Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why studies don’t include the chemicals/pesticides used at wineries, and how those might be a bigger reason for higher rates of cancer.

Because that’s absurd

It really is not. Grapes are fragile; to be grown in any quantity they have to be sprayed over and over for pests, fungi, molds—it’s a long, long list.

My dad, a PhD in agricultural chemistry, worked in the pesticide industry for more than 30 years—usually in contexts where pesticide residues were much more dilute (wheat, corn, soy). When he learned what is sprayed on grapes (I eat 2-3 lbs a week and have since childhood) he came home and said “those, you might want to buy organic.”

It’s all concentrated in wine. I drink that too! But we can’t pretend it’s not in there.

I am the OP who brought up the point about pesticides etc used at wineries. Thank you PP for your insight. My dad specialized in internal medicine and he said the same thing. He believed there was a link with these residues in red wine and breast cancer in women.

So that’s interesting. Perhaps it’s not the alcohol but the pesticides in alcoholic drinks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why studies don’t include the chemicals/pesticides used at wineries, and how those might be a bigger reason for higher rates of cancer.

Because that’s absurd

It really is not. Grapes are fragile; to be grown in any quantity they have to be sprayed over and over for pests, fungi, molds—it’s a long, long list.

My dad, a PhD in agricultural chemistry, worked in the pesticide industry for more than 30 years—usually in contexts where pesticide residues were much more dilute (wheat, corn, soy). When he learned what is sprayed on grapes (I eat 2-3 lbs a week and have since childhood) he came home and said “those, you might want to buy organic.”

It’s all concentrated in wine. I drink that too! But we can’t pretend it’s not in there.

I am the OP who brought up the point about pesticides etc used at wineries. Thank you PP for your insight. My dad specialized in internal medicine and he said the same thing. He believed there was a link with these residues in red wine and breast cancer in women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why studies don’t include the chemicals/pesticides used at wineries, and how those might be a bigger reason for higher rates of cancer.

Because that’s absurd

It really is not. Grapes are fragile; to be grown in any quantity they have to be sprayed over and over for pests, fungi, molds—it’s a long, long list.

My dad, a PhD in agricultural chemistry, worked in the pesticide industry for more than 30 years—usually in contexts where pesticide residues were much more dilute (wheat, corn, soy). When he learned what is sprayed on grapes (I eat 2-3 lbs a week and have since childhood) he came home and said “those, you might want to buy organic.”

It’s all concentrated in wine. I drink that too! But we can’t pretend it’s not in there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The studies informing the broad generalization that alcohol is basically unsafe at any amount are really inadequate to come to such conclusions. There are plenty of caveats in the studies that would suggest that not every scenario in the same. For example, drinking lots of water, having alcohol with food, drinking slowly over prolonged periods of time, etc all significantly reduce the negative effects. This is mostly glossed over by the public health authority and media hysteria, though.

You are wrong. Alcohol metabolizes to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen. No amount of food or water stops that process. American is so addicted to this carcinogenic poison drug that we have to explain why, when we don’t want any in a social situation.

Actually, dilution changes the risk profile of all sorts of toxic substances. Your post is hysteria.

Of course if you dilute it before putting it in your body since you have less concentration. However, once you add X amount to your body it is already there. It doesn’t matter how much water you drink. Or do you think breathing fresh air after smoking reduces the risk of cancer caused by cigarettes?

You’re wrong and don’t know how the digestive system vs the pulmonary system works.

I do know very well how they work. I also understand chemistry which it seems that you don’t.

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol is toxic as it enters your mouth and slides down your throat. It causes cirrhosis of the liver. It leads to mouth, throat, pancreatic, and liver cancer. The USSG is wanting to warn people with labels of this.

People absolutely deserve to know the risks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think alcohol will be my generations smoking. The more data that comes out it’s pretty bad. While I agree that the stuff in food is also bad for you, that doesn’t give alcohol a pass. Also if I overeat on treats, etc, my Fitbit doesn’t really show a difference in my stats for the day. If I have even one glass of wine (I am a very occasional drinker—maybe 1-2 times per month), my resting heart rate goes up 4-5 bpm which is big jump for me, and my heart rate variability takes a complete nose dive. That alone has been enough for me to curb a lot.

Me too- I always comment on how my Fitbit knows when I had even 1 glass of wine.

Alcohol already is this generation’s cigarettes. My young adult kids and their friends look down on drinking as a low class and dangerous habit. They all get stoned instead.

I don’t really care what your kids think, just as they likely don’t care what I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why studies don’t include the chemicals/pesticides used at wineries, and how those might be a bigger reason for higher rates of cancer.

Because that’s absurd

Why is absurd?

https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.13419

It’s indeed absurd that our corrupted government agencies allow massive cancerous pesticides, pesticides that are naturally banned in Europe.

MAHA was actually a left wing movement co-opted by the right. And all this hysteria over pesticides and alcohol proves it.

What are you blathering about now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why studies don’t include the chemicals/pesticides used at wineries, and how those might be a bigger reason for higher rates of cancer.

Because that’s absurd

Why is absurd?

https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.13419

It’s indeed absurd that our corrupted government agencies allow massive cancerous pesticides, pesticides that are naturally banned in Europe.

MAHA was actually a left wing movement co-opted by the right. And all this hysteria over pesticides and alcohol proves it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The studies informing the broad generalization that alcohol is basically unsafe at any amount are really inadequate to come to such conclusions. There are plenty of caveats in the studies that would suggest that not every scenario in the same. For example, drinking lots of water, having alcohol with food, drinking slowly over prolonged periods of time, etc all significantly reduce the negative effects. This is mostly glossed over by the public health authority and media hysteria, though.

You are wrong. Alcohol metabolizes to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen. No amount of food or water stops that process. American is so addicted to this carcinogenic poison drug that we have to explain why, when we don’t want any in a social situation.

Actually, dilution changes the risk profile of all sorts of toxic substances. Your post is hysteria.

Of course if you dilute it before putting it in your body since you have less concentration. However, once you add X amount to your body it is already there. It doesn’t matter how much water you drink. Or do you think breathing fresh air after smoking reduces the risk of cancer caused by cigarettes?

You’re wrong and don’t know how the digestive system vs the pulmonary system works.

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol is toxic as it enters your mouth and slides down your throat. It causes cirrhosis of the liver. It leads to mouth, throat, pancreatic, and liver cancer. The USSG is wanting to warn people with labels of this.

Again, how many people do not understand how to digest data? Anyway, to correct you, your post should read: It can lead to mouth, throat, pancreatic, and liver cancer. Not that it does. What it does is every so slightly increase your risk of getting such a cancer. I know lots of old people who drink moderately and then some, and not a one has ever gotten any of those--or any for that matter--cancers. You see how that makes your statement objectively wrong. I have two sisters who drank moderately and died in their 40s from diseases completely off the surgeon general's radar as "alcohol-related." There are zero studies that show anything more than a correlation to a slightly elevated risk. Never has any study ever proven, or said to prove, using the words: alcohol use leads to cancer. Can you understand why saying such things would be labeled as disinformation? It is. Listen, because of the history with my sisters, I don't drink and eat only whole foods in order to improve my chances at longevity. But even I do not believe this garbage that has led people like to you to completely misunderstand the reports.

Alcohol is toxic as it enters your mouth and slides down your throat. It causes cirrhosis of the liver. It leads to mouth, throat, pancreatic, and liver cancer. The USSG is wanting to warn people with labels of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The studies informing the broad generalization that alcohol is basically unsafe at any amount are really inadequate to come to such conclusions. There are plenty of caveats in the studies that would suggest that not every scenario in the same. For example, drinking lots of water, having alcohol with food, drinking slowly over prolonged periods of time, etc all significantly reduce the negative effects. This is mostly glossed over by the public health authority and media hysteria, though.

You are wrong. Alcohol metabolizes to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen. No amount of food or water stops that process. American is so addicted to this carcinogenic poison drug that we have to explain why, when we don’t want any in a social situation.

Actually, dilution changes the risk profile of all sorts of toxic substances. Your post is hysteria.

Of course if you dilute it before putting it in your body since you have less concentration. However, once you add X amount to your body it is already there. It doesn’t matter how much water you drink. Or do you think breathing fresh air after smoking reduces the risk of cancer caused by cigarettes?

I don't think people widely know about the cancer risk because of the misinformation that alcohol is good for your heart, etc. I know many people who drink heavily and died early of cancer, I honestly don't remember any of them acknowledging the alcohol as a factor.

I think the labels should be on the product as a reminder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why studies don’t include the chemicals/pesticides used at wineries, and how those might be a bigger reason for higher rates of cancer.

Because that’s absurd

Why is absurd?

https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.13419

It’s indeed absurd that our corrupted government agencies allow massive cancerous pesticides, pesticides that are naturally banned in Europe.

I don’t mind kids thinking alcohol is gross and drinking declining. But I can’t think of a single society that has advanced where weed was the brain-altering substance of choice, whereas there has been a lot of forward progress by raging alcoholic societies. Weed is associated with mental stagnation more than alcohol. So, I do worry about that shift overall.

I don’t drink or use weed, so I don’t have a personal horse in this race. I do hate the smell of weed everywhere though.