Hysteria!

 

Deep Links Between Alcohol and Cancer Are Described in New Report

I read an article in the NY Times last week that blasted out this headline.  Jesus.  Deep links.  That's serious.  I read the article.  Here's the first paragraph:  

"Adults under age 50 have been developing breast cancer and colorectal cancer at increasingly higher rates over the last few decades, and alcohol use may be one factor driving the trend, according to a scientific report published on Wednesday.  Even as cancer death rates have declined, the overall incidence of several cancers has been rising inexplicably, with an especially alarming increase among younger adults in cancers of the gastrointestinal system, like colorectal cancer.  The report estimates that 40 percent of all cancer cases are associated with modifiable risk factors. It recommends reducing alcohol consumption, along with making lifestyle changes such as avoiding tobacco, maintaining a healthy diet and weight, exercising, avoiding ultraviolet radiation and minimizing exposure to pollutants."

So... to summarize... Adults under 50 are getting higher breast cancer and colorectal cancer at higher rates, and the article's author has determined the big headline is alcohol as the cause.  This seems odd as as factors include reducing alcohol consumption, "lifestyle changes" like not smoking, not being obese, not eating shitty food, working out, staying out of the sun and not gulping down pollution.  That seems like a whole lot of factors.  Yet, the big headline is: 

Deep Links Between Alcohol and Cancer Are Described in New Report

So I went to the report, assuming that it was some paid piece from a lobbyist group, but unsure of who.  I mean, the bottom line is cancer is down, and a small subset of cancers are up and alcohol was being blamed.  Now, this seems odd to me as alcohol consumption is notably down worldwide and there are giant walls of energy drinks, vape cartridges, packaged foods with never ending expiration dates, and more fucking enormous fat people than ever in the United States.  You ever been to a WalMart?  Clearly, this article would have you believe that cancer is due to red wine sales.  So... who paid to get that research and ensuing story out in a huge publication like the New York Times?

That's what surprised me.  I went to the study.  You can read the executive summary here if you are so inclined:  https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/progress/.  The report really suggests radical changes in exercise and diet as the leading change agents.  I mean, it's not shocking.  It's a remarkably complicated disease where most advice is "don't do anything except eat a carrot", but the major focus is "look, there's a lot of fucked up processed food with low nutritional value, and if you lay around smoking weed and eating that shit all day while putting on 75 pounds, that's bad news.  Oh, don't live anywhere with nuclear waste or exhaust, stop smoking, and stop drinking any booze.".   Sounds reasonable, right?

Yet, the article suggests that doctors and scientists are white knuckling this study's results fretting about red wine.  "Dr. Johnson!  Have you seen these results?  We have to WARN THEM!  WE MUST TAKE AWAY THEIR RED WINE!!!".  However, the study says this:  "Between 1991 and 2020, the United States experienced a 33 percent decline in overall cancer mortality largely due to the implementation of public health campaigns and policy initiatives designed to reduce smoking and increase early detection of cancers.  In a meta-analysis, which examined 30 studies on early-onset colorectal cancer risk factors, being overweight or obese increased the likelihood of developing early-onset colorectal cancer by 1.2 and 1.5 times, respectively, compared to maintaining a healthy weight."

Hey, wait a minute...  I thought alcohol caused all that ass cancer?  As you scroll down and down in lowering the severity of the causations, you discover that alcohol is believed to be the root cause for just 4% of cancers worldwide. Shouldn't we be looking at the mega processed food companies that are putting all this crap into all of us?  What is in that meat in that Subway footlong?  How can you sell that thing for $5 man?  But only 4% of cancers linked to alcohol?  That seems a bit odd since the New York Times is running a headline of:

Deep Links Between Alcohol and Cancer Are Described in New Report

I can't figure out who placed the framing of this report to the author to shove it out as more guidance for this New Temperance Movement that seems to have some grip on the 18-34 demo.  There are a couple of those spooky Neo Christian Groups out there with deep pockets, and of course one always has deep distrust of the American Food Industry that decided shit like Count Chocula was a good thing to serve a seven year old kid as a morning meal, but it's not blatantly hand stamped by anyone.  Anyone that's not a total fucking dope would suspect that if young people are getting cancers, maybe eating Taco Bell, guzzling down 24 oz cans of Monster Energy drinks, vaping a cherry sundae weed cartridge, all while spending 16 hours a day holding a battery operated mobile phone to your skull might have something to do with it, but no... it turns out it's that wine which has been around since the fucking Greeks caused it.  Zeus died of a cyst on his anus.  Look it up.  Too much Xinomavro.  

This new Temperance Movement is odd.  It seems oddly UnAmerican.  You read these old stories about the Founding Fathers in the late 1770s and their piss ups.  On September 14th 1787, George Washington hosted 55 gents that had crossed the Delaware and enjoyed that Valley Forge camping trip that winter.  Those 56 guys drank 54 bottles of madeira, 60 bottles of claret, 22 bottles of porter, 12 bottles of beer, 8 bottles of cider, and 7 large bowls of punch.  While this sounds like an Ohio State Football weekend, this was the way those guys rolled.  In the 1820s, half of all adult men drank at least six shots of liquor a day.  A DAY!  Clearly things must have been a little unhinged back then.  "You looking at me mate?"

There was a Temperance Movement that got rolling back in the 1820s, but the rails came off around the Civil War in the 1860s.  It's tough to prioritize stopping men's drinking when they are busy shooting cannons at each other I guess.  It got rolling again in the 1870s, but it had become more radicalized and focused on Prohibition, which I think we can all agree didn't work out too well, unless of course you like organized crime and gun violence.  These people are always out there though trying to pinpoint a complex mosaic of gray problems as one black and white possibly winnable cause.  Socially I believe there is a wave now which is focused on "I'll tell you what's good for you Smart Guy!" (see, stamping down of Pro Choice movement by Christian Fundamentalists, putting God in schools, etc.).  The flimsy idea of this movement appear to be tied to:

* alcohol's existence is part of the problem

* the amount of alcohol consumed is the indication of drinking problem, not the speed of consumption, purpose, behavioral ramifications

*  Education should not be focused on excess drinking, but rather abstinence

The movement uses the clever focus of "health" now.  Alcohol is unhealthy and will kill you, like smoking four packs of Lucky's.  I'm not sure how it snuck up on us again.  While I believe that the wine industry should circle the wagons with beer/spirits, the bottom line is that wine has a place in today's society and maybe they go it alone.  The idea that cannabis is the magic plant without negative attributes is certainly getting shoved to the forefront to this new generation of consumers.  Maybe because all those NeoCon guys that wanted to lock up pot smokers in the 1980s now want to sell it to them from their government contract dispensaries in the 2020s.  Seltzers are the rage.  Many spirits are up.  We are told incessantly that the Gen Z consumer wants engagement with a product which is environmentally sound, healthy and "good for you".  How wine managed to miss the boat on this is astounding.  You have an organic product, fucking fruit, which undergoes a natural fermentation often with natural yeasts from the vineyard, which is then bottled with minimal additives.  Yet, somehow a "Bomb Pop Seltzer" is the "healthy choice"?  A gummy edible is the way to go?  How did they let that happen?

Social causes come and go, and before you know it, someone new will be in the crosshairs.  The same people that complained about someone not paying attention in class at middle school are now small time legislators.  These people thought they should control what everyone did when we were 11 years old, and they are positive they should now.  As with most of these social issues, the risks are wildly overblown and the narrative against it has an agenda, usually tied to money.  Temperance is back, and it's wearing yoga pants with a Christian cross.  It's time for marketers in the wine industry to roll up their sleeves and get to work.  This is a fight you can win.