Canada recently updated its alcohol consumption guidelines for 2023. The recommendations state that zero alcohol is the only risk-free approach. If you must drink at all, two drinks maximum each week is deemed low-risk by the government-backed guidance.
The previous
edition of the guidelines from 2011 recommended a maximum of 10 drinks a week
for women and 15 drinks for men.
The guidelines also recommend mandatory warning labels for all alcoholic beverages.
The
nearly 90-page report, from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction
(CCSA), details a variety of health risks associated with what was previously
considered low alcohol consumption.
The
report goes into detail stating that any more than two standard drinks - each the equivalent of a
12-ounce (341ml; 0.6 pints) serving of 5% alcohol beer or a five-ounce (142ml;
0.26 pints) glass of 12% alcohol wine increase the likely negative
outcomes, including breast and colon cancer.
How Canada compares with other countries?
The US recommends no more than two drinks a day for men and one for women, while the UK suggests no more than 14 "units" of alcohol - around six glasses of wine, or pints of beer - per week.
The
Netherlands' health council recommended that people abstained from alcohol
altogether, or drink no more than one standard drink each day.
CCSA
scientists and other experts say that mandatory labeling of all alcoholic
beverages with health warnings, now common practice for cigarettes is a
necessary first step.
In
India, for instance, all tobacco-based products and alcoholic beverages contain
warnings of them being health hazards. It doesn’t stop there, before
every movie there is a public health infomercial about the hazards of
smoking. Even during movies for scenes where characters consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes,
a message flashes at the base of the screen.
On
the surface, all of this seems innocuous.
We all
know excessive consumption of alcohol is harmful, a government recommendation and
a warning will only remind people.
The question
as always is about consistency.
The
situation is similar to why people objected to Twitter fact-checking or added
disclaimers or context to certain tweets. The problem isn’t with the act but the
consistency. There are two choices only, either apply them uniformly across the
board for all Tweets or none at all.
Let's go down that road of warnings on 'hazardous; food.
We
know that excessive consumption of deep-fried food such as French Fries could be harmful to health. They
contain high saturated fats which cause plaque to deposit within the arteries that can put you at risk for coronary artery disease, heart failure,
heart attack, and stroke
We know that excessive consumption of sugary desserts and beverages is also hazardous to health, it could lead to weight gain, blood sugar problems, and an increased risk of heart disease.
What
about meat?
Too
much red meat consumption can lead to increased risks of diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers
How
about a government warning and recommendations for suitable consumption of
every deep-fried food item, sugary desserts, and meat.
How
about placing a warning on the source of the problem packets of sugar and cooking
oil containers.
Let's
look at healthier food.
How
about milk?
Excessive
consumption of cow's milk for instance can lead to iron deficiency
anemia, decreased consumption of solids, and increased consumption of an
iron-deficient milk diet. It can also cause digestive issues such as bloating,
cramps, and diarrhea.
What
about fruits
Well,
fruits are not supposed to be a good sources of iron or zinc, which are crucial
components of a healthy diet. Excessive fruit intake can also cause heartburn,
diarrhea, reflux, and bloating. Most fruits contain sugar hence there are also
risks associated with sugar.
What
about vegetables?
Vegetables are an excellent source of nutrients, but they are deficient in fat or protein. Protein and fat deficiency can lead to dryness of skin, thinning of hair, swelling, weakness, fatigue,
muscle soreness, depression or anxiety, and slow recovery from injury or
illness.
How
about water?
Every
human needs 3-4 liters of water every day. However excessive consumption of
water could lead to overburdening of kidneys that can't excrete the excess
water. The sodium content of the blood becomes diluted. This is called
hyponatremia and it can be life-threatening.
How about a government warning and recommendations for suitable consumption of milk, fruits, vegetables, and yes even bottles of water and
taps?
“Oh
be quiet. Are you seriously comparing tobacco products and alcohol with vegetables,
fruits, and even water? You are going too far?” is what the outraged big government advocate will say.
To live a healthy life, every human needs a varied diet, a bit of all, with an emphasis on proper intake of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, fats, etc., and exercise.
The government
has no role in this, there is no need for warnings or guidelines on specific items in
the marketplace.
Every
commodity from cigarettes to milk lands in shops as the outcome of a business. Placing
warnings on certain products only is discriminatory against that business.
This
is government overreach, once they enter the private space making recommendation, they could begin with coercion by placing restrictions.
If that seems outlandish, remember they did mandate the vaccine.
How would these restrictions be enforced,?
In
order to enforce restrictions there will have to be a tracking mechanism.
For instance, it would require a government database that tracks alcohol consumption. Each
time bottle of wine is bought, it is registered in the government database
which prevents the same consumer from buying more than the permitted amount.
In addition
to being discriminatory against the business, it also could be ineffective people
will find ways to work around the rules. Perhaps ask teetotaler friends to buy adult beverages for them. Excessive rules can also boost the black market,
like during prohibition in the US in the 1930s.
In a
free society, individuals must be allowed to consume as they, please, obviously excluding cannibals.
If an
individual doesn’t mind the risk, he should be allowed to drink as he pleases.
Obviously, this freedom doesn’t apply to drinking and driving because that
places the lives of others in peril.
The
same rule applies to food, if an individual desires a steak with French fries
on the side for every meal, well he must be allowed, as an adult, he has the
right to engage in behavior that is hazardous to health.
What about alcoholics?
Addiction is an ailment. Hence alcoholics deserve our empathy, they must choose to enter rehab to find a cure. Once again it is upto the individual.
If the government enters the arena of mitigating risks, nothing will be allowed
because every human activity has its risks.
People
have lost their lives even slipping over
a banana peel. Hence staying home will be recommended. To insure that there will be lockdowns and restrictions.
We saw what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a democracy, responsible adults should be allowed to do what they please as long as it doesn’t hurt others. Personal well-being which includes being healthy is strictly a matter for the individual. Most responsible adults are aware of the risks of excessive consumption of any kind of food or drinks
We simply cannot deny responsible adults of their rights just because a few irresponsible or ailing individuals will abuse them.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment