this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
451 points (95.7% liked)

Canada

9789 readers
548 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
[–] twistedtxb@lemmy.ca 170 points 2 years ago (8 children)

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

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 52 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I was drinking a while claw with my mother-in-law, and reflected that 100 calories was pretty good.

She responded she preferred her normal vodka sodas because they have 0 calories...

[–] xpinchx@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Honestly I wouldn't know if I didn't have to take nutrition 101 in college.

Actually who am I kidding if I didn't know I probably would've googled it.

[–] CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Zero calories? 100 g of 60 % vodka is 370 calories

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rusty@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There are nutrition labels on alcohol in Europe, but people there drink as much as here.

[–] Blaidd@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yup, just checked my beer. Lists ingredients and calories. In 2 langauges!

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 2 years 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@reddthat.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not having to list ingredients is a real pain if you have uncommon food allergies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] elxeno@lemm.ee 55 points 2 years ago
[–] polle@feddit.de 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I would like a ban on advertising, too.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] worstcatintheworld@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago (11 children)

I think alcohol advertising will eventually be banned but it'll take a long time. Governments are addicted to the revenues.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] thefattman@beehaw.org 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because it would be weird reading that smoking alcohol is dangerous for pregnant women.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago

This damn nanny state is out of control! /s

[–] Sim@lemmy.nz 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

And sugar. Off topic a bit, but my addiction is sugar and some reminders might make the occasional difference.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years 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:

https://canadians.org/analysis/when-big-oil-intervenes-canadian-politics-it-does-so-foreign-money-and-huge-scale/

https://canadians.org/media/new-report-reveals-pervasive-influence-big-foreign-oil-canadian-politics/

[–] zammy95@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I can think of local brewers and stuff that do it as a hobby, and just happened to take a chance to start doing it professionally. I don't think these people are evil at all, they're just trying to have fun with their interest (albeit one that isn't great for your health) and make some money while doing so.

Can't really say the same thing for tobacco. I'm sure in some places there may be a similar kind thing though, so that's just a thought from my local perspective. All I know are big corporate brands for smoking.

Edit: just to add onto this... I absolutely think we should include ingredients, nutritional facts, and warnings on alcohol still. Just my 2 cents about one being more evil than the other by a landslide.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LakesLem@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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.

[–] KiloGex@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (6 children)

“I don’t want to say that there are necessarily equivalent health risks,”

I mean, they said it themselves. Drinking responsibly and in moderation poses no recorded long-term health risks. But even 1 cigarette a day can cause serious harm.

Not quite. Even the accepted amount poses increased threats to being diagnosed with cancer (it is a carcinogen at the end of the day): https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohols-effects-body

It is incredibly worse with breast cancer too.

"Evidence is consistent that intake, even intake of less than 10-15 grams per day, is associated with increased risk of this disease"

https://arcr.niaaa.nih.gov/volume/40/2/alcohols-effects-breast-cancer-women

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] fades@beehaw.org 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Alcohol is a literal fucking toxin

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Almost. It's that first breakdown step of ethanol into acetaldehyde that is the worst, but the human body is remarkably resilient to it.

Humans have a very interesting relationship to alcohol, for sure. It was very useful for preserving primitive beer for long periods which helped us survive and evolve. Hell, it is even theorized that we started to develop the ability to process the stuff so we wouldn't get blasted out of our minds when we left the trees to forage for fruits that may have already been fermented.

But, yes, it could be considered a toxin that has no purpose these days. Truth be told, it is still useful for it's medicinal effects when combined with other medications for cold and flu relief. In highly stressful situations it can be beneficial for a quick morale boost. There are plenty of other uses for it as well.

In full disclosure, I don't drink anymore. My body has always metabolized it too well and led me to drink a lot, quickly. Hangovers were always short if I even had a serious one at all. This excessive drinking led to an addiction which took me years to overcome. But enough about me..

My point is not to underestimate its benefits, s'all. Moderation is key and for those who cannot moderate, abstain.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Dooo it. They'll be a bit more tame, though, because moderate drinking is not nearly as deadly as smoking.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years 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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Or to the leading cause of death of Canadians: dietary cholesterol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY0UY3FwoW4

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Roberts-14/publication/23313863_The_Cause_of_Atherosclerosis/links/551477890cf283ee08364f81/The-Cause-of-Atherosclerosis.pdf

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arc@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Warnings now do appear on the back of alcohol in the EU but they're usually small things on the back of the label stating the units of alcohol in the bottle & warning about drinking while pregnant or whatever.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The answer is in the article: “ I don’t want to say that there are necessarily equivalent health risks,”

[–] noride@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FreeBooteR69@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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@feddit.de 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›