4 ms·

> alcohol, tobacco, internal combustion engine Yes, the companies providing these products are sued a lot and are heavily regulated, too.

ChadNauseam 6mo ago
If you get cancer from drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or breathing particles emitted by ICE engines in their standard course of operation, you generally can't sue the manufacturer.
- nozzlegear 6mo ago
  Notably, that's because they include warning labels telling you not to do those things because they're known to cause cancer.
  - ChadNauseam 6mo ago
    That's just not true. Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. There's no label that says it causes cancer. (Maybe in california because of prop 65?) And I expect cars also have no such labelling, not that it would matter, considering they cause cancer in random passers by who have no opportunity to consent to breathing in auto exhaust or read any labels
    - nozzlegear 6mo ago
      > Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. I'm a teetotaler so no, I literally have not. I was mostly thinking about cigarette and tobacco products which are the most glaring, obvious counterpoints. But you'll be happy to learn that virtually all vehicles in the US also come with operating manuals that profusely warn people not to breathe in the exhaust from the vehicle.
      - salad-tycoon 6mo ago
        Don’t worry, every bottle in the US has the surgeon general’s warning on it and it doesn’t call out cancer, yet. Adding cancer to the ills of booze was proposed in 2025 so your intuition was correct, directionally. On every bottle: Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 “ GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems" Cancer proposal: https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/not-just-a-hangover--the-surgeon-generals-advisory-on-alcohol-and-cancer-risk.h00-159776445.html https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/not-just-a-hangover--t... https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/distilled-spirits/ds-labeling-home/ds-health-warning https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/d... (As if adding this text will do anything other than reduce the companies liability, rofl)
        goosejuice 6mo ago
        Labeling is only one part of a larger strategy for population health initiatives. Warning the consumer is the absolute minimum responsible thing to do when the harmful effects are known.
- goosejuice 6mo ago
  You could when the effects were knowingly withheld by said manufacturer. We've seen it with tobacco, lead paint/diesel, pfas, thalidomide, asbestos, opioids, glyphosate, dioxin, and others. It's much more difficult to isolate alcohol and exhaust as the primary driver of an individuals disease than the above and that's the primary reason it's not regulated more than it is today. I expect that to change as research evolves.

ChadNauseam 6mo ago

If you get cancer from drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or breathing particles emitted by ICE engines in their standard course of operation, you generally can't sue the manufacturer.

nozzlegear 6mo ago
Notably, that's because they include warning labels telling you not to do those things because they're known to cause cancer.
- ChadNauseam 6mo ago
  That's just not true. Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. There's no label that says it causes cancer. (Maybe in california because of prop 65?) And I expect cars also have no such labelling, not that it would matter, considering they cause cancer in random passers by who have no opportunity to consent to breathing in auto exhaust or read any labels
  - nozzlegear 6mo ago
    > Makes me wondered if you've ever bought a bottle of alcohol before lol. I'm a teetotaler so no, I literally have not. I was mostly thinking about cigarette and tobacco products which are the most glaring, obvious counterpoints. But you'll be happy to learn that virtually all vehicles in the US also come with operating manuals that profusely warn people not to breathe in the exhaust from the vehicle.
    - salad-tycoon 6mo ago
      Don’t worry, every bottle in the US has the surgeon general’s warning on it and it doesn’t call out cancer, yet. Adding cancer to the ills of booze was proposed in 2025 so your intuition was correct, directionally. On every bottle: Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 “ GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems" Cancer proposal: https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/not-just-a-hangover--the-surgeon-generals-advisory-on-alcohol-and-cancer-risk.h00-159776445.html https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/not-just-a-hangover--t... https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/distilled-spirits/ds-labeling-home/ds-health-warning https://www.ttb.gov/regulated-commodities/beverage-alcohol/d... (As if adding this text will do anything other than reduce the companies liability, rofl)
      - goosejuice 6mo ago
        Labeling is only one part of a larger strategy for population health initiatives. Warning the consumer is the absolute minimum responsible thing to do when the harmful effects are known.
goosejuice 6mo ago
You could when the effects were knowingly withheld by said manufacturer. We've seen it with tobacco, lead paint/diesel, pfas, thalidomide, asbestos, opioids, glyphosate, dioxin, and others. It's much more difficult to isolate alcohol and exhaust as the primary driver of an individuals disease than the above and that's the primary reason it's not regulated more than it is today. I expect that to change as research evolves.