[GuB-42]

Interesting that the article states repeatedly that there is zero safe level of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

A lot of food we eat contains small amount of alcohol, bread in particular. Vinegar, fruits and juices too. And generally, we are well equipped to deal with it, and it only starts to become problematic when we start to run out of the required enzymes and are left with the toxic byproducts that cause hangovers.

If the threshold is zero, it means that even "safe", easily metabolized alcohol is a problem and we should find correlations even between non-drinkers based on diet.

[nitwit005]

I previously read an article about alcohol and safety, which made a similar claim. The lowest level of alcohol consumption in their data was two drinks a day. They had no idea if there was a safe amount below that.

I'd assume it's a talking point that activists have adopted.

[DarylZero]

Probably they're not even considering quantities that are much less than a single drink.

[resoluteteeth]

When they say the threshold is zero they mean they haven't identified any specific amount below which there stops being any effect, but the effect is still dose dependent so the effect from incidental consumption is negligible and undetectable (except maybe statistically if there are large populations that are identical except for consuming or not consuming then).

This is in the context of debate over whether some harmful things like radiation or ingestion of heavy metals go linearly to zero or of there is a specific threshold below which they suddenly stop being harmful.

It doesn't mean that all quantities of alcohol are equally harmful.