this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
54 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

7313 readers
989 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
(page 2) 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m not Canadian, but I think that anyone who has watched a loved one suffer and wither and die in agony from cancer would argue that you deserve to know when you’re putting yourself at risk of that.

None of those warning labels seem excessive or pointless anymore after watching the last months of my father’s life.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As a current imbiber, yes absolutely. In fact they should stick on a picture of a fatty liver disease liver vs a healthy one like they do on smokes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Under previous guidance, the CCSA recommended a maximum of 10 standard alcoholic drinks per week for women and 15 for men. Now, it says no amount of alcohol is completely safe, and recommends a maximum of two drinks a week to stay within the lowest risk threshold.

I'm surprised it's that high.

I think it makes sense to put labels on alcohol though considering weed and cigarettes already have massive warning labels. Seems like legacy or grandfathered in policy that we don't already.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (15 children)

The idea that putting labels on every bottle is about "letting Canadians know and informing them better", is flat out horseshit.

That's what education campaigns are for. Putting labels on every bottle is about reminding / nagging people every single time they try and enjoy having a drink to try and make them enjoy it less and change their behaviour.

You can be on board with that or not, but let's stop lying with the 'its about education' comments.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Warning labels do work. Turn the bottle the other way or pour in a glass if you don’t want to see it. The doctor knows more than you do.

We found that graphic warnings had a statistically significant effect on smoking prevalence and quit attempts. In particular, the warnings decreased the odds of being a smoker (odds ratio [OR] = 0.875; 95% CI = 0.821–0.932) and increased the odds of making a quit attempt (OR = 1.330, CI = 1.187–1.490). Similar results were obtained when we allowed for more time for the warnings to appear in retail outlets.

https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/15/3/708/1091051

Pictorial warning labels proposed by FDA create unfavorable emotional reactions to smoking that predict reduced cigarette use compared to text alone, with even smokers low in self-efficacy exhibiting some reduction. Predictions that low self-efficacy smokers will respond unfavorably to warnings were not supported.

https://academic.oup.com/abm/article/52/1/53/4737219

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago

Where did I say that they didn't work?

I said that the method of working was through nagging, not education.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›