labelling for alcohol

Sam Kade

stimpson wrote: »

You've never seen a non drinker die young?

There are reasons why we should make decisions on sound science that uses sample size determination, control groups and peer review.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. You put up one link that heavy drinkers live longer than non drinkers and all of a sudden it's sound science. Then you changed to moderate drinkers live longer, there's a big difference between the two.

TomBtheGoat

I would imagine that labelling for alcohol, will be about as useful as tits on a Bull.

stimpson

Sam Kade wrote: »

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. You put up one link that heavy drinkers live longer than non drinkers and all of a sudden it's sound science. Then you changed to moderate drinkers live longer, there's a big difference between the two.

They do live longer than non drinkers. Up to thirty pints a week. Moderate drinkers live even longer. Show me where I said anything else.

suicide_circus

if you follow this line of thinking, cars should have mandatory vinyl wrap graphics of people with spinal injuries and swimming pools should have photos of bloated drowning victims on the walls. Is this the world we want to live in? Packets of peanuts with "may contain nuts" on the back. Generations of adult babies all devoid of original thought, personal responsibility and the right to live dangerously.

tommy2bad

suicide_circus wrote: »

if you follow this line of thinking, cars should have mandatory vinyl wrap graphics of people with spinal injuries and swimming pools should have photos of bloated drowning victims on the walls. Is this the world we want to live in? Packets of peanuts with "may contain nuts" on the back. Generations of adult babies all devoid of original thought, personal responsibility and the right to live dangerously.

Might have more to do with grounds to sue than rights to live dangerously.

Paramite Pie

tommy2bad wrote: »

Might have more to do with grounds to sue than rights to live dangerously.

If a person cannot read PEANUTS in large font then they are unlikely to be able to read a small warning on the back of the pack.
The pictures of nuts on the front would be the biggest clue.

I understand products where it's less obvious (chocolate) but often the product description and ingredients list are in a larger font than the warning itself.

rubadub

Paramite Pie wrote: »

The pictures of nuts on the front would be the biggest clue.

Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes. Somebody who is not allergic to peanuts could be allergic to other things called "nuts". The peanuts can be cross contaminated since the peanut factory may also have other nuts there too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_nut_allergy

Tree nut allergy, a hypersensitivity to dietary substances from tree nuts causing an overreaction of the immune system, may lead to severe physical symptoms.[1] Tree nuts include almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, chestnuts, filberts/hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, pistachios, pine nuts,[2] and walnuts.[note 1]

Tree nut allergy is distinct from peanut allergy, as peanuts are legumes, whereas a tree nut is a hard-shelled fruit.

darkpagandeath

tommy2bad wrote: »

Might have more to do with grounds to sue than rights to live dangerously.

Aye, Sure here you can be piss*d and climb a massive fence and get loads of money because there was no sign saying that you are not supposed to.