California needs to rethink the approach to alcohol labeling to provide clearer and significantly more labeling. The consequences currently have already gone too far: the CDC estimates 180,000 people die a year nationally from overdrinking alone. These deaths don’t include ones tied to cancer, alcohol-related deaths such as drunk driving and alcohol-related diseases.
Currently, there are only two instances of warnings about the dangers of alcohol when purchasing alcohol in the state: One is point-of-sale, a warning at the checkout while buying alcohol, and then there is the label on a bottle or can itself.
The point-of-sale warnings are from Proposition 65, which requires businesses to provide warnings about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Prop 65, which contains a list of over 900 toxins and carcinogens to watch out for leads to an overabundance of labels on foods that cause little to no harm, such as the acrylamide in potato chips, which appear in all cooked and fried foods. Therefore, Prop 65 is largely useless, as it doesn’t differentiate between the dangers of actually harmful chemicals in alcohol like acetaldehyde and non-harmful chemicals like acrylamide.
Although originally intended to provide consumers with more knowledge on harmful chemicals, Prop 65 now acts as an out-of-control fire house blasting useless information in consumers’ faces. Not only do these labels lack any helpful information, but they also confuse the consumer when it comes to which foods are actually safe or harmful. This then results in a lack of consideration for these chemicals in foods that actually have prevalent problems and health concerns.
Although alcohol is subject to Prop 65, alcohol producers are largely unaffected by the proposition because of the oversaturated warnings. If every aisle at a supermarket says something can cause cancer, birth defects and more, the consideration of these signs become nonexistent, and point-of-sale alcohol warnings become largely useless.
Prop 65’s failure leaves one way to properly warn consumers about alcohol’s potential harms: bigger and better labels on alcohol beverages. The current federal standard is the problem, with a minimum type size of 3 mm and legibility required on a 3 Liter large bottle. These labels are hard to read, barely noticeable and often ignored.
A NIH study reports only 13% of consumers pay close attention to current alcohol labels. On the flip slide, two-thirds of participants reported thinking little about the warnings.
Studies show displaying larger alcohol warnings with icons on the front of containers actually increase attention to potential harms, improved memory on drinking guidelines and reduced alcohol sales. Additionally, research suggests that larger, more graphically oriented warnings can affect drinking-related outcomes including intentions, alcohol selection and speed of drinking.
It is now crucial for the state to require better labeling. Understanding the shortcomings with Prop 65 is only the first step. The better remedy is to enlarge these current labels to catch the attention of people shopping for alcohol, increasing thought behind buying alcohol. Then perhaps more consumers will think twice before purchasing an everyday, normalized drug that leads to so many tragic outcomes.