Wonderfully and succinctly put. And, just imagine how many people are afraid to have a glass of wine, but gladly wolf down a double cheeseburger, while driving 60 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour zone and talking on their cell phone because they're so stressed that they can't see straight. If we did some studies to find out how high the percentage of death is amongst these people, it won't be close. So ironically, it could be argued that relaxing with a glass of wine and support from friends could keep you from the above predicament I! 🙂🙂
A nice analysis. I'll add a bit more. The risk data all rely on total alcohol consumption, which includes beer, spirits and wine. Almost no studies look at wine alone, which is consumed quite differently (i.e. with meals) , and which has a number of antioxidants. If anything, the risks conferred by wine are lower than for other alcoholic beverages.
All these "studies" on alcohol yet 90% of what one finds in a grocery store causes significantly higher levels of cancer. Grocery stores literally sell packaged poison for humans.
Scare tactics- so over this. As someone who has had cancer- I have more risk of secondary breast, leukemia and ovarian just from the chemo medications that saved my life than the amount of wine I drink, I will keep on drinking my wine!
I would love to see an article about the over processed poison in our foods and their link to cancer as a follow up from the author- to let people see that the food they eat probably poses a higher risk.
And yet, Walker, folks like you and other anti alcohol absolutists NEVER mention the very small absolute risk and seek instead to mislead by suggesting that responsible alcohol consumption is dangerous. We’ll take you seriously when you choose to tell the absolute truth.
Tom, your disingenuous comment reeks of willful ignorance and a blatant disregard for the facts. First off, let's clear something up: the accusation that “folks like you” never mention the absolute risk is flat-out false. Public health experts discuss both relative and absolute risk all the time—it’s fundamental to understanding how diseases work in populations. But here's the thing: just because you don’t understand how public health statistics function doesn’t mean they’re misleading you. It's your refusal to grasp even the most basic concepts of risk that’s the problem here. I understand that statistically analysis is something that people in your industry only have a cursory understanding of.
You keep waving around the “very small absolute risk” flag as if it magically makes alcohol consumption benign. That’s a dangerous distortion of reality. Yes, the absolute risk of developing certain cancers from moderate drinking may be small for an individual, but the collective impact on society is significant. You conveniently ignore that when public health experts warn about the dangers of alcohol, they’re speaking to the large-scale, long-term risks—things that actually matter when it comes to healthcare costs, cancer diagnoses, and deaths.
Dismissing small individual risks without considering their cumulative societal impact is like saying, “Oh, a few drops of water won’t flood a house” while ignoring the deluge coming your way. It’s a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.
Let’s stop pretending that anyone advocating for responsible alcohol consumption is some kind of “anti-alcohol absolutist.” The real issue is that you and people like you throw around terms like “responsible drinking” as a shield for avoiding any uncomfortable truths about the risks alcohol poses, even when consumed “responsibly.” Nobody is suggesting a prohibitionist state here. The goal is to inform people about the risks so they can make informed choices—not to take away your beloved evening glass of wine.
The sheer arrogance of this statement is laughable. You’re not in any position to judge who should be taken seriously when you clearly have no interest in understanding the facts. Public health is not a matter of opinion or personal convenience—it’s based on data, evidence, and a deep understanding of how certain behaviors impact long-term health. Your refusal to engage with that data doesn’t make the facts any less true.
What’s truly misleading is your attempt to dismiss decades of well-documented research on the dangers of alcohol by clinging to this “absolute risk” red herring. The science is clear: alcohol consumption does increase your risk of various cancers and other health issues. The fact that this risk is “small” in absolute terms doesn’t make it irrelevant, especially when applied across populations. Public health isn’t about catering to your individual risk tolerance; it’s about making decisions that benefit society as a whole.
You’re hyper-focused on whether alcohol is "dangerous" for you personally, but completely miss the bigger picture: alcohol-related harm extends beyond just cancer risk. We’re talking about liver disease, accidents, addiction, mental health issues, and more. And yes, those things are dangerous, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it.
If you want to have a serious conversation, maybe start by actually listening to what public health experts are saying rather than cherry-picking whatever fits your narrative. Try to take a step outside of your personal alcohol industry echo chamber and look at the situation with a greater degree of objectively. Until then, don’t expect to be taken seriously by people outside of the industry when you refuse to engage with the full scope of reality.
The NY Times is perfectly informed about this information. More than 1,000 comments were left on their story, many of which bring these facts to light.
Hey Tom, is there any information on the cancer risk of other behaviors? Like driving, eating saturated fat or other common behaviors? Love the analysis BTW. It still amazes me how people manipulate numbers to support their rhetoric.
This video oversimplifies very complex issues. It fails to adequately address the nuances of risk communication and reduces everything to mere statistics without considering the broader context of individual experiences and societal implications. By emphasizing absolute risk while dismissing relative risk, it presents a skewed perspective that can mislead viewers into thinking that all risk is quantifiable in straightforward terms. Such an approach undermines the intricate nature of health decisions and perpetuates a misunderstanding of scientific discourse.
To be clear, there are no health benefits to drinking small amounts of alcohol and it increases risk of cancer.
The article attempts to minimize the risks by focusing on "absolute" numbers, arguing that the increased risk is relatively small. While it is true that the increase in absolute risk may appear numerically small, the relative risk is significant. A small percentage increase in absolute terms can still have a substantial impact when applied to large populations. For example, even a small increase in cancer risk from alcohol affects millions of people, given the widespread consumption of alcohol. When public health organizations and studies emphasize relative risk, they are not inflating numbers, but rather highlighting meaningful patterns that have broad implications for public health.
The article also fails to acknowledge that alcohol is just one factor among many that contribute to cancer risk. Cumulative exposure to alcohol, particularly when combined with other risk factors (like smoking, poor diet, or family history of cancer), amplifies the overall risk of developing certain cancers. These synergistic factors are not adequately addressed, leading to an oversimplified view of alcohol's impact.
Alcohol has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning there is strong evidence linking it to cancer. This is not a trivial designation—Group 1 carcinogens include well-known dangers like tobacco and asbestos. Dismissing the cancer risks associated with alcohol consumption, even moderate consumption, undermines decades of scientific research that has consistently shown a link between alcohol and cancers of the breast, liver, mouth, throat, and colon.
The article only discusses cancer risks, but alcohol consumption poses other serious health risks as well, including heart disease, liver cirrhosis, and mental health disorders. By focusing narrowly on cancer and presenting the risk as minimal, the author ignores the broader spectrum of health issues related to alcohol.
Telling readers “you’re gonna be fine” after regular alcohol consumption is not only misleading but potentially dangerous. Public health messages are designed to encourage individuals to make informed decisions based on evidence. The casual dismissal of well-documented risks could lead people to disregard legitimate health warnings and continue behaviors that are harmful over time.
The article argues that since the absolute risk increase appears small, people shouldn't be concerned. However, risk perception is subjective, and for individuals at higher risk (such as those with a family history of cancer or other comorbidities), even a small increase in risk is significant. Public health guidelines are aimed at providing information that helps people reduce their overall risk of disease, not to downplay it. By implying that alcohol's impact is minimal, the article encourages a level of complacency that runs counter to the principles of preventive health care.
While it’s important to understand both relative and absolute risk, the overall tone of the article trivializes the significant health risks associated with alcohol. The established links between alcohol and cancer, along with other health risks, should be taken seriously. Instead of encouraging readers to ignore these risks, we should promote informed decision-making and moderation, based on credible evidence and research. Ignoring the facts might make some people feel more comfortable about their drinking habits in the short term, but it won't change the long-term health consequences.
Walker, you're comment has a lot detail and yet it doesnt make sense to me. I'll give you an example of what I mean. If people drive 30 miles an hour on a particular road and other people drive 35 miles an hour, we can design a study to see which is safer. If the study is designed well, it might show that both speeds are the same risk. We may come up with an answer that driving 35 miles an hour actually is safer. Common experience, would lead us to have a hypothesis that 30 was safer than 35, though we wouldn't know until we conducted the study. If we then conducted the study and found that indeed our hypothesis was correct and it was safer to drive at 30, it might make sense to move the speed limit to 30. And I think what you are saying in your comment, is that in the long run and the big picture, it would save some lives and would be economically better for a society, because it would cost less money and reduce grief. But, let's now dig deeper into the statistics and what we find, is that over a 10-year period, there was one accident on that road. And if we drive 35 mph, the math tells us that there's now 1.35 accidents. Well, as you can see, that means we will have maybe one accident or maybe two. Or, we may have zero or 10, due to other factors we weren't aware of. Therefore what we are saying, is that statistics are unimportant when it comes to absolute risk. Science for the individual person, looks at absolute risk. I make choices in my life based on reality, and not on computational statistics. If you work for an insurance agency and you are an actuary, then go ahead and study all of those percentages, because I'm sure that you can make more money that way. But, we still live in a country in which people are allowed to make choices that make sense to them. We shouldn't be told that something will harm us when it will not. We need to be told what the absolute risk is. If my chances of developing cancer go from 1% to 2% because I drink alcohol, most people who enjoyed drinking alcohol will not change their behavior. But it sounds like you are saying that they should change their behavior. Why should they change their behavior? We are free people who make decisions for our own selves. If you are talking about policies, that somehow benefit a large group of people or some governmental body or otherwise, well, we have a bigger problem now in that we probably are not politically aligned, because what's good for a whole society is not necessarily good for an individual. Lastly, your argument about adding other things on such as other health concerns, lifestyles etc, makes no sense to me. Those are subclinical populations and those people are responsible for judging their own risks given their own situation. In other words, if I have diabetes, I need to follow a special diet. But, it doesn't mean that the world health organization should go around telling everybody that certain foods are unhealthy, when they're actually only unhealthy for diabetics!
Hopefully we won't have an artificial intelligence computer soon, that looks at all the relative risks of things and then tells people what they can and can't do. Because, let's be clear, that would save money, make everything run smoother, bring in a ordered type of life and lastly bore the heck out of people and have them all develop obsessive compulsive disorder.
Cliff, your comment is a masterclass in misunderstanding. You make an elaborate analogy about driving speeds, but it falls apart the moment you try to draw parallels to public health and risk management, which is wildly foolish.
You completely dismiss the importance of relative risk, which is staggering considering it’s one of the cornerstones of understanding public health outcomes. Just because you don't like numbers doesn't mean they aren't important. Comparing small increases in accidents on a road to life-threatening diseases like cancer is not only a false equivalency, but it’s also a dangerous oversimplification. You state that statistics are “unimportant when it comes to absolute risk.” Are you serious? The entire field of epidemiology—responsible for understanding how diseases spread and who is at risk—relies on those exact "computational statistics" you so casually brush off.
Your fixation on absolute risk shows a complete misunderstanding of how public health functions. Yes, an individual’s chance of cancer might increase from 1% to 2%, but do you realize what that means at a population level? That’s not a rounding error, that’s thousands of extra cancer cases, healthcare costs, and lives forever changed. You seem to think that because the increase is “small,” it’s irrelevant. In reality, it’s the very thing health experts are trying to mitigate, because those “small” increases translate into large-scale societal impacts. Your inability to grasp the difference between personal and public health risk is glaring.
Your rant about personal freedom is a smokescreen to avoid responsibility for the impact that risky behaviors, like excessive alcohol consumption, have on society as a whole. Yes, we live in a country where people are free to make choices—but that freedom doesn’t absolve them of the consequences of those choices. Public health policies aren’t there to strip away your liberty; they exist to protect individuals and society from the cumulative damage that unchecked risky behavior causes. You have the freedom to drink excessively if you wish, but don’t pretend like that freedom comes without consequences for others—whether it’s through rising healthcare costs, lost productivity, or increased disease burden on medical systems.
You blithely dismiss entire groups of people—like those with diabetes or other health conditions—as “subclinical populations,” acting as though public health guidelines shouldn’t consider them. Newsflash: public health is about protecting vulnerable populations, not just the majority. Your suggestion that health recommendations should only cater to “healthy” people is as selfish as it is misguided. Do you realize how public health works? It’s about minimizing risk across the entire population. Just because you don’t fall into a high-risk category doesn’t mean recommendations should ignore those who do.
Your closing paranoia about artificial intelligence dictating our lives is pure fearmongering and utterly baseless. Nobody is proposing that AI robots will one day control your every decision. You wildly conflate statistical analysis with some dystopian nightmare where personal freedom vanishes. What you fail to realize is that science and technology are tools to enhance understanding, not restrict autonomy. Public health experts aren't trying to create a dull, controlled society—they are trying to save lives, including yours.
Your argument is a cocktail (pun intended) of misguided interpretations, statistical illiteracy, and a warped view of personal freedom. You seem to believe that because you don't feel personally threatened, everyone else should ignore well-documented risks too. The world doesn't revolve around your personal experience or preference to ignore science. Public health isn't a game of chance or personal whim; it's a collective effort to protect the health and well-being of all, even when individuals like you choose to ignore the facts. One can only wonder what your other extreme beliefs are...
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been working.
I don't think my analogy was very elaborate. Just a simple from the hip analogy.
What I think I'm understanding you to say, is that although something may not pose much of an increased risk for an individual, in the aggregate, it does affect whole societies and it is important then for public policy.
That seems like an important thing to study for policy makers and others. However, I'm not sure what type of policy would be appropriate. People have lots of choices in their lives, and all of those choices affect everyone else. So if people choose to eat beef as opposed to eating a vegetarian diet, that definitely has an overall effect on the society. If we look at things like theft, child abuse and the like, we would agree as a society that we have to pass certain rules to curb these things. Sometimes we even pass laws in which we take away choice, such as wearing seat belts and helmets or requiring people to put labels on things that may be harmful.
In the Democratic society, there is an ebbing and flowing of that balance. And to be sure, there is an argument about whether we should allow people to vote for these things, or whether these things should be decided by authoritative bodies. You likely are familiar with the Chevron Deference issue.
So it seems to me, that an accurate statement from authoritative bodies, could read something like this:
"certain studies have shown a link between alcohol and certain cancers, and while the risk to individuals is low, the cost to society has important consequences"
That's much different than reporting to the general public that there is "no safe limit of alcohol". Even for highly educated people, this is misleading much less for the average person.
In fact, I would say it is either reported clumsily out of context, or more likely purposely out of context. I have a young very smart colleague in my office. The other day she told me "people who consume alcohol apparently aren't smart enough to realize it causes cancer". This is a person with a graduate degree and whom I have direct supervision over. And that professional context I did not say anything and rather just thanked her for her contribution. So you can clearly see, that she has read a few headlines out of context.
It seems like we are in agreement, that the actual risk of drinking low to moderate amounts of alcohol, is far less than many many other everyday life events.
You are right to point out that my personal experience is not the same as scientific outcomes. However, I will tell you about my personal experience.
Back in the day, I was an academic. I graduated my bachelors with honors and wanted to do more so I worked for a year on an honors project. When my study which was a flawed correlative study, couldn't say anything worthwhile, my advisor showed me how to run complicated statistics through the old SPSS system. The result was that I presented my study to a large group of people complete with bar graphs and pie charts and statistical analyzes. Mind you, the study said absolutely nothing and was complete junk. But, my advisor told me that it added to the conversation.
Then, I went on to graduate school and graduated with distinction. As part of my graduate work, I studied advanced statistics and research methods. Still, what I learned during that program and later in my life, was that Mark Twain was pretty wise when he said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Which is not a criticism of science or studies, just a reminder that scientific data needs to be interpreted so that it is useful to humans and can be understood in context. Otherwise, it is misleading or of no real significance.
But, back to the original point. For more than 8000 years, human beings have been observing and aiding the fermentation of grapes and then consuming the gift. Some of us love this ritual and it's a way of life.
If we still are not on the same page, I would highly encourage anyone reading this, to watch this video which may reduce any confusion. After watching the video, I would be very interested to see if we still disagree. By the way, this guy has a British accent, so he must know something right (joke):
Your analogy may have been "from the hip," but that doesn’t excuse its failure to address the core issue: public health risks should not be downplayed based on a false sense of individual invincibility. Your dismissal of statistics and research, claiming they’re akin to "lies, damn lies, and statistics," is intellectually lazy and dangerously misleading. Yes, numbers require context—but the context you’re pushing is an excuse to ignore evidence when it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Let’s be clear: public health guidelines are not about restricting personal freedoms just for fun; they’re about safeguarding the collective well-being. Your beef analogy is absurdly off-base. Consuming alcohol, unlike eating beef, has direct and measurable health risks, including cancer. If anything, it's closer to tobacco. Just because the risk is "low" in your eyes doesn't mean it isn’t worth addressing, especially when millions of people are affected. Public health policies often focus on small but widespread risks because, guess what? That’s how society works—we protect the whole by minimizing dangers that may seem trivial on an individual level.
Your condescending tone towards your "very smart colleague" reveals more about your disdain for data than about her misunderstanding. In fact, she’s absolutely right to point out that people often ignore the risks of alcohol consumption because they think it doesn’t apply to them. You’ve cherry-picked anecdotes from your academic experience to downplay hard science, which is disingenuous at best.
This argument about relative vs. absolute risk is fundamentally misleading in its dismissal of relative risk. While it’s true that relative risks need context, downplaying them by reducing everything to absolute terms ignores critical information. Public health policies must consider both relative and absolute risks to save lives. A “doubling of risk,” even from a small baseline, signals a trend that can translate into thousands of preventable deaths. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss important health warnings simply because they are framed in relative terms. The stakes are far too high for such oversimplification.
And let’s not romanticize 8,000 years of wine consumption as some kind of cultural pass to ignore modern science. Just because something has been around for centuries doesn’t mean it’s safe or beyond scrutiny. If you want to drink, fine—that’s your choice. But don’t mock the data or misrepresent scientific consensus to justify it. That kind of thinking is the reason why public health messaging is so critical in the first place.
Okay I think I see completely where you're coming from. I still don't understand your premise, and it seems that you completely disagree with the points I've tried to make. In response to my statements, you have implied that I am foolish, fixated, have several inabilities to think logically, have a warped sense of reality, and intentionally creating smoke screens, and misguided and selfish, intellectually lazy, I'm absurdly off base and condescending. I've tried hard to State my opinions and conclusions, without personally attacking anyone or calling them names. I disagree with your assertion that my tone is condescending I am ranting. To me, your tone and assumption that everything you state is the absolute truth, is far more condescending. But, I will not call you condescending, because I've never met you, I can't know what's going on with you and I wish you the best. I do think, that if you were trying to convince people of your beliefs, it's not working. I would have been completely open to listening to some point that you would make that made sense to me. Maybe you are making complete sense and I am not understanding what you're saying. Indeed, it seems like you are saying that I lack the basic skills and or intelligence to understand you. If that's the case, then I suppose you shouldn't continue with this dialogue with me. After all, what is the use in talking to somebody who isn't capable of understanding the truth. Better for you to go talk to the people who are smarter than me. And yes before you pointed out that is false modesty. And I'm sure you will recognize that you resort to ad hominem constantly.
But listen, you get to have your opinion and I wish I understood it a little better.
Cliff, your response reads like a poorly veiled attempt to dodge accountability while simultaneously accusing your interlocutor of condescension, without ever owning up to the fact that your arguments are weak and riddled with logical fallacies.
You feign politeness and open-mindedness. You dismiss the opposing argument not by addressing its substance, but by claiming you simply "don't understand," while repeatedly insinuating that the other person is arrogant, condescending, and engaging in ad hominem attacks for pointing out your errors—all without offering a coherent rebuttal of the points made. This is a classic tactic to shift the focus away from the actual discussion, creating a smoke screen of faux humility and defensiveness.
If you're genuinely interested in meaningful dialogue, stop hiding behind passive-aggressive jabs and engage honestly.
Wonderfully and succinctly put. And, just imagine how many people are afraid to have a glass of wine, but gladly wolf down a double cheeseburger, while driving 60 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour zone and talking on their cell phone because they're so stressed that they can't see straight. If we did some studies to find out how high the percentage of death is amongst these people, it won't be close. So ironically, it could be argued that relaxing with a glass of wine and support from friends could keep you from the above predicament I! 🙂🙂
A nice analysis. I'll add a bit more. The risk data all rely on total alcohol consumption, which includes beer, spirits and wine. Almost no studies look at wine alone, which is consumed quite differently (i.e. with meals) , and which has a number of antioxidants. If anything, the risks conferred by wine are lower than for other alcoholic beverages.
well said. wine is merely measured by alcohol in these scare stats, no context on actually drinking wine and excluding other forms of drinks.
All these "studies" on alcohol yet 90% of what one finds in a grocery store causes significantly higher levels of cancer. Grocery stores literally sell packaged poison for humans.
I own a winery. May I use this as a blog post on my website if I give you all the credit? barbara@paradisosdelsol.com
Scare tactics- so over this. As someone who has had cancer- I have more risk of secondary breast, leukemia and ovarian just from the chemo medications that saved my life than the amount of wine I drink, I will keep on drinking my wine!
I would love to see an article about the over processed poison in our foods and their link to cancer as a follow up from the author- to let people see that the food they eat probably poses a higher risk.
Thanks, I feel so much better! (Sipping a glass of rose with lunch.)
And yet, Walker, folks like you and other anti alcohol absolutists NEVER mention the very small absolute risk and seek instead to mislead by suggesting that responsible alcohol consumption is dangerous. We’ll take you seriously when you choose to tell the absolute truth.
Tom, your disingenuous comment reeks of willful ignorance and a blatant disregard for the facts. First off, let's clear something up: the accusation that “folks like you” never mention the absolute risk is flat-out false. Public health experts discuss both relative and absolute risk all the time—it’s fundamental to understanding how diseases work in populations. But here's the thing: just because you don’t understand how public health statistics function doesn’t mean they’re misleading you. It's your refusal to grasp even the most basic concepts of risk that’s the problem here. I understand that statistically analysis is something that people in your industry only have a cursory understanding of.
You keep waving around the “very small absolute risk” flag as if it magically makes alcohol consumption benign. That’s a dangerous distortion of reality. Yes, the absolute risk of developing certain cancers from moderate drinking may be small for an individual, but the collective impact on society is significant. You conveniently ignore that when public health experts warn about the dangers of alcohol, they’re speaking to the large-scale, long-term risks—things that actually matter when it comes to healthcare costs, cancer diagnoses, and deaths.
Dismissing small individual risks without considering their cumulative societal impact is like saying, “Oh, a few drops of water won’t flood a house” while ignoring the deluge coming your way. It’s a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.
Let’s stop pretending that anyone advocating for responsible alcohol consumption is some kind of “anti-alcohol absolutist.” The real issue is that you and people like you throw around terms like “responsible drinking” as a shield for avoiding any uncomfortable truths about the risks alcohol poses, even when consumed “responsibly.” Nobody is suggesting a prohibitionist state here. The goal is to inform people about the risks so they can make informed choices—not to take away your beloved evening glass of wine.
The sheer arrogance of this statement is laughable. You’re not in any position to judge who should be taken seriously when you clearly have no interest in understanding the facts. Public health is not a matter of opinion or personal convenience—it’s based on data, evidence, and a deep understanding of how certain behaviors impact long-term health. Your refusal to engage with that data doesn’t make the facts any less true.
What’s truly misleading is your attempt to dismiss decades of well-documented research on the dangers of alcohol by clinging to this “absolute risk” red herring. The science is clear: alcohol consumption does increase your risk of various cancers and other health issues. The fact that this risk is “small” in absolute terms doesn’t make it irrelevant, especially when applied across populations. Public health isn’t about catering to your individual risk tolerance; it’s about making decisions that benefit society as a whole.
You’re hyper-focused on whether alcohol is "dangerous" for you personally, but completely miss the bigger picture: alcohol-related harm extends beyond just cancer risk. We’re talking about liver disease, accidents, addiction, mental health issues, and more. And yes, those things are dangerous, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it.
If you want to have a serious conversation, maybe start by actually listening to what public health experts are saying rather than cherry-picking whatever fits your narrative. Try to take a step outside of your personal alcohol industry echo chamber and look at the situation with a greater degree of objectively. Until then, don’t expect to be taken seriously by people outside of the industry when you refuse to engage with the full scope of reality.
Great presentation. How do we get this more widely reported and understood?
Did you send this to the NYT and ask for comment, and for them to update their story?
The NY Times is perfectly informed about this information. More than 1,000 comments were left on their story, many of which bring these facts to light.
Hey Tom, is there any information on the cancer risk of other behaviors? Like driving, eating saturated fat or other common behaviors? Love the analysis BTW. It still amazes me how people manipulate numbers to support their rhetoric.
Joel, I think you'll find this interesting: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/
Just thought I would paste this link here, which I think demostrates what the article is presneting:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNt0XZYsAQ
This video oversimplifies very complex issues. It fails to adequately address the nuances of risk communication and reduces everything to mere statistics without considering the broader context of individual experiences and societal implications. By emphasizing absolute risk while dismissing relative risk, it presents a skewed perspective that can mislead viewers into thinking that all risk is quantifiable in straightforward terms. Such an approach undermines the intricate nature of health decisions and perpetuates a misunderstanding of scientific discourse.
To be clear, there are no health benefits to drinking small amounts of alcohol and it increases risk of cancer.
The article attempts to minimize the risks by focusing on "absolute" numbers, arguing that the increased risk is relatively small. While it is true that the increase in absolute risk may appear numerically small, the relative risk is significant. A small percentage increase in absolute terms can still have a substantial impact when applied to large populations. For example, even a small increase in cancer risk from alcohol affects millions of people, given the widespread consumption of alcohol. When public health organizations and studies emphasize relative risk, they are not inflating numbers, but rather highlighting meaningful patterns that have broad implications for public health.
The article also fails to acknowledge that alcohol is just one factor among many that contribute to cancer risk. Cumulative exposure to alcohol, particularly when combined with other risk factors (like smoking, poor diet, or family history of cancer), amplifies the overall risk of developing certain cancers. These synergistic factors are not adequately addressed, leading to an oversimplified view of alcohol's impact.
Alcohol has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning there is strong evidence linking it to cancer. This is not a trivial designation—Group 1 carcinogens include well-known dangers like tobacco and asbestos. Dismissing the cancer risks associated with alcohol consumption, even moderate consumption, undermines decades of scientific research that has consistently shown a link between alcohol and cancers of the breast, liver, mouth, throat, and colon.
The article only discusses cancer risks, but alcohol consumption poses other serious health risks as well, including heart disease, liver cirrhosis, and mental health disorders. By focusing narrowly on cancer and presenting the risk as minimal, the author ignores the broader spectrum of health issues related to alcohol.
Telling readers “you’re gonna be fine” after regular alcohol consumption is not only misleading but potentially dangerous. Public health messages are designed to encourage individuals to make informed decisions based on evidence. The casual dismissal of well-documented risks could lead people to disregard legitimate health warnings and continue behaviors that are harmful over time.
The article argues that since the absolute risk increase appears small, people shouldn't be concerned. However, risk perception is subjective, and for individuals at higher risk (such as those with a family history of cancer or other comorbidities), even a small increase in risk is significant. Public health guidelines are aimed at providing information that helps people reduce their overall risk of disease, not to downplay it. By implying that alcohol's impact is minimal, the article encourages a level of complacency that runs counter to the principles of preventive health care.
While it’s important to understand both relative and absolute risk, the overall tone of the article trivializes the significant health risks associated with alcohol. The established links between alcohol and cancer, along with other health risks, should be taken seriously. Instead of encouraging readers to ignore these risks, we should promote informed decision-making and moderation, based on credible evidence and research. Ignoring the facts might make some people feel more comfortable about their drinking habits in the short term, but it won't change the long-term health consequences.
Walker, you're comment has a lot detail and yet it doesnt make sense to me. I'll give you an example of what I mean. If people drive 30 miles an hour on a particular road and other people drive 35 miles an hour, we can design a study to see which is safer. If the study is designed well, it might show that both speeds are the same risk. We may come up with an answer that driving 35 miles an hour actually is safer. Common experience, would lead us to have a hypothesis that 30 was safer than 35, though we wouldn't know until we conducted the study. If we then conducted the study and found that indeed our hypothesis was correct and it was safer to drive at 30, it might make sense to move the speed limit to 30. And I think what you are saying in your comment, is that in the long run and the big picture, it would save some lives and would be economically better for a society, because it would cost less money and reduce grief. But, let's now dig deeper into the statistics and what we find, is that over a 10-year period, there was one accident on that road. And if we drive 35 mph, the math tells us that there's now 1.35 accidents. Well, as you can see, that means we will have maybe one accident or maybe two. Or, we may have zero or 10, due to other factors we weren't aware of. Therefore what we are saying, is that statistics are unimportant when it comes to absolute risk. Science for the individual person, looks at absolute risk. I make choices in my life based on reality, and not on computational statistics. If you work for an insurance agency and you are an actuary, then go ahead and study all of those percentages, because I'm sure that you can make more money that way. But, we still live in a country in which people are allowed to make choices that make sense to them. We shouldn't be told that something will harm us when it will not. We need to be told what the absolute risk is. If my chances of developing cancer go from 1% to 2% because I drink alcohol, most people who enjoyed drinking alcohol will not change their behavior. But it sounds like you are saying that they should change their behavior. Why should they change their behavior? We are free people who make decisions for our own selves. If you are talking about policies, that somehow benefit a large group of people or some governmental body or otherwise, well, we have a bigger problem now in that we probably are not politically aligned, because what's good for a whole society is not necessarily good for an individual. Lastly, your argument about adding other things on such as other health concerns, lifestyles etc, makes no sense to me. Those are subclinical populations and those people are responsible for judging their own risks given their own situation. In other words, if I have diabetes, I need to follow a special diet. But, it doesn't mean that the world health organization should go around telling everybody that certain foods are unhealthy, when they're actually only unhealthy for diabetics!
Hopefully we won't have an artificial intelligence computer soon, that looks at all the relative risks of things and then tells people what they can and can't do. Because, let's be clear, that would save money, make everything run smoother, bring in a ordered type of life and lastly bore the heck out of people and have them all develop obsessive compulsive disorder.
Cliff, your comment is a masterclass in misunderstanding. You make an elaborate analogy about driving speeds, but it falls apart the moment you try to draw parallels to public health and risk management, which is wildly foolish.
You completely dismiss the importance of relative risk, which is staggering considering it’s one of the cornerstones of understanding public health outcomes. Just because you don't like numbers doesn't mean they aren't important. Comparing small increases in accidents on a road to life-threatening diseases like cancer is not only a false equivalency, but it’s also a dangerous oversimplification. You state that statistics are “unimportant when it comes to absolute risk.” Are you serious? The entire field of epidemiology—responsible for understanding how diseases spread and who is at risk—relies on those exact "computational statistics" you so casually brush off.
Your fixation on absolute risk shows a complete misunderstanding of how public health functions. Yes, an individual’s chance of cancer might increase from 1% to 2%, but do you realize what that means at a population level? That’s not a rounding error, that’s thousands of extra cancer cases, healthcare costs, and lives forever changed. You seem to think that because the increase is “small,” it’s irrelevant. In reality, it’s the very thing health experts are trying to mitigate, because those “small” increases translate into large-scale societal impacts. Your inability to grasp the difference between personal and public health risk is glaring.
Your rant about personal freedom is a smokescreen to avoid responsibility for the impact that risky behaviors, like excessive alcohol consumption, have on society as a whole. Yes, we live in a country where people are free to make choices—but that freedom doesn’t absolve them of the consequences of those choices. Public health policies aren’t there to strip away your liberty; they exist to protect individuals and society from the cumulative damage that unchecked risky behavior causes. You have the freedom to drink excessively if you wish, but don’t pretend like that freedom comes without consequences for others—whether it’s through rising healthcare costs, lost productivity, or increased disease burden on medical systems.
You blithely dismiss entire groups of people—like those with diabetes or other health conditions—as “subclinical populations,” acting as though public health guidelines shouldn’t consider them. Newsflash: public health is about protecting vulnerable populations, not just the majority. Your suggestion that health recommendations should only cater to “healthy” people is as selfish as it is misguided. Do you realize how public health works? It’s about minimizing risk across the entire population. Just because you don’t fall into a high-risk category doesn’t mean recommendations should ignore those who do.
Your closing paranoia about artificial intelligence dictating our lives is pure fearmongering and utterly baseless. Nobody is proposing that AI robots will one day control your every decision. You wildly conflate statistical analysis with some dystopian nightmare where personal freedom vanishes. What you fail to realize is that science and technology are tools to enhance understanding, not restrict autonomy. Public health experts aren't trying to create a dull, controlled society—they are trying to save lives, including yours.
Your argument is a cocktail (pun intended) of misguided interpretations, statistical illiteracy, and a warped view of personal freedom. You seem to believe that because you don't feel personally threatened, everyone else should ignore well-documented risks too. The world doesn't revolve around your personal experience or preference to ignore science. Public health isn't a game of chance or personal whim; it's a collective effort to protect the health and well-being of all, even when individuals like you choose to ignore the facts. One can only wonder what your other extreme beliefs are...
Walker, do you work in the prevention community?
No, I'm not sure what that is.
Hey there Walker
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been working.
I don't think my analogy was very elaborate. Just a simple from the hip analogy.
What I think I'm understanding you to say, is that although something may not pose much of an increased risk for an individual, in the aggregate, it does affect whole societies and it is important then for public policy.
That seems like an important thing to study for policy makers and others. However, I'm not sure what type of policy would be appropriate. People have lots of choices in their lives, and all of those choices affect everyone else. So if people choose to eat beef as opposed to eating a vegetarian diet, that definitely has an overall effect on the society. If we look at things like theft, child abuse and the like, we would agree as a society that we have to pass certain rules to curb these things. Sometimes we even pass laws in which we take away choice, such as wearing seat belts and helmets or requiring people to put labels on things that may be harmful.
In the Democratic society, there is an ebbing and flowing of that balance. And to be sure, there is an argument about whether we should allow people to vote for these things, or whether these things should be decided by authoritative bodies. You likely are familiar with the Chevron Deference issue.
So it seems to me, that an accurate statement from authoritative bodies, could read something like this:
"certain studies have shown a link between alcohol and certain cancers, and while the risk to individuals is low, the cost to society has important consequences"
That's much different than reporting to the general public that there is "no safe limit of alcohol". Even for highly educated people, this is misleading much less for the average person.
In fact, I would say it is either reported clumsily out of context, or more likely purposely out of context. I have a young very smart colleague in my office. The other day she told me "people who consume alcohol apparently aren't smart enough to realize it causes cancer". This is a person with a graduate degree and whom I have direct supervision over. And that professional context I did not say anything and rather just thanked her for her contribution. So you can clearly see, that she has read a few headlines out of context.
It seems like we are in agreement, that the actual risk of drinking low to moderate amounts of alcohol, is far less than many many other everyday life events.
You are right to point out that my personal experience is not the same as scientific outcomes. However, I will tell you about my personal experience.
Back in the day, I was an academic. I graduated my bachelors with honors and wanted to do more so I worked for a year on an honors project. When my study which was a flawed correlative study, couldn't say anything worthwhile, my advisor showed me how to run complicated statistics through the old SPSS system. The result was that I presented my study to a large group of people complete with bar graphs and pie charts and statistical analyzes. Mind you, the study said absolutely nothing and was complete junk. But, my advisor told me that it added to the conversation.
Then, I went on to graduate school and graduated with distinction. As part of my graduate work, I studied advanced statistics and research methods. Still, what I learned during that program and later in my life, was that Mark Twain was pretty wise when he said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Which is not a criticism of science or studies, just a reminder that scientific data needs to be interpreted so that it is useful to humans and can be understood in context. Otherwise, it is misleading or of no real significance.
But, back to the original point. For more than 8000 years, human beings have been observing and aiding the fermentation of grapes and then consuming the gift. Some of us love this ritual and it's a way of life.
If we still are not on the same page, I would highly encourage anyone reading this, to watch this video which may reduce any confusion. After watching the video, I would be very interested to see if we still disagree. By the way, this guy has a British accent, so he must know something right (joke):
https://youtu.be/ELNt0XZYsAQ?si=UkRhzrIvEnTwwh5Z
Your analogy may have been "from the hip," but that doesn’t excuse its failure to address the core issue: public health risks should not be downplayed based on a false sense of individual invincibility. Your dismissal of statistics and research, claiming they’re akin to "lies, damn lies, and statistics," is intellectually lazy and dangerously misleading. Yes, numbers require context—but the context you’re pushing is an excuse to ignore evidence when it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Let’s be clear: public health guidelines are not about restricting personal freedoms just for fun; they’re about safeguarding the collective well-being. Your beef analogy is absurdly off-base. Consuming alcohol, unlike eating beef, has direct and measurable health risks, including cancer. If anything, it's closer to tobacco. Just because the risk is "low" in your eyes doesn't mean it isn’t worth addressing, especially when millions of people are affected. Public health policies often focus on small but widespread risks because, guess what? That’s how society works—we protect the whole by minimizing dangers that may seem trivial on an individual level.
Your condescending tone towards your "very smart colleague" reveals more about your disdain for data than about her misunderstanding. In fact, she’s absolutely right to point out that people often ignore the risks of alcohol consumption because they think it doesn’t apply to them. You’ve cherry-picked anecdotes from your academic experience to downplay hard science, which is disingenuous at best.
This argument about relative vs. absolute risk is fundamentally misleading in its dismissal of relative risk. While it’s true that relative risks need context, downplaying them by reducing everything to absolute terms ignores critical information. Public health policies must consider both relative and absolute risks to save lives. A “doubling of risk,” even from a small baseline, signals a trend that can translate into thousands of preventable deaths. It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss important health warnings simply because they are framed in relative terms. The stakes are far too high for such oversimplification.
And let’s not romanticize 8,000 years of wine consumption as some kind of cultural pass to ignore modern science. Just because something has been around for centuries doesn’t mean it’s safe or beyond scrutiny. If you want to drink, fine—that’s your choice. But don’t mock the data or misrepresent scientific consensus to justify it. That kind of thinking is the reason why public health messaging is so critical in the first place.
Hey Walker
Okay I think I see completely where you're coming from. I still don't understand your premise, and it seems that you completely disagree with the points I've tried to make. In response to my statements, you have implied that I am foolish, fixated, have several inabilities to think logically, have a warped sense of reality, and intentionally creating smoke screens, and misguided and selfish, intellectually lazy, I'm absurdly off base and condescending. I've tried hard to State my opinions and conclusions, without personally attacking anyone or calling them names. I disagree with your assertion that my tone is condescending I am ranting. To me, your tone and assumption that everything you state is the absolute truth, is far more condescending. But, I will not call you condescending, because I've never met you, I can't know what's going on with you and I wish you the best. I do think, that if you were trying to convince people of your beliefs, it's not working. I would have been completely open to listening to some point that you would make that made sense to me. Maybe you are making complete sense and I am not understanding what you're saying. Indeed, it seems like you are saying that I lack the basic skills and or intelligence to understand you. If that's the case, then I suppose you shouldn't continue with this dialogue with me. After all, what is the use in talking to somebody who isn't capable of understanding the truth. Better for you to go talk to the people who are smarter than me. And yes before you pointed out that is false modesty. And I'm sure you will recognize that you resort to ad hominem constantly.
But listen, you get to have your opinion and I wish I understood it a little better.
Cliff, your response reads like a poorly veiled attempt to dodge accountability while simultaneously accusing your interlocutor of condescension, without ever owning up to the fact that your arguments are weak and riddled with logical fallacies.
You feign politeness and open-mindedness. You dismiss the opposing argument not by addressing its substance, but by claiming you simply "don't understand," while repeatedly insinuating that the other person is arrogant, condescending, and engaging in ad hominem attacks for pointing out your errors—all without offering a coherent rebuttal of the points made. This is a classic tactic to shift the focus away from the actual discussion, creating a smoke screen of faux humility and defensiveness.
If you're genuinely interested in meaningful dialogue, stop hiding behind passive-aggressive jabs and engage honestly.