There probably a story somewhere as to why cigarettes get big labels and beer cans don't.
I'd be curious if cooking with wine falls into this category of affecting others. For example, at a restaurant if a meal has a little bit of wine in its sauce will that be listed on the menu or would it be added behind the scenes sort of like you wouldn't expect to see "garlic powder" or "pepper" listed on the menu for what's on a steak.
"Meats and baked goods that are cooked for 25 minutes without being stirred retain 45 percent of alcohol."
https://www.isu.edu/news/2019-fall/no-worries-the-alcohol-bu...
I guess I can update towards "most of it will probably be cooked off" but 45% is still non negligible for a lot of scenarios. And even 5% remaining after 2.5 hours of boiling means that I should probably expect some alcohol no matter what.
these are all very different kinds of alcohol.
for example "beef with wine sauce" it's cooked using one small glass of wine (usually red) at around 10% (so not a good one to drink, typically more like 12% and up, but one specifically used for cooking) for 4 people.
One glass of wine at 10% contains ~10 grams of pure alcohol. Even if the dish retained 45% of it it would mean 4 grams of alcohol for 4 persons, while eating, which is a well known fact, considerably reduces the amount of alcohol absorbed and its potential dangers.
Even though based on my research cooking the meat for 2 hours, like you usually do for "beef with wine sauce" retains at max 5% of the alcohol.
So it's more like zero.
edit: I guess people are downvoting because in USA people are obsessed by the 12 steps or whatever they are called and cannot use moderation, they either drink to death or do not drink at all, because they are "clean" now and their body is a tremple.
So here it is the data
Meats and baked goods that are cooked for 25 minutes without being stirred retain 45 percent of alcohol. Stews and other dishes that simmer for two and one-half hours tend to have the lowest amounts, but they retain about five percent of the alcohol
By the way, I'm pretty sure alcohol evaporates before the water. That's the reason you evaporate and collect the alcohol in distillation instead of evaporating the water and keeping the alcohol.
alcohol evaporates very rapidly at very low temperatures.
if you go out with people who love drinking, it's going to be very hard to stick to coca-cola
Wine is present in the Bible and used in Christian churches during mass. It is also used in Jewish celebrations and holidays.
Tobacco doesn't have the same history and cultural impact. From what I understand it is/was mainly "spiritually" used by American Natives for shamanic celebrations. (I can clearly be wrong on that)
> The lists describe the level of evidence that something can cause cancer, not how likely it is that something will cause cancer in any person (or how much it might raise your risk). For example, IARC considers there to be strong evidence that both tobacco smoking and eating processed meat can cause cancer, so both are listed as “carcinogenic to humans.” But smoking is much more likely to cause cancer than eating processed meat, even though both are in the same category.
A lot of people that die of cancer never drank a sip of alcohol or smoked a cigarette.
Alcohol increases the risk factor, but it's not like tobacco, alcohol is correlated to an increase of breast cancer and oral cavity cancer at maximum 20-25% more. 20-25% means 1.2-1.25 times, tobacco increases the risk 2,000-2,500% which means 20-25 times.
If you look at the stats in my country for oral cavity tumor, men risk (of getting it, survival rate after 5 years is over 60%) is 6 / 100,000, women risk is at 2.2/100,000. So a woman drinking heavily will see her risk go up to 2.75, which is still half the risk of men.
That's the kind of risk we are talking about here.
In perspective, if it was about tobacco the risk would go up from 2.2 to 55. A bit different, isn't it?
People react to these headlines in the wrong way: they confuse "risk increases" with "certain death". It's not like that, still a lot of cancer patients had a completely normal almost risk free life and we don't know why they got it, the only thing for sure is that it ran into their families. That's the biggest risk of them all.
And do not forget that age is a big risk factor too, one of the biggest.
Back to oral cavity cancer: in my Country average age of the diagnosis is 64, 95% of them are diagnosed after the age of 40.
Something to take into account, I think.
It’s not nothing, and yes, there needs to be stronger messaging about the dangers of heavy drinking, binge drinking etc., but having a couple (2-4) of beers or glasses of wine a week is not massively increasing your risk of cancer, much more than just living somewhere with high UV or a lot of roads.
What? Afaik alcohol is pretty well known to increase risks of several cancers in population. Individual response to alcohol is of course a much more complex topic with genetics affecting a large palette of physiological and neurological responses to alcohol. For populations - alcohol is a health risk. For individual - the narrative is far more nuanced (more risk for some than others etc).
Compare this to ~5% of cancer related death attributable to alcohol use.
It's just not even an accurate comparison.
To be honest though? I am willing to bet that cost to healthcare system for alcohol related illness is outpacing that of smoking related illness. Cirrhosis of the liver is a very costly disease when it gets close to end stage.
but of course the vast majority of people that drink on saturday night do NOT end up in A&E.
There is a reason nicotine is addictive and popular. It's mildly enjoyable.
UK's old drug czar, David Nutt, got in trouble for calling alcohol Britain's most dangerous drug.