Table 2.
Industry arguments opposing alcohol warning labels (AWLs) and the cancer warning mentioned in news articles
| Industry arguments | Yukon Study | Ireland Bill |
| Number of mentions |
||
| Stating alcohol can cause cancer is inaccurate/misleading/unproven/incomplete/overreach | 18 | 25 |
| Alcohol and cancer link is too complex for a single label | 5 | 7 |
| AWLs are not effective/there are better/less anti-trade alternative measures that industry supports | 7 | 23 |
| Alcohol has health benefits and AWLs should not just mention risk | 5 | 11 |
| Cancer labels will hurt or disadvantage alcohol industry (and small/craft breweries/distilleries) and will cause stigma/reputational damage | 2 | 38 |
| No legislative authority for applying AWLs and represents trademark infringement | 28 | 3 |
| Industry is being unfairly singled out with AWLs and cancer warning | 2 | 7 |
| Alcohol is not the same as tobacco | 4 | 2 |
| Industry not consulted about AWLs and should have input | 4 | 1 |
| Cancer labels will cause export/trade barriers and impede growth | 0 | 31 |
| Cancer labels are a disproportionate response not required in other countries | 0 | 23 |
| AWLs will be expensive/logistically difficult to implement | 0 | 18 |
| Defamation and damages resulting from applying label stating alcohol can cause cancer | 12 | 0 |
| National drinking guidelines label may increase consumption or encourage impaired driving | 7 | 0 |
| Academic study conducting biased/flawed research | 7 | 0 |