Why We Are Still Arguing About the Health Effects of Moderate Drinking
The evidence is vast but open to interpretation because observational studies are inherently ambiguous.

Even moderate drinking could give you cancer, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy warned last week. But according to a congressionally commissioned report published last month, moderate drinking is associated with reduced overall mortality.
Although those findings are not as contradictory as they might seem, the dueling glosses reflect the complexities and ambiguities of epidemiology. The evidence on this subject is vast but open to interpretation, leaving ample room for spin, especially when it comes to this year's politically fraught revision of the federal government's dietary advice.
According to Murthy's advisory, alcohol consumption has been convincingly linked to "at least seven different types of cancer." And for some cancers, Murthy says, "evidence shows that this risk may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day."
That level of consumption is well within the limits that the current edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, produced jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services, recommends: two drinks per day for men and one for women. Murthy, who thinks Congress should require cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages, argues that even drinking within those limits could be lethal.
By Murthy's calculation, "17% of the estimated 20,000 U.S. alcohol-related cancer deaths per year occur at levels within those recommended limits." That estimate of 3,400 or so deaths represents about 0.6 percent of total cancer mortality in 2024.
The threat highlighted by Murthy is also modest from the perspective of individual drinkers. He says the lifetime risk of breast cancer for women who consume less than a drink per week, for example, is 11.3 percent, compared to 13.1 percent for women who consume a drink a day.
Oddly, Murthy did not see fit to mention a new evidence review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which Congress commissioned to inform this year's revision of the Dietary Guidelines. The NASEM report concludes with "moderate certainty" that alcohol consumption within the currently recommended limits is associated with a 10 percent increase in breast cancer risk but says "no conclusion could be drawn" regarding other cancers.
More strikingly, NASEM's panel of experts found enough evidence to conclude with "moderate certainty" that drinkers who consume "moderate amounts of alcohol" face a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease than teetotalers do. The panel also concluded, with the same level of confidence, that "moderate alcohol consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality."
The meaning of such associations is scientifically controversial because they could be explained by variables other than alcohol consumption. One difficulty is that people may stop drinking because of illness or alcohol-related problems, which would tend to magnify the apparent health benefits of moderate drinking.
The NASEM report avoids that pitfall by limiting its analysis to studies where the comparison group consisted of lifetime abstainers. But as the report's authors note, moderate drinkers differ from abstainers in other ways that may affect their health, including socioeconomic status, physical activity, tobacco use, and dietary habits.
Another problem is that people tend to lie about how much they drink—or, to put it more charitably, they tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption so it is more in line with what they think is socially acceptable. In light of that tendency, the data that inform official advice may be systematically biased toward finding health risks at relatively low levels of consumption, and that advice may itself increase the likelihood of underreporting.
Given the inherent limitations of observational studies that rely on self-reports of alcohol consumption and do not account for all the factors that may increase or reduce disease rates, it is not surprising that people continue to argue about the risks and benefits of moderate drinking. But one thing is clear: Most Americans like drinking, irrespective of what the latest medical study says, and they probably won't be dissuaded by new warning labels or by tweaks to official recommendations they already ignore.
© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Now do the COVID vaccine.
Nobody will touch that third rail.
Also seems like Surgeon General could stand to gin up a couple of PSAs educating the public as to the early warning signs of dementia too.
No pun intended?
"Why We Are Still Arguing About...." Fill-in the blank ?
Because [WE] decided YOU couldn't make those decisions for yourself. /s
[WE] decided YOUR Individual Liberty threatened [OUR] democracy! /s
So [WE] elected legislators and justices who would purposely ignore and destroy the supreme law with Individual Rights and Limited government powers so [WE] could argue endlessly on which 'moral' size-of-pants will surely HAVE to fit everyone.
I propose that [WE] all stop worrying about 'threats' to [OUR] democracy (i.e. Threats to Gov-Powers) and start worrying about 'threats' to our Supreme Law of the Land (i.e. Threats to Individual Liberty & Justice for all).
I propose [WE] stop criminalizing innocent people preemptively under [OUR] own *faith* (belief) that "it might lead to a crime". That [WE] can learn to only criminalize actual crimes and then and only then pave a path of corrections.
Just as most realize that banning 'Guns' from everyone isn't the right direction. They should also realizing banning x,y,z substances from everyone also isn't the right direction. [WE] should realize that people are Individuals and EACH Individuals prohibition should be a reaction to an actual crime and not a reaction to [OUR] glass-ball beliefs of what might happen.
Because preemptive 'Gun' usage is Aggressive. Not Defensive.
And using 'Guns' Aggressively (i.e. Progressive(ly)s isn't Justice; its criminal.)
Or in summary ... STOP using 'Guns' Aggressively under the excuse of one's own accusation of "imaginary" crimes.
I'm not still arguing about the health effects of moderate drinking... YOU'RE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF MODERATE DRINKING!
You don't know me!
I enjoy the effects of drinking that poison. I'm under no illusions that it is good for my health. I'm not involved in that conversation. It seems to me that it's just the lefties arguing about whether it's healthy to do something unhealthy.
Think in reality it boils down to the definition of moderate. They can't shame bad choices from libertine democrats after all.
Let's start with sanity.
1) There is no perfect solution with no health effects.
2) For some , abstinence is better than moderation because they find it easier to abstain than to control drinking.
BUT
Many suffer from not drinking at all. The root problem might be a totally unrelated thing like a tragedy or a need to temporarily have a physical relaxer.
How many people are deceived by all this. They enjoy some beer a little bit of wine and along comes some fools comparing it to a Jim Beam abuser.
Everybody needs something: cigarettes, booze, coffee..Start on that stupid 'perfect health' thing and we will increase the number of over-wrought psychos in the world. "Damn, they say X is bad for you, I've got enough problems without that. Joe, pour me another one"
Something’s going to kill you sooner or later, so you might as well enjoy it.
To answer the title question directly, we are still arguing about the benefits of moderate ethanol consumption because there are too many people who want to control other people's lives (by any means possible).
A big problem with any study connecting what people eat or drink with long term health outcomes is the one of the impossibility of any sort of control. People consume what they want, forget what they had when asked, or even lie about it. Additionally possible behaviors such as exercise, sleep, or smoking are hard to account for and also subject to misreporting. All the data acquired can be carefully handled, but the end result has the scientific reliability of astrology, which is also based on observation and careful data management.
We are still arguing because there is no evidence that low to moderate drinking is linked to any type of cancer.
I complain because instead of doing somethin useful with the tax-raised megabucks that funds all this crap, they say things that , whether true or false, should be said by parents or teachers.
Criminal waste of money.
Nobody gives a fuck. Follow the science.
"the dueling glosses reflect the complexities and ambiguities of epidemiology"
Nope! These are not epidemiologically-related disagreements in any way. These are ideologically-related disagreements. One of my all-time favorites books is "How to Lie with Statistics." The first step in the fallacy is to decide what you want to achieve with your lie. The second step is to find a scientific study that seems to support your contention. The third step is to take it out of context so that it seems to support your contention to anyone considering your assertion casually. In this case, the study that concludes that overall mortality is lower in moderate drinkers than in the comparison population can be true at the same time as a small subset of the study group was diagnosed with cancer possibly related to drinking moderately. The government wants to convince people that drinking can cause cancer. Since causation is a very complicated process to prove, taking the "correlation" out of context in order to imply "causation" is misleading at best and downright lying at worst.
We (or some) are still arguing because the arguments on one side are complete bullshit. The benefits of drinking stuff like red wine or being able to relax and destress are NOT benefits from alcohol. Alcohol is merely associated with stuff like resveratrol or socializing. Selling those studies as asserting that ALCOHOL is the benefit is - lying. Alcohol is a TOXIN. That is why it is not metabolized by either the chemicals in your digestive system or the bacteria in your guts. It goes to the liver where it is processed like heavy metals and other poisons (like fructose). That burden on the liver is a huge lifetime medical problem - esp if the liver is processing that while glucose carbs and insulin are dominating the bloodstream's delivery of energy. It is no accident that six of the types of cancer associated with alcohol are those points of contact with the body's way of dealing with external toxins - and the seventh (breast) is the point of contact with external toxins to the fetus during pregnancy
That does not undermine a libertarian case for 'leave people alone' or a teetotaler/panicmonger case for 'OMG. This is the worst thing since the plague'. But lying is lying. And few things are worse than a philosophy where you are lying while saying that no its the other side that's calling us on it by saying that its not a lie.
BULLSHIT, Why do people smoke, eat candy, suck on blades of grass, chew bubble gum? Life is a fatal condition. People like you are why kids are afraid of every damn thing.
Rather:why don't we acknowledge after a couple thousands years that whatever the problem-- if there is one--- the world is hugley bettery off with beer drinkers that hard liquor addicts.
Everybody needs something , some fun.