I’ve recently reported on the dueling investigations by two U.S. government panels regarding what the U.S. Dietary Guidelines should say is the recommended amount of alcohol that should be consumed.
Well, they didn’t disappoint. They have each released their findings, and they send different messages.
The first panel, from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and authorized by Congress for the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS), was comprised of 14 members who are authorities in medicine, nutrition, public health, and related fields. It reviewed randomized clinical trials and subjected its report to peer review, including from the anti-alcohol side. This is the entity that usually reviews the latest evidence to determine what should be included in the Dietary Guidelines.
Its 230-page report on alcohol, released in December 2024, found, among other things, that moderate drinking was tied to overall lower mortality and lower risks of death from heart disease than not drinking. It also found that moderate drinking was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer but not several other cancers, such as esophageal cancer. This is in line with the current Dietary Guidelines.
The second panel is part of the obscure Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) in the Department of Health and Human Services. This is the review panel that many in Congress wanted suspended for being duplicative, not focused on diet and nutrition, and deviating from its mission of dealing with underage drinking. The six-person panel, mainly of people who specialize in addiction, is known to have an anti-alcohol bias. It based its review only on observational studies.
Its 81-page report, released in January 2025, is more dire and if followed would likely lead to stricter recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines. It found, among other things, that any alcoholic use was associated with increased mortality, including several types of cancer and the risk of dying from alcohol begins with even low levels of average use. The report found no health benefits. It briefly addresses alcohol and heart health, noting that binge drinking increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and that while one drink a day showed a lower risk of stroke, even infrequent high per-occasion drinking may eliminate that lower risk.
But here’s the kicker: The U.S. Dietary Guidelines already address this. The current report expressly notes the link between alcohol and cancer. It specifically says that the risk of cancer increases at lower levels of alcohol consumption (page 49 of the current guidelines) and that even drinking within the limits recommended can increase the risk of cancer and some cardiovascular diseases.
The current Dietary Guidelines recommend no more than two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women.
It is unclear whether and how the USDA and HHS will view the two panels’ reports and whether they’ll make changes to the Dietary Guidelines.
We also have mixed messages about labels on wine bottles. On January 3 the Biden Administration’s outgoing Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy issued an advisory noting that wine could cause cancer, and that the warning labels on bottles should be updated to include that fact.
Then on January 17, the last working day of the Biden Administration, the Department of Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued two proposed regulations regarding adding nutrition, allergen, and other information onto wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages labels. But while the TTB wants all of this additional detail on labels, it did not suggest including a cancer warning on them, even though it notes in its preamble of the “alcohol facts” regulation (the one on nutrition) that alcohol increases the risk of cancer.
Note that it’s up to Congress whether to change the warning labels on alcohol.
Many in the wine world are concerned that the ICCPUD and the Surgeon General are not following the science. The controversial ICCPUD report has also been criticized as “rife with bias.”
It would be sort of amusing to see different government factions conflicting if it weren’t so important for the government to govern. Consumers rely on the government’s guidance to help them make informed decisions about their health and how much alcohol to consume.
If the government can’t send a unified message on wine, how can we trust it on other issues, like car recalls or the next pandemic?
Confused? Here’s how to handle the fed’s mixed messages on wine drinking.
1. Take All of This With a Grain of Salt
Differing camps have different agendas, and it’s too soon to determine how this will play out. Yes, it would be helpful to be able to rely on the upcoming Dietary Guidelines and to know what science the USDA and HHS took into account, but these days it’s not so easy to trust the government, unfortunately. And ultimately, we’re in charge of what we consume.
2. Support Your Favorite Wineries and Wine Stores
The wine industry is already reeling from the uncertainty, and will bear the brunt of any changes, including decreased consumption, compliance issues, and financial burden. If you drink wine, now’s a good time to help out. Visit wineries, participate in events, stock up.
3. Tell the Government What You Think
We’re taxpayers, and we’re entitled to weigh in. Let the feds know what wine labels should say and what the Dietary Guidelines should recommend. Public comments on the two TTB proposed rules – if they are not paused or rescinded by the new administration – are due April 17. Public comments on the two reports regarding guidance on alcohol in the Dietary Guidelines are due February 14.
I hope this information on how to handle the fed’s mixed messages on wine drinking provides some clarification. What other steps should we take? Let us know! We’re at info@winewithourfamily.com.
USDA photo courtesy of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025.
If you enjoyed this post, visit our website and take a look at some of our related articles: