The Secret Committee Behind America's Prohibition Comeback
Washington bureaucrats are rewriting the rules on drinking, and a hidden panel of unelected officials could be paving the way for Prohibition 2.0.
The first iteration of American Prohibition came on the back of a mass popular uprising of progressives and anti-immigrant scolds. The second iteration may come in the form of a secret government committee of unelected bureaucrats.
The 2025 dietary guidelines review process is currently underway in Washington, D.C., and the guidelines, among other things, will provide recommendations for how much booze Americans should drink. According to reports, it's looking like Prohibition is about to make a silent comeback.
The dietary guidelines are meant to inform Americans about healthy nutrition—a task at which the government has already proven to be middling at best—and provide guidance about how much alcohol is safe. The guidelines are updated every five years, and the process is spearheaded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
For several decades, the guidelines have said that men can safely consume up to two alcoholic beverages a day and women one. In recent years, however, pressure has been mounting to revise these recommendations downwards, with the World Health Organization (WHO) going so far as to declare that "no amount of alcohol is safe." It appears the 2025 dietary guidelines could be the vehicle by which the United States adopts this neo-prohibitionist stance.
According to renowned industry insider Tom Wark, who cites a "well-placed source" that has seen the proposed guidelines firsthand, the feds are leaning toward declaring that "no amount of alcohol is acceptable for a healthy lifestyle," mirroring the WHO standard. While the science over the potential health effects of alcohol is far from settled—which alone should merit caution on the part of the government—the process by which the alcohol guidelines are being determined is even more egregious.
While HHS is nominally leading the guidelines revision, it has assigned an entity called the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) to investigate the evidence regarding the alleged health impacts of alcohol and then report back to the dietary guidelines authors. The findings of the ICCPUD will be used to inform the final guidelines.
If you've never heard of the ICCPUD, you're not alone. As the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal describes, it is a "secretive, six-person panel" that conducts a "parallel, opaque review process" and "operates deep within the [HHS], receiving little scrutiny from the public."
In modern-day America, the fact that six obscure bureaucrats, whom no one has ever heard of, could be the deciding voice on a major public policy issue may come as little surprise to the government cynics among us. But it gets worse. The Wall Street Journal reports that half of the committee has already made up its mind that alcohol is harmful, with three of the six members having published their own studies on the alleged harms of alcohol. In addition to the anti-alcohol outcome being baked into this temperance pie, half of the committee also resides in Canada—they don't even live in the United States.
These three members—Jürgen Rehm, Timothy Naimi, and Kevin Shield—were involved in updating Canada's drinking guidelines several years ago. The result was a controversial recommendation to reduce alcohol consumption from 15 drinks per week for men (and 10 drinks for women) down to two drinks per week. Naimi was also involved in the prior round of U.S. dietary guideline revisions for alcohol five years ago, but he threw the process into disarray by not following the designated review protocols he was charged with.
The stakes could not be higher for the future of imbibing. A "no safe amount" declaration in the dietary guidelines—or even a recommendation of just two drinks per week like was put forth in Canada—would be a potentially crippling blow to the alcohol industry. The industry is already struggling with decreasing alcohol consumption levels among younger Americans—a phenomenon that makes a government alcohol crackdown especially obtuse . Not only could a no-safe-level declaration cause a further drop in drinking, but it would likely trigger a wave of class action lawsuits against big alcohol companies, similar to the tobacco company settlements of prior decades.
A decision of such immense importance should not be spearheaded by a secret committee, buried deep within a federal government agency, and comprised of six unelected individuals (half of whom have already made up their minds and reside abroad).
Thankfully, a bipartisan mix of American lawmakers is finally waking up to the secret machinations of the ICCPUD. Congressional delegations representing bourbon and wine country—in Kentucky and California, respectively—have been raising the alarm, and a group of 16 lawmakers from across the political aisle has penned a letter seeking more information.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), channeling the spirited defiance of our anti-prohibition forefathers, declared his commitment to continue imbibing unabated: "If they want us to drink two beers a week, frankly they can kiss my ass."
