like that, then you can show me brands. Hell, even there, screw the shitty commercials, just show me the brand names and that’s it.
- Dearche ( @Dearche@lemmy.ca ) 2•1 year ago
Ha! It’s not just that!
Where I live, they’ve got some sort of weird “The Future Is Electric” campaign going on. It’s on the busses, there’s a billboard of one near my place, and hell, that one’s powered so it shines brighter than the street lights at night!
And what is it advertising? I have no idea. Just that our province paid for it. The province. For at least one powered, custom billboard along with who knows how many regular ads. For something that I can’t even start figuring out.
Ads aren’t just ugly and a cheap way to make people spend money on things that they don’t need or even make their lives worse, but our tax dollars are spend on meaningless ads when there’s so many social and economic issues that are being actively ignored or even caused by the current governments.
- worstcatintheworld ( @worstcatintheworld@lemmy.ca ) 11•1 year ago
I think alcohol advertising will eventually be banned but it’ll take a long time. Governments are addicted to the revenues.
- thefattman ( @thefattman@beehaw.org ) 24•1 year ago
Lobbying
- lud ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 4•1 year ago
I mean, aren’t the cigarette companies famous for being extreme lobbyists?
- Dearche ( @Dearche@lemmy.ca ) 4•1 year ago
They did, if you look at late 20th century history. The lobbying and propaganda they did at the time was insane, but there was only so much they could do when people were dying from lung cancer, had trouble breathing, and even chewing tobacco was known to cause mouth cancer.
They simply gave up trying so hard in the west and concentrated efforts in emerging markets. Do you remember the infamous video of the smoking baby a few years ago? Shit like that’s eerily common in places like Indonesia.
- Default_Defect ( @Default_Defect@midwest.social ) English3•1 year ago
They moved to vape stuff.
- 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️ ( @Kolanaki@yiffit.net ) English19•1 year ago
Because it would be weird reading that smoking alcohol is dangerous for pregnant women.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 5•1 year ago
This damn nanny state is out of control! /s
- Sim ( @Sim@lemmy.nz ) 15•1 year ago
And sugar. Off topic a bit, but my addiction is sugar and some reminders might make the occasional difference.
- phoenixz ( @phoenixz@lemmy.ca ) 2•1 year ago
I switched from coca cola to tea sweetened with a little honey, and one day I just dropped the honey. Without the coke, I think I’ve cut about 80% of my sugar intake. Now I drink loads of tea every day and even when we go to a fast food I will skip sugar beverages.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 14•1 year ago
And coffee, and butter, and sugar, and artificial sweeteners, and cannabis, and cars.,. prohibition is stupid. Mind your own fucking business. Stop trying to control others.
- 利斯科 ( @lisko@sopuli.xyz ) 17•1 year ago
It’s just a warning label not a prohibition
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 3•1 year ago
Alright, if that is true, and its not a baby step towards prohibition, let me fill you in on it. We fucking know and we don’t fucking care.
Stop wasting government time and resources on empty soapboxing.
We know what the propaganda says.
- 利斯科 ( @lisko@sopuli.xyz ) 1•1 year ago
Slippery slope fallacy. Also a lot of people actually don’t know that alcohol causes cancer and heart disease as well as homicide, etc. A lot of gullible people drink it because they are socially led to believe that it’s OK or perhaps even necessary, but these are not thinking or informed people. The fact that you call legitimate health information about alcohol “propaganda” shows that you’re not really in the “know” camp, doesn’t it?
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 1•1 year ago
Alcohol causes HOMICIDE?!
Jesus, can I have whatever you are smoking?
- 利斯科 ( @lisko@sopuli.xyz ) 1•1 year ago
Not smoking, drinking
- Lininop ( @Lininop@lemmy.ml ) 15•1 year ago
Slippery slope fallacy.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 4•1 year ago
If this was meant to invalidate my argument:
Red herring fallacy
Just invoking a simple fallacy without establishing it within the context is making a red herring of fallacies themselves.
- Lininop ( @Lininop@lemmy.ml ) 4•1 year ago
Sure I’ll establish it with in context. Just because “other things are also dangerous” doesn’t mean warning should not be on the label of a known carcinogen. This is coming from someone who drinks more than he should.
Putting a warning on the label of a product known to cause harm isn’t “controlling others”. You are free to still consume the product. It is allowing you to make an informed choice, even if you are unaware or unable to access that information from other sources.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 1•1 year ago
- I am in the US, and we have warnings but no nutritional facts on alcohol. In practice, I don’t like wasting government time creating restrictions on labeling just so they can be ignored, because the real reason for it is to baby step at making it a bespoken cultural norm that it is bad, therefore it should be banned and people who partake are bad by association.
I think nutrition facts should be on everything, and if there is NO “hey kiddies, this is alcohol” on the can, okay, there can be one. Before I checked the context myself, I thought this was a “put pictures of tumors on cigarette packs, the simple warning isn’t good enough!” kind of conversation.
- Discounting my comment in the conversation of specifically putting warnings on alcohol as “slippery slope fallacy” takes all the other stuff I just mentioned out of the equation. Just like a simple “Alcohol can cause X” on the can, putting a simple “Butter causes high cholesterol and heart failure” is also a good idea. putting a simple “Caffeine causes addiction and vascular issues” is also a good idea. Putting a “Fossil Fuel Emissions cause cancer and global warming” on the gas pump/gas cap cover on your car is a good idea.
I guess my point is that putting “Warning: Hot” on coffee cups is a waste of both government and private business resources. It does have some minimal merit though, but where do you start? I would be starting with Fossil Fuels. Those seem the most pressing and devastating of hazards we need to be addressing. If you are fixated on smokes and alcohol first, I think you have lost the plot.
It IS possible to establish basic simple warnings on everything that should have them though. Not doing that, to me, reeks of pushing for prohibition.
- Lininop ( @Lininop@lemmy.ml ) 2•1 year ago
I agree with you that prohibition isn’t the way to do things. In my opinion the war on drugs is a waste of tax payers money and more importantly human life stuck behind bars. If you are speaking against criminalization of substances I’m with you. I’m however, not against harm reduction and education, including warning labels on products that are harmful.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 1•1 year ago
Sounds like we are really close to meeting in the middle, I’m just a little more cautious about one part than you are and you are a little more cautious than me on a different part.
Cheers!
- Lininop ( @Lininop@lemmy.ml ) 1•1 year ago
Hey, a civil internet conversation! I’ll take it, cheers!
Argument from fallacy. Just because an argument contains a fallacy doen not mean that its conclusion is false. In this context I feel like it would be much more effective to point out that cigarettes are totally unnecessary, while owning a car (depending on where you live) is not. Putting a warning label on something like cigarettes is not comparable to putting warning signs on something that you actively need to survive.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 1•1 year ago
“[cars] something that you actively need to survive.”
You almost just made me spit out my beer.
“[cars] (depending on where you live) something you actively need to survive.” Seems like you conveniently forgot something there. If you live in a place where you can walk to work and the grocery store that’s amazing for you! For many people having a vehicle is not a choice, but a necessity.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 1•1 year ago
Uber.
Let me say again, Uber.
Busses, trains, scooters, electric vehicles of any kind.
I’m not saying electric means no fossil fuel emissions of any kind. Almost everywhere is feeling varying growing pains exploring how to responsibly keep an ever more drawn upon electric grid charged.
I’m saying gas fueled cars need to go away, not yesterday, but at least 15 years ago.
Gas cars are what we as a species NEED to quit.
Simple vices pale in comparison.
- SkyeStarfall ( @SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 2•1 year ago
Artificial sweeteners are very safe and sugar is carbohydrates, which you almost need for energy and a healthy diet. Coffee and butter is also quite safe.
But alcohol and tobacco? Any amount is harmful. Warnings wouldn’t be unreasonable for people to make more informed decisions. You’d be surprised at how many think alcohol is harmless. And its stuff you quite literally don’t need to live.
- Melkath ( @Melkath@kbin.social ) 2•1 year ago
You clearly don’t follow the news and aren’t very educated on the topic of carcinogens.
Artificial Sweeteners are being found to be carcinogenic. Sugar causes obesity and diabetes. Coffee is addictive and causes vascular disorders. Butter causes high cholesterol and heart attacks.
Tobacco and alcohol have no notable adverse impacts for at least 20 to 40 years (unless you drink to the point of alcohol poisoning, that is immediate).
You clearly aren’t interested in knowledge or having a productive conversation. You just want to do the propagandist prohibitionist circlejerk.
- SkyeStarfall ( @SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 1•1 year ago
???
What lmao
- Adderbox76 ( @Adderbox76@lemmy.ca ) English13•1 year ago
Because alchol sellers aren’t widely considered as flat out evil as cigarette makers, meaning that they can still realistically grease the wheels of power with dump trucks full of money.
I’m sure cigarette makers would love to the do the same thing, but no politician is dumb enough to risk taking “campaign contributions” from people who are widely considered to be the scum of the earth. Alcohol makers still have a level of respectability that lets them get away with it.
- floofloof ( @floofloof@lemmy.ca ) English5•1 year ago
no politician is dumb enough to risk taking “campaign contributions” from people who are widely considered to be the scum of the earth.
And yet they’ll accept campaign assistance from foreign and domestic oil companies:
- LakesLem ( @LakesLem@lemm.ee ) 13•1 year ago
Not really equivalent. Smoking permanently leaves all kind of nasty shit in your lungs and causes cancer. Also very addictive, making moderation physically difficult (alcohol can also be addictive but not to the same extremes). Alcohol in moderation isn’t really an issue. Pushing it more can give your liver a bad time, but as long as you give it a break before the point of disease it can bounce right back.
There is a societal problem especially in the UK in that it’s seen as a sort of matter of pride to throw moderation out of the window and get as wasted as possible, but I have my doubts that graphic health warnings will do much about that. Either way it’s more an effect of society ignoring and sometimes even shaming moderation (how many times have you been shamed for going home before you fall over on a work’s night out) than the alcohol itself.
- Mike ( @mikegioia@lemmy.ml ) 3•1 year ago
Smoking does not permanently leave anything in your lungs. The lungs constantly self clean and I believe after 10 years, all damage from any amount of smoking is removed.
- LakesLem ( @LakesLem@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
The scarring from all the heavy coughing etc?
Still, rather not have all that sitting there for 10 years. The liver recovers from a few pints a lot quicker I believe, and even in the less favourable case of a fatty liver, a matter of weeks of abstienence rather than years. Disease of either, is probably a more dangerous situation.
- jerkface ( @jerkface@lemmy.ca ) English9•1 year ago
Or to the leading cause of death of Canadians: dietary cholesterol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY0UY3FwoW4
The leading cause of death of Canadians can be eliminated strictly through diet and avoiding animal products that contain cholesterol. And yet we pour millions of dollars into research each year for cutting edge new drugs that give you (so claimed) a 20% reduction in heart attacks, while having dozens of unwanted side effects.
If you’re relying on the government and industry to teach you how to be healthy and to provide the tools you need to do it, you’re going to die young.
- Barry Zuckerkorn ( @BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org ) English5•1 year ago
Dietary cholesterol isn’t well correlated with serum cholesterol, which is what the paper you’ve linked is about. It even veers off into the natural conclusion if you believe that serum cholesterol is the only thing that matters: statin prescriptions for everyone!
- fades ( @fades@beehaw.org ) 8•1 year ago
Alcohol is a literal fucking toxin
- Hexagon ( @Hexagon@feddit.it ) 8•1 year ago
Because it would hurt sales. Duh!
- ZC3rr0r ( @ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca ) 6•1 year ago
I wholly agree with the author of this article, but implementing something like this will meet a lot of resistance. Let’s not forget that cigarettes are a relatively new phenomenon, whereas alcohol is something we’ve consumed as a species since prehistoric times. There are a lot of cultural, social, and historical ties to the use of alcohol that people won’t let go easily and will make any attempt to reduce alcohol consumption an uphill battle.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 5•1 year ago
Dooo it. They’ll be a bit more tame, though, because moderate drinking is not nearly as deadly as smoking.
- Dearche ( @Dearche@lemmy.ca ) 5•1 year ago
Alcohol is a massive tax revenue in pretty much everywhere in the world, but especially here in Canada. It’s pretty obvious when you see the difference in price of a beer here compared to the states, as 90% of that difference is purely taxes. Hell, you can tell the difference between the beer/wine costs in Ontario vs in Quebec. There’s a reason why people in Ottawa and Gatineau constantly cross the boarder to buy their poison of choice.
That said, there’s also the fact that when the States tried to ban it, they basically created some of the richest criminals in the world in like a single year. Alcohol is so ingrained into modern society that people riot over it.
Tobacco is a comfort luxury that pretty much anybody can get off of with some effort. Alcohol is a crutch that far too many people use to avoid going to some pretty dark places.
- Sodis ( @Sodis@feddit.de ) 5•1 year ago
Alcohol is a crutch that far too many people use to avoid going to some pretty dark places.
You could also argue, that alcohol leads to these pretty dark places in the first place. If your coping mechanism with problems in your life is to drink them away, well, that won’t work in the long run.
- Dearche ( @Dearche@lemmy.ca ) 1•1 year ago
It does. But for those that use alcohol as a crutch, its use makes those problems feel further away. Especially if you don’t know how to deal with the problems, or just desperately need some relief before tackling the problem (even if it means that you never get to it until it explodes in your face), alcohol is an easy way to pretend that a problem doesn’t exist.
Why do you think so many homeless are also alcoholics? I doubt all of them were alcoholics before becoming homeless, and even for those who were, there’s a reason why they’re still drinking tons of alcohol. All throughout human history, alcohol was known as man’s best friend because life was tough, and it let you forget that fact for a while. Or at least make it feel less bad.
- Sodis ( @Sodis@feddit.de ) 2•1 year ago
My point was, that it is an illusion, that consuming alcohol will help with most of the problems. Okay, for something like grief, where you mostly heal with time, it might not make it actively worse. But for every issue, that you need to tackle proactively, it does nothing. No, it even makes it worse, because you won’t deal with your problem while you are drunk and not even on the next day, because you will most likely be hangover. Alcohol not only messes with your body, but also with your brain. Post-drinking depression is a thing. You get your respite and a curve ball of even worse emotions the days afterwards. Really helpful.
You make running away from your problems sound like a good thing. It isn’t. Alcohol is an easy way out, until you slide down the slippery slope to addiction and it fucks up even more of your life. It is the same with other drugs. Oh, I feel so stressed, I need a cigarette and boom, you can’t do without cigarettes anymore. Oh, I am so tired, I need caffeine to function. No, you need more sleep.
- Dearche ( @Dearche@lemmy.ca ) 2•1 year ago
I think you misunderstand me. Running away from problems is rarely a good thing. Usually it’ll only make things worse, so I completely agree with you.
But the issue is that it is human nature to go for the quick and easy way out, even if it means that you’ll be in deeper shit because you did so. This isn’t restricted to alcohol abuse either. I personally know a guy who got married because he accidentally got his girlfriend pregnant. He wasn’t anywhere close to being ready to commit to it, but he went the easy route once, and now he’s saddled with a marriage and baby he didn’t want for life. And this is a common story, and people keep making this mistake even after being burned.
How many people can you think of who are obese and don’t do anything about it despite knowing full well that one thing probably cut their life down by 10 years if they don’t fix things, yet still eat far too much and indulge in sweets or other high calorie foods?
I’m not arguing against you on this point at all. Alcohol isn’t a good drug at all, and generally don’t provide any real benefits. Either you’re dependent on it for numbing some sort of pain, or you consume it just so you’re not ostracized by your social circle. Any time someone says that they drink because they truly enjoy it only does because one of those two things had happened in the past and now they’ve merely adapted to it and formed a different sort of dependancy.