labelling for alcohol

darkpagandeath

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0620/709487-alcohol-labelling-report/

The Irish Heart Foundation recommended labels should include "graphic illustrations of the detrimental health effects arising from alcohol use", while the Irish Cancer Society advocated that labels should say "drinking alcohol causes cancer".

I look forward to seeing this on fatty foods Sugary foods, Fast food well everything. But I highly doubt that, I also bet a lobby group will make sure that it only happens outside pubs. Price will not stop people drinking to excess neither will this. Don't know why this is still and issue year on year people have been drinking less, year on year problem drinking has gone down. Diabetes and obesity is Ireland's biggest problem, size 16 should not be considered an average size.


If it was a public health issue they could at least lead from the front.

Close the dail bar.
Don't drink at public occasions.
Don't take all visitors to Guinness.
Don't drink while on the clock.
Not allow expenses to be handed in with alcohol or tobacco on them.

This will be the exact same people who were on magazine covers in the CT drinking champagne. The government has really taken up the churches role of telling everyone how to think act.

everlast75

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0620/709487-alcohol-labelling-report/



I look forward to seeing this on fatty foods Sugary foods, Fast food well everything. But I highly doubt that, I also bet a lobby group will make sure that it only happens outside pubs. Price will not stop people drinking to excess neither will this. Don't know why this is still and issue year on year people have been drinking less, year on year problem drinking has gone down. Diabetes and obesity is Ireland's biggest problem, size 16 should not be considered an average size.


If it was a public health issue they could at least lead from the front.

Close the dail bar.
Don't drink at public occasions.
Don't take all visitors to Guinness.
Don't drink while on the clock.
Not allow expenses to be handed in with alcohol or tobacco on them.

This will be the exact same people who were on magazine covers in the CT drinking champagne. The government has really taken up the churches role of telling everyone how to think act.

You do realise that most of the people reading this are pissed?

Tom Dunne

The Irish Heart Foundation recommended labels should include "graphic illustrations of the detrimental health effects arising from alcohol use"

shouldn't that be:

The Irish Heart Foundation recommended labels should include "graphic illustrations of the detrimental health effects arising from alcohol abuse"

Seriously, f**k off Nanny-state, tee-totalling, do-gooders.

darkpagandeath

Tom Dunne wrote: »

shouldn't that be:



Seriously, f**k off Nanny-state, tee-totalling, do-gooders.

I don't think we will see amputated feet on products with loads of sugar in do you ?

stimpson

What a load of bollix. They should have labels that say drinking can be beneficial to your health. Even heavy drinkers outlive non drinkers:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html

Sam Kade

stimpson wrote: »

What a load of bollix. They should have labels that say drinking can be beneficial to your health. Even heavy drinkers outlive non drinkers:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html

What a load of rubbish, I know a heavy drinker she's in her early 50's and will never see 60.

Turtwig

stimpson wrote: »

What a load of bollix. They should have labels that say drinking can be beneficial to your health. Even heavy drinkers outlive non drinkers:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017200,00.html

Media make a huge deal of this. Dead people cannot drink, the nearer you are to being dead the less likely you are to drink. The people least likely to drink among a population are those with underlying health issues Of course that can be correlated using more catchy phrases such as drinkers live longer. Just like chocolate is good for your health.

Related to OP saying alcohol causes cancer is a little over the top. The statement is true, yes. But in terms of risk, smoking almost certainly will give you cancer inevitably assuming you live long enough. Alcohol's risk, while real, is very very low. Put simply you'd have be one unlucky soul to get alcohol caused cancer. People do get it, but most people won't. Everyone has a much much higher risk to other causes of cancer.

If they campaigned against smoking and alcohol then that might make more sense. Many people seem unaware of the risks provided by the combination.

stimpson

Sam Kade wrote: »

What a load of rubbish, I know a heavy drinker she's in her early 50's and will never see 60.

So a sample of 1. Nice sciencing.

From the article:

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

stimpson

Here's another study with the same results:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/health/2013/07/18/no-drinking-leads-to-higher-mortality-risk-but-why-cu-researchers-explore-reasons/3468/

stimpson

More interesting reading:

http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/us/health/doctor.htm

Data from the Copenhagen Heart Study, that followed over 13,000 men and women for over 10 years, illustrate how reducing moderate drinking might increase mortality. The results from the Copenhagen Heart Study show the typical J-shaped relationship between the relative risk of death from any cause and alcohol consumption. Drinkers who stated that they averaged one to six drinks per week had about 40% lower death rates than non-drinkers; heavy drinkers had higher death rates.

tommy2bad

Well it the model that worked for smoking so it seems sensible to use the same tobacco control model for other products that carry a health risk.
Alcholl, salt, sugar and junk food. Tax and labels first then graphic warnings until your bottle of wine comes in a standardised container with a plain label without trademarks or branding.
Same for fizzy drinks and burgers.
Welcome to the Soviet republic of well-being!

darkpagandeath

People have to remember the anti drink lobby for example don't do figures it's more of a Religion. Don't drink "Why" because we said it's bad. They the same anti drinkers will go on about everyone being problem drinkers. You show them figures from the EU about Ireland being middle and dropping in the list of consumption, And then pointing out that we are second most expensive to be met with. But but but everyone knows we drink to much with no figures. Also going on about below cost selling, never seen any data backing that one up. So how can we sell below cost and be the second most expensive alcohol in the EU.

Not G.R

If we're talking about alcohol labeling, ingredients, location of brewing and nutritional information while we're at it please.

P_1

Not G.R wrote: »

If we're talking about alcohol labeling, ingredients, location of brewing and nutritional information while we're at it please.

This! Never mind odious health warnings, just tell us what's in it, how much carbs/fat/protein/energy you get per 100mls/bottle and let us make our own minds up thank you very much.

Sam Kade

stimpson wrote: »

So a sample of 1. Nice sciencing.

From the article:

Plenty more

stimpson wrote: »

Here's another study with the same results:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/health/2013/07/18/no-drinking-leads-to-higher-mortality-risk-but-why-cu-researchers-explore-reasons/3468/

stimpson wrote: »

More interesting reading:

http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/us/health/doctor.htm

You're gone from heavy drinkers live longer to moderate drinkers live longer, did you run out of heavy drinkers live longer links?

Youngblood.III

I think this picture on a beer bottle / can would clearly send a message to our youth about dangers of drink.

Youngblood.III

I think this picture on a beer bottle / can would clearly send a message to our youth about dangers of drink.

Youngblood.III

I think this picture on a beer bottle / can would clearly send a message to our youth about dangers of drink.

theteal

Being alive causes cancer so buck up, enjoy yourself and try not to be a pain in the arse to everyone else while you're here!

Sam Kade

Youngblood.III wrote: »

I think this picture on a beer bottle / can would clearly send a message to our youth about dangers of drink.

Is that yourself ya dirty b@stard

PizzamanIRL

Bla bla bla everything is bad for you in excessive consumption.

JoseJones

Sam Kade wrote: »

Plenty more



You're gone from heavy drinkers live longer to moderate drinkers live longer, did you run out of heavy drinkers live longer links?

You've gone from "someone I know" to "plenty more", why not back up your own point with a little substance before writing off all of the sources provided.

Atlantic Dawn

What about warnings on milk? Dangerous for your health if drank in the same quantity as alcohol.

Sheep Lover

What about labelling on bananas? Those pointy fcukers are just waiting to stab you in the eye. They should prohibit the sale of bananas to under 18s.

darkpagandeath

Sheep Lover wrote: »

What about labelling on bananas? Those pointy fcukers are just waiting to stab you in the eye. They should prohibit the sale of bananas to under 18s.

Ha, That comment made my Sunday thanks for that.

stimpson

Sam Kade wrote: »

Plenty more



You're gone from heavy drinkers live longer to moderate drinkers live longer, did you run out of heavy drinkers live longer links?

Moderate drinkers live longer than Heavy drinkers, who live longer than non drinkers.

I assume it's because non drinkers would rather be dead.

stimpson

Just for Sam I did more research. The point at which mortality rates for drinking and non drinking converge is between 20 to 40 standard US units.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/overcoming-addiction/201408/us-moderate-drinking-limits-are-completely-unrealistic

That's between 15 and 30 pints of beer a week.

The Irish recommended limits for men are half of the lower range. Which leads me to believe that the Irish recommendations are based on politics rather than science.

rubadub

Not G.R wrote: »

If we're talking about alcohol labeling, ingredients, location of brewing and nutritional information while we're at it please.

Its crazy how they get away having to show ingredients and/or nutritional info. A knowledgeable guy in the beer forum said its due to the wine making lobby not wanting to declare ingredients which would reveal how much sugar and other shite it actually used in wine. Bulmers have very misleading adverts anybody would think their drink is made from just apple or pear juice, when in facts its likely to be just around 30% juice and sugar water, colouring and acids, it is most likely at the legal limit below which you cannot call it cider.

The only thing of concern to me is the sugar content. The % and volume is enough for me to gauge how much alcohol is in something. If you told me something was 2 units of alcohol I would have to ask if its UK, Irish or some other countries units you mean. I would then have to convert this unit back into % and volume.

This labeling could be a red herring to do with minimum pricing. People are predicting all brewers/distributors will increase prices to off licences to get their cut of this new found profit. But people forget there is free competition with other EU countries, off licence owners could import or drive up north to get drink, all above board once they pay excise, its not smuggling, just bypassing ridiculous wholesale prices here.

However they would have to relabel the products. Heineken sell a 4.3% beer here, only here and 1 other country have this, most others are the 5% version. Heineken could possibly refuse to disclose the calories of the one people are importing so they could not create a label. And so in this way the distributors could possibly still control the pricing here. Maybe sellers could get independent calories tested and make up their own values, but its going to be off putting.

People are saying premium drinks will not be effected by min pricing, but if breweries or distributors have to open boxes and apply special labels you can definitely expect an increase in price across the board.

Public_Enema

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Seriously, f**k off Nanny-state, tee-totalling, do-gooders.

Amen to that.

Sam Kade

JoseJones wrote: »

You've gone from "someone I know" to "plenty more", why not back up your own point with a little substance before writing off all of the sources provided.

So you've never seen a heavy drinker get old and withered before their time, you're probably not around long enough to see it happen

stimpson

Sam Kade wrote: »

So you've never seen a heavy drinker get old and withered before their time, you're probably not around long enough to see it happen

You've never seen a non drinker die young?

There are reasons why we should make decisions on sound science that uses sample size determination, control groups and peer review.

Sam Kade

stimpson wrote: »

You've never seen a non drinker die young?

There are reasons why we should make decisions on sound science that uses sample size determination, control groups and peer review.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. You put up one link that heavy drinkers live longer than non drinkers and all of a sudden it's sound science. Then you changed to moderate drinkers live longer, there's a big difference between the two.

TomBtheGoat

I would imagine that labelling for alcohol, will be about as useful as tits on a Bull.

stimpson

Sam Kade wrote: »

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. You put up one link that heavy drinkers live longer than non drinkers and all of a sudden it's sound science. Then you changed to moderate drinkers live longer, there's a big difference between the two.

They do live longer than non drinkers. Up to thirty pints a week. Moderate drinkers live even longer. Show me where I said anything else.

suicide_circus

if you follow this line of thinking, cars should have mandatory vinyl wrap graphics of people with spinal injuries and swimming pools should have photos of bloated drowning victims on the walls. Is this the world we want to live in? Packets of peanuts with "may contain nuts" on the back. Generations of adult babies all devoid of original thought, personal responsibility and the right to live dangerously.

tommy2bad

suicide_circus wrote: »

if you follow this line of thinking, cars should have mandatory vinyl wrap graphics of people with spinal injuries and swimming pools should have photos of bloated drowning victims on the walls. Is this the world we want to live in? Packets of peanuts with "may contain nuts" on the back. Generations of adult babies all devoid of original thought, personal responsibility and the right to live dangerously.

Might have more to do with grounds to sue than rights to live dangerously.

Paramite Pie

tommy2bad wrote: »

Might have more to do with grounds to sue than rights to live dangerously.

If a person cannot read PEANUTS in large font then they are unlikely to be able to read a small warning on the back of the pack.
The pictures of nuts on the front would be the biggest clue.

I understand products where it's less obvious (chocolate) but often the product description and ingredients list are in a larger font than the warning itself.

rubadub

Paramite Pie wrote: »

The pictures of nuts on the front would be the biggest clue.

Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes. Somebody who is not allergic to peanuts could be allergic to other things called "nuts". The peanuts can be cross contaminated since the peanut factory may also have other nuts there too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_nut_allergy

Tree nut allergy, a hypersensitivity to dietary substances from tree nuts causing an overreaction of the immune system, may lead to severe physical symptoms.[1] Tree nuts include almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, chestnuts, filberts/hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, pistachios, pine nuts,[2] and walnuts.[note 1]

Tree nut allergy is distinct from peanut allergy, as peanuts are legumes, whereas a tree nut is a hard-shelled fruit.

darkpagandeath

tommy2bad wrote: »

Might have more to do with grounds to sue than rights to live dangerously.

Aye, Sure here you can be piss*d and climb a massive fence and get loads of money because there was no sign saying that you are not supposed to.