Canada

It's mental that alcohol has different rules concerning labeling. It should have the nutritional value like everything else.

Good do it. My father died 2 years ago from alcohol related cancer it was fucking horrible.

If it saves even one person from going through that or watching their loved one go through it, it's worth it.

Should put more than just cancer warning...like warning about losing your house, your family, your dignity.

I mean, it's pretty well known that alcohol isn't healthy. Do we need a warning about every risk it poses? Cancer, liver damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, impaired driving, addiction, etc.

It's a pretty big list.

I don't think they need cancer warnings, they needs "this very addictive substance can irreparably ruin your life if you don't moderate" warnings

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.

Alcohol causes cancer, so yes.

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.

As long as the labels don't end up on absolutely everything like in California. It makes sense on things you actually consume, but a lot of other tech products and tools have the California warnings and it's become meaningless to me.

I have no way of knowing if just holding a thing increases my risk of cancer or if it's just an issue if I was to lick a surface or consume something inside. ~~I mean, aluminum apparently causes cancer?!?~~ ~~What can I even do with that information?~~

Edit: I read the wrong list, Aluminum is fine but other metals like Lead and Nickel are bad. The problem is the labels don't tell you what the danger is. Does the product have a literal lead weight inside that you'll never touch? Or is the outside coated in one of the other 600 cancer causing chemicals? (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65chemicalslist.pdf)

Crazy that wood dust is on there. That explains why basically all IKEA furniture "may cause cancer"

I suspect this is going to pull in two directions.

On the one hand, people are already developing some level of warning label fatigue, where they skim over the labels without registering the content just like they do on-line ads. (Both practices are doubtless known to cause cancer in California.)

On the other hand, there's a type of personality who may, in fact, change their minds about buying if presented with a short, sharp "this is bad for you" reminder on the way to the checkout.

Putting the labels on is, overall, a harmless experiment to try, so we might as well see if it does any good. Personally, I don't think we're going to see much change until we spend a couple of decades broadcasting and reinforcing the "no amount is safe" message, and even then many people will keep drinking. Just as there are still smokers today, even after many decades of "you will die horribly if you do this" messaging.

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.