British MPs want tobacco style warnings on wine!

August 14th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Cigarette-style warnings should be placed on wine showing its health risks and the number of calories it contains, a group of British MPs has said.

Next will be plain packaging for wine!

The recommendations come after Public Health England said no one should drink alcohol two days running in order to minimise the risks to their health.

Sigh.

Professor Mark Bellis, an alcohol spokesman for the Faculty of Public Health, suggested labels could say that alcohol increases the risk of cancer and causes at least 15,000 deaths a year in the UK.

We should have the same warnings on pasta, lamb chops etc.

Tags:

49 Responses to “British MPs want tobacco style warnings on wine!”

  1. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    I can just see it now, “Chardonnay will turn you into a socialist.”

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hane (69 comments) says:

    How much did the alcohol industry pay for this post?

    [DPF: Not a cent and 50 demerits. Smear elsewhere]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hj (7,164 comments) says:

    Known human carcinogens
    International Agency for Research on Cancer
    Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans

    Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages)
    Acid mists, strong inorganic
    Aflatoxins
    Alcoholic beverages
    I recommend you and the boys at Beer Wine And Spirits watch this David Farrar
    http://tvnz.co.nz/nigel-latta/s1-ep3-video-6041406

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gump (1,683 comments) says:

    David – do you get paid by Carrick Graham to publish articles that promote the deregulation of alcohol?

    Or does that deal only apply to Cameron Slater?

    [DPF: Not at all. And as you have made a false accusation in the form of a question, have 50 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    We should really test it on new cars before we do wine. I can just see the Lamborghini dealer with a dead bodies sticker over the front windscreen “This car could KILL YOU”.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    “The recommendations come after Public Health England said no one should drink alcohol two days running in order to minimise the risks to their health.”

    No, I agree.

    Running whilst drinking is bad, you tend to spill more :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Longknives (4,953 comments) says:

    Sellman will be jerking himself silly over this one…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Warning: Consumption of this product might lead to you having fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    Should have a special sticker “Warning, Socialism is a threat to your health and well being, and may cause the death of millions if left unchecked”.

    I’m surprised that I’m still alive as I drink something every bloody day, glass or glass and a half of wine typically. Dinner is not dinner without wine to go with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Labrator –

    In fairness, car manufacturers have already bowed to regulation and installed all manner of safety features, you can probably walk away from a 100km/h crash in a Lamborghini these days…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    @RRM I was going to say Ford but didn’t want to be responsible for a Holden versus Ford flame war, it’d be tantamount to saying David Bain is guilty around here, so I picked the car least likely to be driven by KB commenters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jakejakejake (143 comments) says:

    After reading Dirty Politics I can’t help but feel that perhaps alcohol/tobacco related posts on this blog should have a little promotional post tag like the paid for articles on Stuff.co.nz :(

    [DPF: and also 50 demerits for the smear. Nothing in Hager’s book indicated I get paid for post – and that is because is is totally false]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    After reading Dirty Politics…

    That was your first mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Anyone on this thread remember when you used to buy condoms & leave the chemist with your purchases in a brown paper bag?

    A couple of years hence & your lamb chops will be wrapped the same way…..after the checkout supervisor is satisfied that you are over 18.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Slipster (197 comments) says:

    When they were attacking smokers, many people said alcohol is next. No surprise really.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Slipster (197 comments) says:

    labrator (1,764 comments) says:

    >>After reading Dirty Politics…

    That was your first mistake.
    =====
    Nah, I’m pretty sure he’d done many more before that. Skill shows.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Recidivist_offender (31 comments) says:

    Good, if you have to rely on the drug known as alcohol to relax and enjoy yourself, then that makes you sad and pathetic. And if you drink for the sake of appearances and fitting in, you’re just a pretentious sheep.

    This will give the wino snobs something to wine about. Love it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rightandleft (691 comments) says:

    I’m not opposed to requiring them to display calorie counts just as every product I buy at the supermarket must have nutritional information displayed on the back. People need information to make informed decisions. Warning labels are a different matter and I really don’t think they’re that effective. Alcoholic beverages in the US have had to carry warnings on them for years and years. I don’t see this as being as bad as plain packaging, which is essentially state enforced theft of intellectual property.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Odakyu-sen (853 comments) says:

    First they came for the smokers, but I did nothing because I was not a smoker…

    (You know the drill.)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Manolo (14,167 comments) says:

    @DPF: Are you still a fan of plain packaging for cigarettes?
    If so, how do you reconcile it with your opposition to this latest lunacy?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    nasska @ 5.34.

    No one under 18 or $180K/yr can afford lamb chops thanks to you bastard framers ! :-)

    Manolo.

    My Mountford 07 Pinot would taste the same from a blottle with a plain label? Mmmmmmm !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. lolitasbrother (774 comments) says:

    yes I know I used to drink a bottle of Scotch if I wanted to, sometimes the priest would come over we have Napoleon Brandy, we ate lamb chops, ignored the cops, and we had them land girls on farm, well; .. , then I cut back on the cigarettes, soon I even stopped the ganja and the prettiest girl in Thailand said to me. This a good day. you not too much drinking wine, and I see you read Eric Crampton, you old but hardly even dead yet,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    ….”No one under 18 or $180K/yr can afford lamb chops”…..

    We poor (but honest) cockys get a lot of bad press Colville. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. EAD (1,450 comments) says:

    Wait till it comes here – I give it 2 years.

    I posted on this several days ago and how in our new single world order of politics, every single Western democracy enacts the same policies at almost the same time regardless of which team is in power. Gay marriage, Islamic immigration, “hate speech”, “euthanasia”, “green” policies. Surely just a coincidence???

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/general_debate_12_august_2014.html#comments

    “Over in the UK, MPs are now calling for all wine and beer to have cigarette style warnings on them.

    In our new world order of Western Politics, this idea will no doubt be raised in NZ but will not be in either the National or Labour manifestos.

    In say 2 years, regardless of whoever wins the election we will have an onslaught from the media how we need to “protect our children” and “the dangers of beer and wine”. An MP will then put it forward as a “conscience vote” that we need labeling or plain packaging on all beer and wine. Labour and National MPs will then vote “independently” with an 80%+ majority to pass this bill and we will thus have the first progressive step towards the banning of alcohol. You heard it here first.

    The truth is, this is how liberty dies, with a thousand cuts, day after day after day no matter which team you vote into power in our increasingly one party state.

    “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Benjamin Franklin”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Manolo (14,167 comments) says:

    @Colville: No, it would not be the same. That’s why we have to tell this petty tyrants to get fucked big time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    No recidivist, not to relax or look cool. To enjoy the fruits of Gaia and my hard work. To complement a lovely meal – tonight was a Ragu, slow cooked, of course, and a lovely Pinot.

    Based on your comments and approach, Id be worried if National got in and outlawed fucktards. You’ll be screwed :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross411 (902 comments) says:

    This is a good start. Next the police anti-drug squads should do raids of properties suspected of growing grapes. And tobacco. There’s no reason why these drugs should get special political treatment, just because they employ and create money in the economy (and churn over in the hospitals).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. themanwhowatches (41 comments) says:

    Good that the sanctimonious like recidivist come out to play. As for lolitasbrother, love you long time!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ShawnLH (6,611 comments) says:

    “Anyone on this thread remember when you used to buy condoms & leave the chemist with your purchases in a brown paper bag?”

    With great fondness! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Recidivist_offender (31 comments) says:

    @hmmokrightitis

    Enjoy the fruits of Gaia and garnish your meal with coca leaves and drink some Opium tea to wash it all down then.

    I dont tolerate Drinkers, just like i dont like people smoking pot around me, sniffing solvents, abusing prescription medications, your all sad cunts and i hate you with a passion until you cease permanently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    Apparently Nigel Latta tried to tell everyone the other night that two drinks a day is equivalent to smoking 5 fags

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. calendar girl (1,258 comments) says:

    The next step in NZ will be so-called ‘plain packaging’ for cigarettes, a la Australia. It’s not ‘plain packaging’ at all, of course – it’s lurid disfigurement of product packaging, the benign description of which is a PC euphemism for misappropriating the intellectual property of legitimate, tax-paying manufacturers.

    The same will follow inexorably with alcohol products, high-sugar / high-fat foods and other products that attract the attention of the food and health nazis. Remember that vigorous campaign only a decade or so ago against the harmful effects of eggs? The food nazis went close to denying us – and certainly denigrated – one of our most accessible ‘wonder foods’?

    Are you still advocating Government-enforced limited test-marketing of ‘plain-packaged’ cigarettes, DPF? If you / we capitulate to such nanny state interference in legitimate markets (and allow the state to take over our personal choices and responsibility), you can hardly express mock surprise when calls are made for cigarette-style health warnings on wine labels. Night follows day.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Don the Kiwi (1,808 comments) says:

    Humankind have been drinking wine for thousands of years.

    If its such an issue, why is life expectancy many years higher than it was even sixty years ago?
    Why do the French , Italians, Hispanics etc – to whom wine is a staple drink – have a lesser incidence of heart disease than some other cultures?
    Why do these wankers want to disrupt and attempt to rule our lives with their favorite obsession?

    DPF – people like this (the Greens) are your third party choice to vote for WTF ????

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    It is time we told these people what we really think about them, so 9with apologies to a comment on David Thompson’s site); Fuck them, fuck them and the horse they came on, and fuck anyone who looks like them and anyone who looks like the horse they came on.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    You do realise that with an attitude like that its going to be hard to make friends recidivist?

    My nana enjoyed a drop of sherry at Christmas. Ill tell her you said hi :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. cha (4,138 comments) says:

    You tell em Ed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,703 comments) says:

    About time we had the same warnings on politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. jcuk (756 comments) says:

    Since I only started drinking regularly on medical advice instead of drinking one glass a night I will drink two glasses on alternate nights …. that two drinks could likely cause me to pass out or considerable discomfort …… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. jcuk (756 comments) says:

    I don’t know why these people are trying to keep us alive longer there are too many people on Gaia as it is. But I am glad others have been keeping me alive the past few decades :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. duggledog (1,621 comments) says:

    But back to the thread.

    I wonder why British MPs are even talking about this. Well, parts of the UK are utterly booze drenched, as we all know and would leave a kiwi for dead when it comes to alcohol consumption. I’ve been to parts of Glasgae, the Midlands, the south West, where it is standard practice to have two or three pints at lunch and several more in the evening every… f***ing… day…, from 15 or 16 to old age.

    Plus in places like Liverpool you get ferals that make ours look positively wholesome and motivated. I suspect this whole thing is about trying to do something (anything) to help the brain dead from becoming even more brain dead. It won’t make a jot of difference, everyone from the gent lying in the gutter outside St Paul’s to Baron Plaisted Arnold-ffoulkes in Richmond to the MPs themselves but when has that ever stopped anyone.

    BTW if you saw the Nigel Latta episode on booze Tuesday night – an interesting point at the very end. Referencing the current administration’s reluctance to take up even one of the recommendations of the booze report, Latta said maybe the people felt they weren’t being listened to, but should have been. Maybe Latta’s a secret Conservative voter. Sure sounded like he was in favour of a binding referendum on that score!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Brian (Shadowfoot) (70 comments) says:

    “Plain packaging”? That’s a brown paper bag isn’t it?

    Warning: Excess consumption may result in pregnancy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    Where did it all go so wrong,from being our elected representatives to a bunch of fascists disguied as do gooders?

    Mind you National are into plain packaging here,first they came for tobacco……just a matter of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. gump (1,683 comments) says:

    @DPF

    “Not at all. And as you have made a false accusation in the form of a question, have 50 demerits”

    ———————————–

    Not only have your lost your credibility, you also appear to have lost your sense of humour and proportion.

    You can ban me if it makes you feel better. Unlike yourself, I don’t need to obey corporate paymasters in the alcohol industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Slipster (197 comments) says:

    @recidivist: Do you realise you are in urgent need of professional psychiatric help? Perhaps the long-suppressed alcohol yarning did it to you. Or self-loathing taking the form of this “unusual and cruel” punishment you inflict on yourself. Be it as it may – seek help. Do it now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. soundhill1 (311 comments) says:

    “I was going to say Ford but didn’t want to be responsible for a Holden versus Ford flame war”

    Henry Ford was against alcohol. He used to send investigators for surprise visits to the homes of his workers and fire them if alcohol was on their breath, I read.

    After he was persuaded to join the World War II effort his factory produced about 9000 B-24 bomber aircraft, half of the whole production.

    I wonder how many negative ticks I’ll get for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Dr. Strangelove (19 comments) says:

    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/truth-wont-admit-drinking-healthy-87891/

    Note the chart about half way down. Not drinking at all is a very significant health risk. The sweet spot is around 1-3 standard drinks per day for men, but you have to drink a lot before drinking becomes a bigger risk than not drinking. Even at 5 standard drinks per day all-cause mortality is much lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. soundhill1 (311 comments) says:

    Just looking for controlled double blind studies, 1997 said benefit restricted to smokers.:
    “CONCLUSIONS:

    Our results confirm the protective effect of alcohol against CHD. However, in contrast to previous data the effect in our population is restricted to smokers and the role of HDLc in mediating the effect is less central than suggested previously.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9077373

    Also of interest:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12137/full

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Dr. Strangelove (19 comments) says:

    soundhill1: Your first link is for a study that is old, admits that its conclusions are contradicted by other studies, is very narrowly focused on men who are already at high risk of heart disease, and yet still confirms that moderate alcohol consumption reduces mortality for some (smokers) while doing no harm to others (non-smokers). Your second link confirms that moderate alcohol consumption appears to be beneficial for most of the population, but makes various arguments for continuing research. Which is fine of course, more research would be good. But it is decidedly not good to put health warnings on alcohol when the great preponderance of evidence indicates that abstaining from alcohol is dangerous for most of the population.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. soundhill1 (311 comments) says:

    @Dr Strangelove: >Your first link is for a study that is old,

    Yes because when I looked up double blind controlled studies not much came up.

    >admits that its conclusions are contradicted by other studies,

    I admit that I have not read more than the abstract. What was your source? In the abstract it does not admit it is contradicted by other studies, it claims it contradicts them, in that they did not allow for smoking.

    There is a lot to look into, such as whether the apparent beneficial affect on smokers may only be that while sipping they somewhat less have a cigarette in their mouth, and reduce their total smoking.

    >is very narrowly focused on men who are already at high risk of heart disease,

    Whereas the second article points out that sufficient number of such persons may have already decided to give up to bend the outcome.

    > and yet still confirms that moderate alcohol consumption reduces mortality for some (smokers) while doing no harm to others (non-smokers).

    More non-smokers than smokers these days. I don’t know if the study would show the same today. And I do think you have to stop giving the impression that alcohol benefits the bulk of the population unless you produce double blind controlled trials.

    > Your second link confirms that moderate alcohol consumption appears to be beneficial for most of the population,

    No it says that that is what many people have thought. And it points out that could be the same as how people used to think salt to be very good for themselves.

    > but makes various arguments for continuing research. Which is fine of course, more research would be good.

    It says the case is not closed, contrary to what many people assume.

    >But it is decidedly not good to put health warnings on alcohol when the great preponderance of evidence indicates that abstaining >from alcohol is dangerous for most of the population.

    No for example: “If moderate drinking is beneficial for health through biological vascular or other mechanisms, why is it not apparent in all demographic subgroups? This inconsistency must be addressed before the full extent of the relation between moderate alcohol consumption and health is firmly established.”

    And the warnings would presumably differentiate between your “abstaining” which sometimes means not having any, and use in moderation. They would be aimed at warning of immoderate use wouldn’t they?

    “Converging evidence suggests that moderate drinking increases the risk of some cancers [15], thus the unintended consequences of promoting moderate drinking for cardiovascular health in the absence of a true causal link could have an overall detrimental effect on population health”

    I await your comment before going more deeply into this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote