by, Renee Wood

            Label my light beer as a carcinogen, but not label the well known carcinogen of red or processed meat?! Someone will have to explain to me, in detail, the logic of that. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the government labeling something for educational purposes, but at least be fair about it and do it to all carcinogens that humans consume on a daily basis. If things are labeled then one can pick their poison, or at least portion out their poisons.

            I guess it does get me a bit riled up when the health organization targets my beer, that is so light, it’s mostly water, and has not targeted things such as hot dogs and bologna, which have been well known group one carcinogens for years! One can argue that these are more inexpensive forms of food that poor people can afford, so does that mean the government is trying to wipe out poor people? Whereas alcohol use affects all people equally, and if it is true, which I surmise but I haven’t heard the details, that the chances of cancer go up with the percentage of alcohol, then one could say the economically well off are going to be affected more by alcohol because they can afford the higher proof. So again, if this is true, the government is only concerned about the well off and not really about the poor.

            Another thing that floors me, is seven and a half years ago, when I was going through chemo, I went to the infusion center and they offered the cancer patients food. Me, being a whole hearted vegetarian, was looking for something without meat that was healthy. Do you know they served lunch meat, Doritos, Fritos, pop and cookies!? That is like going to an alcohol recovery center and having them serve alcohol! I know lunch meat is inexpensive, but it’s a group one carcinogen! The pop, cookies and Fritos are highly processed and known to cause cancer like processed meat. The cancer center could replace these with, nuts, trail mix and cookies that are not highly processed. How could a cancer center not know that processed meat causes cancer? Oh, but if you mention that you drink beer you think the world was coming to an end according to them. I honestly fail to see the difference between the two. This is either ignorance in the cancer profession, or hypocrisy. Neither is an excuse.

            It is no secret that alcohol, any kind of alcohol, is not good for human beings, or probably anything else on earth. If one doesn’t know that, then one has their head stuck in the sand. However, if you ask the average American about hamburgers, hot dogs, brats, pepperoni, bologna and even ground turkey or chicken, how many of them would know that they are a group one carcinogen? A group one carcinogen is the highest category, and it means that there is an absolute link between its use and cancer. The same goes for alcohol, but people have always known that alcohol and liver cancer go hand in hand, so they added a couple other cancers to alcohol use, I would not call this a huge revelation. However, although it’s been well known and documented for years, I would say the average American does not know that process meat is a well known carcinogen, so that would be a revelation to most Americans. That is why those types of meats should also carry a cancer label on them.

            Trust me, one can live without these types of processed meats, the same as the fact that people can live without alcohol. Processed meats absolutely DO cause cancer research shows. Fresh unground meats DO NOT cause cancer such as, chicken and turkey, pork, lamb, some beef, not ground, etc. However let me stipulate, although fresh meat does not cause cancer, it has something called casein in it. Casein is a protein found in animal milk, cheeses, eggs, and meats. There are some healthy prospects to caseins in that they build muscle, and aid in recovery after exercise. It is a high protein intake. Caseins do not cause cancer, however everybody’s body has cancer cells in it. The liver is designed to detect cancer cells and get rid of them. Caseins mimic cancer cells in the liver, so the liver cannot distinguish the cancer cells from caseins. When the liver is overwhelmed with both, it misses some of the cancer cells and that is how much of the cancers take root in one’s body. That is why I choose not to eat meat. I should also give up eggs and cheese too because they have the same thing with the casein in them, but I think totally abstaining from one (meat) at least helps the liver not become overwhelmed and miss many cancer cells. As long as I have lived with cancer, anecdotally at least, it is hard to argue that abstaining from all types of meats hasn’t had some effect.

            When talking about the recent alcohol data that came out, I would like to know the methodology for the alcohol cancer study. The scientific method would have to factor out many things to prove that alcohol, any type of alcohol itself, causes the cancer in equal proportions. What I mean by that is, someone who drinks one bottle of light beer a day, eats four hamburgers and two hot dogs a day, plus a 2 liter of coke, and ended up with throat cancer, you would have a really hard time convincing me it was that one bottle of light beer that caused that cancer. However, if the study showed that someone on a plant-based diet who only ate fresh vegetables, whole grains, legumes, fruits and nuts, as well as one bottle of light beer a day, ended up with throat cancer in equal proportions to the person above, you might convince me that it was the one bottle of light beer a day that caused the cancer.

            The reason why I emphasize in “equal proportions” is because, it is quite possible that both groups might have people who end up with throat cancer in them. If each group has 100 participants, both groups drank the same type and amount of alcohol. One group only ends up with two people with throat cancer, and the other group ends up with 25 people with throat cancer, I would be looking at something else in that group that had 25 people who developed that type of cancer. However if one group ends up with 21 people with a certain type of cancer, and the other group ends up with 25 people with that type of cancer, then the one bottle of Light beer definitely had some effect.

            Also, I would need to see the study to determine if the amount and type of alcohol has more of an effect then other amounts and types of alcohol. In other words, they are claiming that even one beer or glass of wine a day can increase your chances of getting certain kinds of cancer. Let’s take for granted that is true. However, does one bottle of light beer increase your chances by .025 percent, whereas five shots of rum a day increases your chances of that type of cancer by 50%? Both show a definite increase with alcohol use, however the cost/benefit of having one beer a day, may serve to decrease the amount of stress in one’s life, which stress also causes cancer, so it evens itself out. Whereas a 50% increase with hard liquor may not be worth the risk no matter the benefits. What I am saying is we are not getting the details in the study. All we know is any kind of alcohol increases your chances of cancer. But I know that all things are not equal, and that they’re not telling us the whole story. That is called fear tactics, and Americans are not stupid, so unless you give them the full picture in detail, as they did with cigarettes, it is not going to work.

            Since I have ovarian cancer I think it gives me the right to speak about cancer, diet and alcohol use. When I was first diagnosed I researched ovarian cancer. It is one of the few cancers that its causation has no direct link to alcohol. After you are diagnosed with ovarian cancer, like with any cancer, the sugar in alcohol is not good for it, which means, it causes it to spread because cancer likes sugar and thrives on it. However, even at that time I had been a vegetarian for many years, and I ate as little processed food as possible, so my sugar intake was extremely low. It is a little higher now because I am trying to gain weight. My one oncologist is also a vegetarian and I was telling her that I eat, besides my usual healthy diet, two Oreo cookies a day to gain weight. She smiled at me and said, “Renee you can eat three”! Stage three ovarian cancer was always a known probable death sentence for me from the start. Yet, except during the week of chemo, I have always had my few beers at night and far outlived any predictions. So what did that say for the statistics?

Honestly, I think it is more about balance, natural balance. When you understand your own body and really listen to it, it will tell you what you need and when you overdid it. But, you have to start out with the knowledge and constitution for what’s healthy. If you’ve always eaten Cheetos, hamburgers, pepperoni pizza and coke on a daily basis, you are not going to have the constitution for a healthy diet because your body doesn’t know what that is. In other words, it needs to detox from the shit it’s been fed and that it longs for as “food”. If one starts out with a plant based diet, they can add an Oreo cookie or a beer and it’s not going to have a devastating effect. Yes, it might increase your risk of cancer by .01 % (made up number), but it would be far more of an increase if you started out with a poor diet and added cookies and alcohol.

Label my beer if you wish, but you better label other peoples processed meats too, along with other process food such as; Cheetos, Little Debbie’s, pop, chicken fingers, and any other foods that are a known group one carcinogens, or that causes other serious health risks! The only foods that are safe (unless they get contaminated) are fresh fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains and fresh water. Everything else is not natural and therefore causes some type of health issues.

In conclusion, the issue of labeling carcinogens is not just about informing the public but about fairness, transparency, and consistency. While it’s important to educate people about the risks associated with alcohol, it’s equally critical to address other well-known carcinogens, such as processed meats and unhealthy processed foods, with the same level of scrutiny. Knowledge empowers individuals to make informed choices, and selective labeling undermines that empowerment by presenting an incomplete picture.

Ultimately, the path to better health lies in balance and awareness. As common sense aptly points out, understanding one’s body, adopting a plant-based diet, and making thoughtful lifestyle choices can mitigate risks. While labels serve as a guide, real change comes from a holistic approach to health that emphasizes natural, unprocessed foods and mindful consumption. If we’re going to label one potential poison, we should label them all—because everyone deserves the full truth about what they consume.