The growing fight over whether alcohol is healthy in moderation or dangerous from the first drop has spread to the decision-making behind the U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And wine-and-spirits industry members are pointing out that it looks like the anti-alcohol movement is stacking the deck.
Last month, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States trade group sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services raising pointed questions about a scientific review that an HHS agency plans to conduct on alcohol use. This all sounds very mundane and bureaucratic, but the review represents a dramatic change to how the U.S. dietary guidelines are devised.
Science and Diet
Those guidelines are updated every five years and are often a battleground of political infighting. Why? They influence how food companies market their products and control what foods are served in federal nutrition programs like school lunches. They also shape the advice health professionals give to their patients.
The recommendations on alcohol don’t govern federal programs, but they do send an important message to Americans on how they should view alcohol consumption. In 1995, the guidelines broke new ground when they suggested that alcohol, in moderate amounts, could offer some health benefits. They also warn of the dangers of heavy consumption and binge drinking.
It’s easy to dismiss the guidelines as just government recommendations decided in committee. But while people have a hard time following the latest scientific research on alcohol’s links to heart health, cancer or diabetes, they find it pretty easy to remember that the government recommends no more than two drinks a day for men and one per day for women.
HHS and the Department of Agriculture collaborate on the guidelines. A committee of scientists looks at the existing research on various topics and makes recommendations that the federal agencies use when making their decisions. In 2020, members of the scientific committee recommended reducing the guidelines to no more than one drink per day for men. But the federal agencies noted that the current scientific evidence did not support that reduction, and the guidelines remained unchanged.
A Double-Secret Probation Committee
For reasons that have yet to be explained, HHS is changing the process this year. The scientific advisory committee will once again review existing research and submit its recommendations. But a second committee has been created under an HHS agency, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD—and yes, it’s pronounced Ick-Pud).
This extra scientific advisory panel is solely focused on alcohol consumption. And rather than review the existing scientific studies on the subject, the panel is conducting its own original research. They plan to use mathematical modeling to calculate how much harm alcohol causes in the U.S. Not only will they look at health issues that the dietary guidelines traditionally cover—such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes—but also at traffic accidents and violence involving intoxicated people.
The six members of the committee are unusual participants in the dietary guidelines review process. These are not cardiologists or medical researchers, but substance abuse experts, many of whom have made their careers looking into alcoholism and how governments can reduce harmful drinking.
The best-known member is Tim Naimi, an epidemiologist and the director of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria. Naimi is the co-author of dozens of research papers that have argued that it’s a myth that light to moderate alcohol consumption has any health benefits, despite prior findings.
Naimi is joined by Kevin Shield and Jürgen Rehm, who both work in Toronto for Canada’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and Priscilla Martinez, who works for Alcohol Research Group. Naimi, Shield and Rehm have all done work for the World Health Organization, which shocked many when it declared a few years ago that no level of alcohol consumption is safe.
On a ICCPUD financial disclosure document, Naimi notes that he has traveled to conferences for “IGOT-NTO.” This is an abbreviation for the Swedish branch of the International Organization of Good Templars, which recently rebranded itself as Movendi International. Yes, a prohibitionist organization founded in 1851 is still going strong in 2024, campaigning to declare all alcohol unsafe.
Are American Adults Being Treated Like Children?
Because of the quiet way this review process was created, it would be easy to question the motives of those involved. I don’t think that’s necessary. These panelists have spent their lives studying the harmful impacts of addiction to drugs and alcohol. Anyone could understand why they find alcohol dangerous.
But their involvement in the review of the Dietary Guidelines, particularly their mandate to conduct new research into alcohol’s impact, is troubling. If you visit ICCPUD’s homepage, it states: “The federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) works with state, territorial, and local governments and organizations to reduce and prevent underage drinking and its consequences.”
Why is an organization focused on harmful, illegal underage drinking reviewing recommendations for the diet of healthy adults?
By asking an ICCPUD panel of substance abuse experts to review the alcohol guidelines, the federal government is separating alcohol from diet. It is effectively saying that alcohol is not part of a healthy diet and is merely an addictive, dangerous substance. It is saying that wine has no place at the table.
Want to learn more about how wine can be part of a healthy lifestyle? Sign up for Wine Spectator's free Wine & Healthy Living e-mail newsletter and get the latest health news, feel-good recipes, wellness tips and more delivered straight to your inbox every other week!
