Recent research about the health impacts of alcohol has been circulating in mainstream media, amid a broader conversation about consumption as the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) works toward publishing its 2025-2030 guidelines.
The DGAC – a collaborative effort from the U.S. departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) – meets every five years to revise the guidelines. The most recent guidelines were published in 2020 and, after some debate, maintained previous recommendations of two drinks per day for men and one for women.
Early last year, the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction recommended that our neighbors to the north limit themselves to two drinks per week regardless of gender. Around the same time, the World Health Organization announced “no level of alcohol consumption is safe” for health.
For more on those twin developments and the reaction to them from temperance-leaning organizations, revisit BevNET spirits editor Ferron Salniker’s column.
In recent weeks, beverage-alcohol trade groups have circled their wagons in opposition to the DGAC’s diversion from its usual process concerning alcohol consumption guidelines. This year, alcohol has been separated from the DGAC’s work and is being examined by two separate reviews, which the trade groups called “wholly unprecedented” in a letter last month to HHS secretary Xavier Becerra and USDA secretary Tom Vilsack.
The split was discussed during the DGAC’s fifth meeting in May in an update from Eve Stoody, director of nutrition guidance and analysis division of the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
“We talked about alcoholic beverages, which have been included in the dietary guidelines since the first edition,” Stoody said. “That topic is complex, and there are unique considerations related to other aspects of the diet, and we really felt like we were at a time where that topic deserves a comprehensive review with a number of experts.”
The two separate studies are “complementary activities” and are “not duplicative,” Stoody said, acknowledging that there would be “a little bit of discussion” around the topic.
The first study is conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) and will “review, evaluate and report on the current scientific evidence on the relationship between alcohol consumption” and several health outcomes, according to slides Stoody presented. Those outcomes include:
- “Growth, size, body composition and risk of overweight and obesity;
- Risk of certain types of cancer;
- Risk of cardiovascular disease;
- Neurocognitive health;
- Risk of all-cause mortality;
- Postpartum weight loss;
- Human milk composition and quantity;
- And infant development milestones, including neurocognitive development.”
The second is the Alcohol Intake and Health Study undertaken by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD), which aims “to generate evidence on weekly alcohol consumption thresholds to minimize health risks.”
In their letter, the bev-alc trade organizations – including the Beer Institute (BI), Brewers Association (BA) and the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) – noted “there is a long history of NASEM panels being asked to produce inputs for the DGAs [Dietary Guidelines for Americans],” but objected to the second study, which “nothing was known about” until “late January 2024.”
Trade group leaders discussed the DGAC process and the “game changer” that could come in new findings during the NBWA’s legislative conference in April.
Reread Brewbound reporter Zoe Licata’s coverage of a conference conversation between NBWA president and CEO Craig Purser, BI president and CEO Brian Crawford, BA president and CEO Bob Pease, World Brewing Alliance president and CEO Justin Kissinger, and American Beverage Licensees executive director John Bodnovich.
Among the organizations’ many concerns about the ICCPUD study are that half the appointees on its scientific review panel are Canadian, two of whom developed the country’s reduced consumption guidelines, which “were criticized as not being supported by the consensus of scientific evidence.”
“We urge HHS and USDA to ensure an alcohol review process that includes stakeholder input and public comment opportunities and that is transparent, deliberative, science-driven, and results in guidance grounded in the preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge as required by law,” the trade groups wrote. “Without the discipline and rigor of a fair and transparent process that prioritizes sound science over biased agendas, we are concerned that the ultimate guidance will fall short of the preponderance of the scientific evidence standards long held by the DGAs.”
Both studies are on track to wrap by the end of 2024, Stoody said during the May meeting.
“They’re evidence review projects, so those reports will have findings, but not recommendations,” she said. “They’re not going to develop recommendations on alcohol and health, rather provide the findings from their studies and those will be submitted to the departments.”
ICCPUD is accepting comments from the public regarding its Alcohol Intake and Health Study through August 2. The organization specifically named “alcohol beverage industry trade associations and companies” as a group it would like to hear from, in addition to state and local governments, researchers, public health workers, and addiction prevention groups, among others.
Comments can be emailed or mailed, a departure from the publicly visible online portal normally used for federal government comment periods.
Stakeholders are slated to meet August 7, according to the study’s website, which features a timeline that reveals ICCPUD committed to the study in April 2022.
Seventeen members of Congress have penned their own letter to Becerra and Vilsack to “question these duplicative efforts” and express their belief that “a legitimate need exists to examine the current decision” to have ICCPUD involved because it “is required under the STOP [Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking] Act to exclusively focus on prevention of underage drinking.”
The debate between lawmakers, government agencies and industry members has spilled into political and mainstream publications, inspiring coverage about alcohol consumption:
- The Hill – “1-2 Alcoholic Drinks a Day May Shorten Life by 2 months: Research;”
- The New York Times – “How Bad is Drinking for You, Really?”;
- The New York Times Magazine – “Is That Drink Worth It to You?”;
- The Wall Street Journal – “Do Americans Drink Too Much? Alcohol is Driving a Debate in Washington;”
- NewsNation – “Could the US Change Alcohol Guidelines to Two Drinks per Week?”
- The Daily Mail – “Exact Number of Days, Months and Years Alcohol Shaves Off Your Life – If You Drink 2, 7 or 10+ Beers a Week.”
The conversation in Washington can be esoteric, but broader trends about moderation are breaking through to consumers.
In a global survey NIQ’s on-premise arm CGA conducted of nearly 10,000 respondents, 68% of people who said they are drinking less than they were one year ago are doing so “for lifestyle/health-related reasons,” the market research firm shared in a webinar last week.