A French nationwide study published in the Environmental Research journal suggested that agricultural practices and pesticides used in vineyards could have been linked to the occurrence of Parkinson’s disease.
According to PAN UK’s findings, there seems to be a rising trend in the occurrence of pesticide combinations in food. The total percentage of fruit and vegetables with residues from multiple pesticides has consistently stayed below 48%, but this year it unexpectedly spiked to an astonishing 53%.
I hate to break it to wine-drinkers, but alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen. If the risk of Parkinson’s due to pesticide use scares you, you won’t get away from cancer by going with organic wine.
Even the WHO isn’t afraid to say that No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health, so the choice is in your hands.
This isn’t the appropriate way to analyze health policy. If alcohol is bad for you, but we as a society have decided that it is ok for people to poison themselves, then when some unscrupulous capitalists makes it even worse for you, you don’t say “who cares it’s already bad for you, lol.” and then moralize about how if everyone doesn’t consume the exact same substances you do, they somehow deserve it.
It is ok for a certain level of toxicity to be permitted, but additional or different unwanted types of toxicity to be a public health concern.
you don’t say “who cares it’s already bad for you, lol.” and then moralize about how if everyone doesn’t consume the exact same substances you do, they somehow deserve it.
I think you got that wrong.
The idea to share this information is to empower someone to make an informed decision about the potential consequences that their actions could have on their health.
I can’t possibly blame someone for not knowing better, as I’m certain that their local wine shop doesn’t put cancer warning labels on the bottles.
The idea to share this information is to empower someone
This also doesn’t seem desirable. Societal health isn’t achieved by a group of individual decisions. It is created by regulations on how much pesticide should be in consumer goods or how much risk various consumables should pose to an individual.
Caveat emptor isn’t a desirable public policy.
However what he showed is that regulators do not reflect the reality of the threat of alcohol consumption on the regulations that are meant to protect the people. Hence the need to inform the individuals who otherwise blindly consider that the current set of regulations leaves no hazardous substances available on the market.
I think the difference can be drawn in parallel to cigarettes: an unfiltered cigarette is worse than a filtered one for smoking. Both are obviously bad for you, but if you’re stacking carcinogens and other health concerns, eventually you’ll reach someone’s breaking point. I don’t think anyone is claiming alcohol is healthy, but I also don’t think the response should be “it’s already unhealthy, so this isn’t won’t stop anyone”. Every risk associated decision we make adds to the statistics pool for whether we get sick. Mitigating that might actually worry someone enough to switch to a healthier (not healthy) form of alcohol consumption.
Can I have a source that filtered cigarettes are “healthier”
I found one source! It was sponsored by the British Tobacco Company, lol.
Nah, it’s difficult to find recent data of it - because I get the impression from the papers I have found - the idea was thrown out as a marketing ploy in the 50s and has no significant impact on risk.
Instead it just makes cigarettes worse for the environment - because the filters don’t decompose.
I mean it serves a purpose, it’s so you don’t get pieces of tobacco in your mouth. But other then that, I don’t think it does much at all. The amount it obstructs could surely be counteracted by being able to smoke more tobacco by not having a burning ember near your fingers.
