Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Beer

Surgeon General Calls For Cancer Risk Warning on Alcoholic Beverages (cbsnews.com) 131

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The U.S. surgeon general has issued an advisory calling for a warning about the risk of cancer to be included on alcoholic beverages. From a report: "Given the conclusive evidence on the cancer risk from alcohol consumption and the Office of the Surgeon General's responsibility to inform the American public of the best available scientific evidence, the Surgeon General recommends an update to the Surgeon General's warning label for alcohol-containing beverages to include a cancer risk warning," Dr. Vivek Murthy said in the advisory Friday.

The advisory notes that alcohol is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the country, after tobacco and obesity. "Alcohol is a well-established, preventable cause of cancer responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer and 20,000 cancer deaths annually in the United States -- greater than the 13,500 alcohol-associated traffic crash fatalities per year in the U.S. -- yet the majority of Americans are unaware of this risk," Murthy said in a news release. The advisory also says more than 740,000 cancer cases globally could be attributed to alcohol use in 2020.

Surgeon General Calls For Cancer Risk Warning on Alcoholic Beverages More | Reply

Surgeon General Calls For Cancer Risk Warning on Alcoholic Beverages

Comments Filter:

  • Education? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Friday January 03, 2025 @12:07PM (#65059761) Homepage

    Murthy also calls for reassessing recommended limits for alcohol consumption and boosting education efforts regarding alcohol and cancer, in addition to other measures.

    .
    My “problem” with education, is that it's usually inaccurate to fully misleading, if not done cautiously, and making sure those giving the lessons are fully, and accurately trained on the information. Regardless if alcohol has cancer risks, and you can draw a tight correlation of cancer deaths to consumption, if you screw the education, what use will it be?

    Last year, my younger daughter had several lessons about tobacco, and nicotine products. The slide deck was apparently prepared by Stanford, and went over smokeless products, cigarettes, cigars, pipes, and derivates. If you weren't very knowledgeable about tobacco, it looked superb, it seemed to go over the information accurately, and to the untrained, it pointed out the health risk. The issue, it wasn't correct, some information was “good enough”, but most was “misleading to flat out intentionally lying.”.

    I messaged her teacher, with a full correction of the slide deck, complete with articles, references, and medical studies, and was waved off. My daughter, who knew more than her teacher, also brought up numerous completely incorrect points, and was sent to the office. The VP called me and explained my daughter was disruptive and argumentative, and she shouldn't correct the teacher. When I explained the issue, and forwarded the previous email, I was against waved off.

    This is the problem! If the education is functionally useless, or, the people giving it are functionally clueless, it won't work, and can you really defend lying to children?

    The PowerPoints have been corrected in several places, but they still have errors, too many errors. Here are the recent versions:

    https://med.stanford.edu/content/sm/tobaccopreventiontoolkit/take-and-teach/powerpoints.html

    Just so we're clear, I'm not claiming that all education is bad, I'm suggesting there has to be a careful hand in designing the education, and being accurate, without skewing reality. For instance, have you ever seen a primary or secondary school tobacco / nicotine lesson that goes over the valid health benefits?

    • Yup. The problem is a complete inability to accept nuance. A thing is either totally good and acceptable in every way or it's evil and needs to be banned everywhere. It doesn't help that those in power get more power through lack of nuance and are therefore inclined to continue the trend, or that good vs bad makes for a better wedge issue.

      • Yup. The problem is a complete inability to accept nuance. A thing is either totally good and acceptable in every way or it's evil and needs to be banned everywhere.

        Agreed, unfortunately, it's EXTREMELY COMMON. Most people want simple rules. The problem is we had an egregious failure of science in the 90s regarding alcohol. Researchers noticed wine drinkers had less heart disease, so they reported it and studied it and assumed the wine was the reason. Nope...as most know...it's just that wine drinkers tend to be wealthier than those who drink vodka or beer, especially in the USA. Wine is for the wealthy urban folks and beer was a more blue-collar, especially when

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          IIUC, the problem with antioxidants is that the dose needs to be carefully calibrated. Too many and they interfere with the immune system. To few and it's difficult to recover from the immune system attacking something. (H2O2 is one of the immune systems main active tools.)

        • Most people want simple rules.

          That's why we invented religion. Don't do that. Why? God said so. Not need for long arguments or evidence.

    • Re:Education? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by migos ( 10321981 ) on Friday January 03, 2025 @12:34PM (#65059821)
      If you have a problem with the Stanford deck you e-mail Stanford. K-12 teachers will not modify them based on some parent's feedback unless it's super obvious, or unless you're some world renowned expert in that field. Trying to act like you're smarter than everyone else is just trying to be an asshole. Also, what exactly were you trying to correct? Were you trying to tell them that vapes aren't as bad as mainstream media say? There's a reason we don't teach nuances to the kids. Most of them won't get it and will get more confused. Why do you teach K-12 newtonian physics and not teach them the nuances of relativity? Why do we teach kids that it takes a year for earth to go around the sun instead of 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes? The truth is that most of the population don't have the intellectual capacity to understand complex subjects so we stick with the simplified, least harmful version. Recent social media cesspool is proof that people are more dangerous with too much uncurated information.
      • What was I trying to correct? From memory

        1. Smokeless tobacco does not carry that same risk threshold as smoking tobacco.
        2. Cigarettes carry a very different risk level than pipes or cigars.
        3. Dry snuff is not cocaine, do you really think 20g of cocaine is $5?
        4. Not all moist snuff has the same risk threshold.
        5. Snus is not tobacco for women (yes, it really said that).
        6. Moist pouched tobacco products have a lower risk than non-pouched varieties.
        7. Tobacco, and Nicotine have health benefits, and can
        • 2. Cigarettes carry a very different risk level than pipes or cigars.

          Actually, that one isn't wrong, provided that you smoke your pipe or cigar properly, which means that you don't inhale. Most of the nicotine and other nasty chemicals you get from smoking get into your blood stream through your lungs as you smoke a cigarette. The smoke from pipes or cigars is stronger, and all you need to do is puff on them, meaning that you draw the smoke into your mouth, and moments later exhale it through your mout
          • I wasn't lecturing on the safety of smoking, and you're incorrect. The issue with mass market cigarettes is not the tobacco, or the nicotine, it's the chemical additives that do the bulk of the damage to the lungs, and body. If you use cigars, pipes, most dip / chew tobacco, most dry snuff, snus, bits, ropes, you're using much purer tobacco. Since you're not breathing the smoke through the lungs, the contrasted health risks, make the cigarettes much more dangerous.

            Oddly enough, if you get unlaced ciga

      • Why do you teach K-12 newtonian physics and not teach them the nuances of relativity?

        Clearly you have to keep education to a level that is appropriate for students but that does not mean that you do not take account of the deeper level of knowledge when you teach the surface approach. This is important because you need to teach the material in a way that, while it does not include all the nuances, is consistent with them.

        My favourite example of this is mechanical resonance of the driven damped harmonic oscillator. All most all the first year university textbooks state clearly that reson

    • Can you point out some errors?

      • Re:Education? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Friday January 03, 2025 @01:03PM (#65059941) Homepage
        Yes, f from memory here are some of them:

        1. Smokeless tobacco does not carry that same risk threshold as smoking tobacco.
        2. Cigarettes carry a very different risk level than pipes or cigars.
        3. Dry snuff is not cocaine, do you really think 20g of cocaine is $5?
        4. Not all moist snuff has the same risk threshold.
        5. Snus is not tobacco for women (yes, it really said that).
        6. Moist pouched tobacco products have a lower risk than non-pouched varieties.
        7. Tobacco, and Nicotine have health benefits, and can be prescribed.
        7. Not all tobacco is equivalent, there is a difference between the mass market variety for cigarettes and those used for other products.
        8. The risk with Cigarettes is not due to the tobacco, it's the chemical additives.
        9. European products tend to have a lower risk threshold than the American products, due to pasteurization.
        10. Chewing tobacco is not the same as dipping tobacco (yes, it made that error).

        There were others, and I, personally, think kids need accurate information. If you're going to make it a lesson, make it a proper lesson, and sure adjust it for the grade level, but, you have no excuse for teaching errors, getting the correct information, and not retracting those errors.

        • I checked the powerpoint slide and it mentions none of your points.

          • Yes, they updated the PowerPoints, as I mentioned:

            The PowerPoints have been corrected in several places, but they still have errors, too many errors

            If I find the old version I'll post a link to it, it's easy to recognize because they have a tin of “McCrystals” with the label of “Moist Snuff” followed by "Cocaine”. That teacher got fired, for an entirely different reason, so I can't even email her and get that copy.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Ksevio ( 865461 )

              If they have errors then why not list the errors instead of the "fixed" ones?

              • I was, from the original set, the ones my daughter was taught, to show that if you don't carefully perform the education, it will be effectively useless. I provided the new set of slides to show where the old set came from, I'm glad they updated them, but we still need to sop lying to kids.
    • I am actually genuinely curious. It's been a long time since I've had those kind of lessons obviously, this website's full of old coots after all. But what specifically was wrong?

      Also I can't help but wonder why this was so important to you. Do you own a vape shop?
      • I've mentioned in other replies some errors from memory, so you can look them up, but, it's important because kids need accurate information. My wife and I have a very liberal attitude towards reality, We'll never tell a child: “Never do drugs!” what we say is: “Understand set, setting, supply, testing, have a sitter, and make sure you do your research.”. I'm not a drug enthusiast, I use cannabis and mushrooms for medical purposes, and I drink recreationally.

        I'm a tobacco fan, u

  • Most Cancer Causing* (Score:3)

    by Vitriol+Angst ( 458300 ) on Friday January 03, 2025 @12:19PM (#65059779)

    The following is my translation:
    *Alcohol is the most preventable source of cancer outside of plastics and numerous other things we allow you to be subjected to but would frankly cost a lot of money to people who scare us.

    We could give you hope, a decent wage, and some classes on how to chill with other humans, but that would require work and distribution of wealth, so that isn't going to happen.

    Again, we'd like to let you know that you should think we care. But we know you drink to forget, and then there's internet porn. So,..

  • The number of cannabis deaths is still zero.

    • False. Cannabis has killed people through its effects, just like alcohol.

      Man shoots and kills wife after eating marijuana edible [telegraph.co.uk].

      Man shoots and kills self after eating marijuana edibles [summitdaily.com].

      Mn jumps from balcony and dies after eating marijuana cookies [denverpost.com].

      Man dies after using medical grade marijuana [today.com].

      And then there are all the deaths in vehicle accidents from people driving while stoned.

      And before you say "it wasn't the marijuana which killed them", the same applies to alcohol. Exept i

    • This isn't entirely true - smoking cannabis causes similar issues to smoking cigarettes, so I'm quite sure people have died from lung cancer from smoking weed. Also getting ripped and driving is a problem. If you stick to edibles, and avoid operating heavy machinery though you're pretty much safe unless you're part of the very small percentage of people for whom it can trigger a psychotic break.

      That said, it's definitely less harmful than its counterparts (cigarettes/alcohol) and should be fully legalized.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        There's suggestive evidence that smoking marijuana is more dangerous than smoking tobacco. Largely because the smoke tends to be hotter, and there's more effort to retain the smoke. But I haven't heard of any actual studies that show this to be true.

        • I've read similar things - and I think there's a counterbalance to that which is tobacco smokers (cigarettes especially) tend to be heavier users than cannabis users. Even the heaviest stoner isn't smoking 50 joints a day, while a 2 pack smoker will go through that many cigarettes. Either way, it's pretty safe to operate under the assumption that smoking ~anything~ is harmful.

          I suspect we'll start to get much better data now as it continues its march towards legalization in more jurisdictions.

        • Studies show cannabis doubles the risk of cancer but tobacco is something like 27x the risk.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by RedK ( 112790 )

        "As a canadian" is the smug stuff people hate us for.

        That being said, as I canadian, I can't wait for Cannabis to be made illegal again. Legalisation was a mistake.

        Everywhere you go now, it stinks. The stuff stinks. And stinks up everywhere it's its smoked, which is basically everywhere now. Make it illegal again.

        • It's perfectly possible to have rules and laws about public use (specifically of smoking dry bud, which is the smelliest) without making it illegal in its entirety. We already do this with cigarettes, although I admit weed smell carries quite a bit more and might require additional measures. Banning the substance because some people are inconsiderate is complete overkill.

          My comment about being Canadian had nothing to do with being smug - it was simply to point out that I live in a jurisdiction where it's en

  • science has determined... (Score:3, Funny)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Friday January 03, 2025 @12:32PM (#65059817) Homepage Journal

    "Scientists have determined that research causes cancer in laboratory animals."

  • Just like cigarettes, warn everyone and advertise nowhere on TV or streaming.
  • it's enough to drive to drink
  • It is hard drug; withdrawal can result in death; it causes untold numbers of deaths, directly or indirectly, every year. Why is it the case that other arguably less dangerous substances are, for all practical purposes, banned? If people 21 years-old and older can buy alcoholic beverages freely (in most states) why not marijuana, morphine, heroin, fentanyl, etc.? Why should alcohol be so privileged, and not those others?
  • In CA they passed Proposition 65 decades ago which states that everything offered for sale causes cancer.

    • For some reason I find those labels darkly humorous. "This product is known to the state of California as causing cancer ..." or something like that. Hey, I don't live in California so - apparently there's no problem!

      • Actually, some of the warnings are much funnier than that. I've seen:
        "Substance x is known to cause cancer in the state of California"
        I don't know if this is the result of bad editing of the warning by some copy editor, or if this is accepted alternative text. It's hilarious, if read literally.

    • at this point say everything causes cancer.
  • Cool. I'm sure the only people affected are the people who don't need to drink. I need to drink, I'd rather not, but the alternative is socialism.

  • I doubt a warning will have much effect. Especially in California, just about everything is labeled as a cancer risk.

    Besides, drinking rates are declining [gallup.com] as people figure out on their own that alcohol is unhealthy, expensive and unnecessary for having a good time.

  • It's about as useful as praying, but more expensive.

Slashdot Top Deals

The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income and add ten percent.

Close