If Senator Patrick Brazeau has his way, the next time you run to the corner store to grab a beer before the hockey game, it might come with a warning label outlining the risks of cancer.
That’s what could happen if Bill S-202, Brazeau’s latest legislation, passes through Parliament. The legislation seeks to put cancer warning labels on alcohol packaging.
What’s behind this push?
Brazeau appears to be basing his claims on flawed messaging from the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA), which is insisting that there is “no safe level” of consumption when it comes to alcohol.
These claims are based on data that shows an uptick in cancer risk so infinitesimally small you need a magnifying glass just to read it. For example, a man who consumes two alcoholic drinks per day has an increased risk of cancer of 1/100th of a per cent.
For that margin of an increased risk, can one possibly justify putting cancer warning labels on beer cans?
Almost every activity carries an increased risk.
Drivers have an increased risk of dying compared to those who don’t drive. Swimmers have an increased risk of drowning compared to those who don’t swim.
Of course, drinking carries certain risks. But putting this kind of alarmist warning on every beer can and wine bottle based on the CCSA’s data would mark a new dawn of nanny statism in Canada.
An increased risk of 1/100th of a per cent is not a public health crisis. Adding cancer warning labels to every bottle of alcohol would imply that it is.
Let’s be clear: having two drinks a day is not akin to being a regular smoker. There’s a reason there are cancer warnings on cigarette cartons: the evidence shows that regular smoking does, in fact, cause a danger to public health.
If you’re a regular smoker, you are at an increased risk of cancer of some 2,400%. By treating alcohol the same as cigarettes, which is what putting cancer warning labels on alcohol would do, the state would be belittling the dangers of smoking.
It would damage the credibility of public health warnings to the point of disrepair.
The facts also show that drinking, in moderation, can improve some health outcomes.
For example, men who consume two drinks per week are at a lower risk of ischemic heart disease, which kills more Canadians than all the cancers cited in the CCSA study combined.
Following Brazeau’s logic, it would make more sense to put labels on alcohol acknowledging its positive impact on heart disease with moderate use than to put labels warning of cancer risks.
Given how shoddy the evidence is, one must ask why Brazeau is doing this.
In his own words, it’s about his personal experience with alcohol.
“It does ruin lives,” said Brazeau. “It kills people. It’s certainly not good for mental health. And personally, you know, it led me down a very, very, very dark path, so dark that I just wanted to put an end to my life.”
Brazeau seems to want to put cancer warning labels on alcohol because of his own personal struggles. Just because one senator was unable to consume alcohol in moderation doesn’t mean the entire country should be frightened into panicking about a non-existent public-health crisis that would undermine the integrity of the entire public-health system.
Brazeau should rightly be proud of successfully wrestling with his own demons. But his own personal journey should not dictate the outcomes of public-health policy.
Public-health policy should be based on real evidence. When the public is warned that something can cause an increased risk of cancer, that increased risk should be clear and a genuine risk to public health.
The statistics simply don’t bear that out when it comes to linking alcohol and cancer.
Brazeau’s bill is wrongheaded and has been put before the Senate for personal motivations. Senators should look closely at the evidence, see clearly that this bill is flawed and reject it if it comes up for a vote.
Originally published here