The Department of Health and Human Services is weighing whether or not to freeze a study on the health impacts of alcohol consumption after a bipartisan group of 100 lawmakers expressed concern about the integrity of the research being performed. The report is meant to inform the next round of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, but what has become clear is that the process has been captured by anti-alcohol activists, whose goal is to discourage imbibing of all kinds.
Alcohol is already a highly regulated product and studied exhaustively. This secretive HHS misadventure needs a healthy dose of transparency and accountability.
This study was initially launched by HHS’s Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking with the goal of shaping the all-important U.S. Dietary Guidelines, which are refreshed every five years. Right now, the 2025–2030 update is being composed, and HHS has moved away from the long-standing health recommendation for alcohol being capped at one drink per day for women and two for men.
This has been brewing for several years.
George Koob, the director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, made clear in 2023 that he wanted to see the U.S. follow Canada’s approach in recommending against any alcohol consumption. Those Canadian proposed guidelines came about the same year the World Health Organization updated its position to state that any and all alcohol is dangerous, a wish list item of Movendi, a temperance organization listed on the WHO’s website as a partner group.
Despite protests from consumer analysts and the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research, which called the Canadian research a “pseudo-scientific amalgamation of selected studies of low scientific validity,” American institutions have looked to these proposals in Canada as a model.
Even a whiff of involvement from a group such as Movendi, whose members are sworn to “live free from alcohol and other drugs because we believe it allows a richer and freer, healthier and happier life,” would be immensely damaging to the credibility of HHS on any future food and beverage health recommendations.
Congress already allocated $1.3 million to the Department of Agriculture and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to do a comprehensive report on alcohol’s impact on health. The HHS-backed study is redundant and an overreach, specifically because ICCPUD is supposed to focus on underage drinking prevention, not weighing in on the drinking habits of adults.
Imagine a set of dietary guidelines muddled by input from multiple agencies pushing different studies or, worse, if PETA were informing U.S. guidelines on meat consumption. That is close to what is happening here. Consumers want clarity, not convoluted guidelines that smack of nanny state micromanagement over their lives.
The alcohol industry has worked through decades of intense regulatory oversight and still remains one of the most compliant sectors in the economy. Just like consumers who look to government agencies for reliable research, that industry deserves straightforward guidance for its business.
As pointed out by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Dan Newhouse (R-WA), members of the Scientific Review Panel for the alcohol research, were not properly examined for conflicts of interest, and public meetings and comments were not held save one in August.
When agencies operate without transparency, as HHS has allowed with its alcohol research, they erode public trust and alienate stakeholders. The industry needs credible guidelines in order to defend itself internally and to consumers.
Ironically, if the U.S. Dietary Guidelines change based on an anti-alcohol agenda flowing from the World Health Organization, an already polarizing global organization, there’s a good chance the guidance will go unheeded. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and various state programs are already dedicated to educating the public on alcohol-related risks. No one benefits from a public health policy that is out of touch with the public’s attitudes and practices.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
HHS should respect Congress’s mandate and step back from this project. American public health and dietary guidelines are best informed by science, not an ideological crusade that blurs the line between moderation and overindulgence.
Congress tasked NASEM with this work for a reason, which was to provide an unbiased, comprehensive report on alcohol that serves public health and maintains public confidence in the findings. HHS should suspend this study for the good of adult consumers and out of respect for the role of Congress in funding said research with taxpayer dollars.
Stephen Kent is the media director for the Consumer Choice Center. You can follow him on X @StephenKentX.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
