The issue is why is alcohol being chosen? There’s probably 100 cancer risks that have no warning. I didn’t notice in the article what the actual increase in cancer risk was. Tons of things give you a cancer risk. Putting the labels on everything that may increase a cancer risk will just cause the labels to be ignored (like California in the U.S’ cancer warning labels). Labeling things would work better if only the highest risk things are labeled, like how ciggarettes are labeled. If that’s alcohol, then label it. But unless I zoned out while reading the article, I didn’t see any actual risk numbers given for alcohol. Only that more alcohol created more risk, but that is also pretty much any carcinogen.
That’s kind of the opposite of the point I made. My point was to only label things that cause a truly significant risk of cancer so people don’t ignore the labels. My point was also that the article doesn’t state what the increased risk actually is.
The issue is why is alcohol being chosen? There’s probably 100 cancer risks that have no warning. I didn’t notice in the article what the actual increase in cancer risk was. Tons of things give you a cancer risk. Putting the labels on everything that may increase a cancer risk will just cause the labels to be ignored (like California in the U.S’ cancer warning labels). Labeling things would work better if only the highest risk things are labeled, like how ciggarettes are labeled. If that’s alcohol, then label it. But unless I zoned out while reading the article, I didn’t see any actual risk numbers given for alcohol. Only that more alcohol created more risk, but that is also pretty much any carcinogen.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
That’s kind of the opposite of the point I made. My point was to only label things that cause a truly significant risk of cancer so people don’t ignore the labels. My point was also that the article doesn’t state what the increased risk actually is.