this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
80 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

7414 readers
461 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 31 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

I’m not Canadian, but I think that anyone who has watched a loved one suffer and wither and die in agony from cancer would argue that you deserve to know when you’re putting yourself at risk of that.

None of those warning labels seem excessive or pointless anymore after watching the last months of my father’s life.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

As a current imbiber, yes absolutely. In fact they should stick on a picture of a fatty liver disease liver vs a healthy one like they do on smokes.

[–] CanadianCabbage 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Under previous guidance, the CCSA recommended a maximum of 10 standard alcoholic drinks per week for women and 15 for men. Now, it says no amount of alcohol is completely safe, and recommends a maximum of two drinks a week to stay within the lowest risk threshold.

I'm surprised it's that high.

I think it makes sense to put labels on alcohol though considering weed and cigarettes already have massive warning labels. Seems like legacy or grandfathered in policy that we don't already.

[–] rbos 9 points 3 weeks ago

I wish they'd put the number of standard drinks on the can. Having to calculate it for a 500ml 6% drink or a 150ml 8% or whatever gets tedious.

[–] Showroom7561 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Alcohol causes cancer, so yes.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So does exhaust from cars. I do think we should force cars to have a giant print of text on them to warn of the risks of cancer and death.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

I love all the people who leave their cars idling during daycare drop off.

Thanks for pumping all those fumes straight into my kid's face.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

It's mental that alcohol has different rules concerning labeling. It should have the nutritional value like everything else.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

As long as the labels don't end up on absolutely everything like in California. It makes sense on things you actually consume, but a lot of other tech products and tools have the California warnings and it's become meaningless to me.

I have no way of knowing if just holding a thing increases my risk of cancer or if it's just an issue if I was to lick a surface or consume something inside. ~~I mean, aluminum apparently causes cancer?!?~~ ~~What can I even do with that information?~~

Edit: I read the wrong list, Aluminum is fine but other metals like Lead and Nickel are bad. The problem is the labels don't tell you what the danger is. Does the product have a literal lead weight inside that you'll never touch? Or is the outside coated in one of the other 600 cancer causing chemicals? (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65chemicalslist.pdf)

Crazy that wood dust is on there. That explains why basically all IKEA furniture "may cause cancer"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I suspect part of how annoying those labels feel is us being a little unsettled by just how many things around us might be killing us.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

I suspect this is going to pull in two directions.

On the one hand, people are already developing some level of warning label fatigue, where they skim over the labels without registering the content just like they do on-line ads. (Both practices are doubtless known to cause cancer in California.)

On the other hand, there's a type of personality who may, in fact, change their minds about buying if presented with a short, sharp "this is bad for you" reminder on the way to the checkout.

Putting the labels on is, overall, a harmless experiment to try, so we might as well see if it does any good. Personally, I don't think we're going to see much change until we spend a couple of decades broadcasting and reinforcing the "no amount is safe" message, and even then many people will keep drinking. Just as there are still smokers today, even after many decades of "you will die horribly if you do this" messaging.

[–] Steak 5 points 3 weeks ago

Good do it. My father died 2 years ago from alcohol related cancer it was fucking horrible.

If it saves even one person from going through that or watching their loved one go through it, it's worth it.

[–] masterspace 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

The idea that putting labels on every bottle is about "letting Canadians know and informing them better", is flat out horseshit.

That's what education campaigns are for. Putting labels on every bottle is about reminding / nagging people every single time they try and enjoy having a drink to try and make them enjoy it less and change their behaviour.

You can be on board with that or not, but let's stop lying with the 'its about education' comments.

[–] Sunshine 14 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Warning labels do work. Turn the bottle the other way or pour in a glass if you don’t want to see it. The doctor knows more than you do.

We found that graphic warnings had a statistically significant effect on smoking prevalence and quit attempts. In particular, the warnings decreased the odds of being a smoker (odds ratio [OR] = 0.875; 95% CI = 0.821–0.932) and increased the odds of making a quit attempt (OR = 1.330, CI = 1.187–1.490). Similar results were obtained when we allowed for more time for the warnings to appear in retail outlets.

https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/15/3/708/1091051

Pictorial warning labels proposed by FDA create unfavorable emotional reactions to smoking that predict reduced cigarette use compared to text alone, with even smokers low in self-efficacy exhibiting some reduction. Predictions that low self-efficacy smokers will respond unfavorably to warnings were not supported.

https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/52/1/53/4737219

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] saigot 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you seriously underestimate the number of people who are completely unreachable with new information unless it is put directly in front of their faces.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I need to say that I adore how you have relentlessly asserted that it only counts as education if you’re told once and then never again, because putting a label on the bottle can’t possibly be a form of education.

[–] masterspace -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I love you I have relentlessly asserted that the mechanism it's working through couldn't possibly be accurately described as nagging.

Oh what scholars everyone is reading a cigarette label and finding out that cigarettes can give you cancer :O! How much better they understand that cigarettes do, in, fact, give, you, cancer! Suddenly knowing that brand new fact changes everything about their decision making! How better informed are they huh?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

You’re making an (asinine) assertion here that people aren’t changing their minds about smoking based on the warning labels, when even the barest little bit of effort on your part would turn up a wealth of studies demonstrating that the cigarette warnings have been very successful at getting people to quit.

Like, any effort at all. Just a little bit.

As an aside:

I love you…

Thanks, I guess, but let’s try to stay on topic.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think they need cancer warnings, they needs "this very addictive substance can irreparably ruin your life if you don't moderate" warnings

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I suspect that most people are already aware that alcohol is not good for one's health.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

But it's becoming more accepted that it is specifically a cancer risk, and not just all the other bad things it does to you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

What?! I had no idea. Excuse me while I put down this 4th mimosa. And by down, I mean my throat.

[–] CkrnkFrnchMn 0 points 3 weeks ago

Should put more than just cancer warning...like warning about losing your house, your family, your dignity.

load more comments
view more: next ›