Alcohol Escapes a Government Crackdown—for Now
A quiet push to declare “no safe level” of drinking has officially fizzled.
Just over a year ago, I wrote about the bureaucratic machinations in the U.S. attempting to import an anti-alcohol agenda into the government's 2025 Dietary Guidelines. Now, it appears that alcohol has officially escaped the government's wrath—at least for another half-decade.
The U.S. dietary guidelines are revised every five years, with the latest revision expected this year. The lead-up to the revision unfolds over several years, and recommendations for safe drinking levels are traditionally included alongside food in the final guidance. For decades, the guidelines have held that men can safely consume up to two alcoholic drinks a day and women one. But myriad sources from inside the federal government were reporting that the new guidelines were planning to include a declaration that "no amount of alcohol is acceptable for a healthy lifestyle." (This was a standard imported from the World Health Organization, which declared in 2023 that "no amount of alcohol is safe").
This news supercharged a long-simmering debate over whether alcohol is good or bad (or simply medium) for you. Researchers have become increasingly split over this issue, with some sharing evidence that moderate alcohol consumption reduces overall mortality rates, while others point to studies finding a link between alcohol and cancer. Regardless of the science, however, the process through which the government was attempting to arrive at a "no safe level" declaration for alcohol was deeply alarming.
The dietary guidelines revisions are spearheaded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Biden-era HHS delegated the alcohol issue to the little-known Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).
ICCPUD's marching orders were to issue a report on the health impacts of drinking, but it turned out ICCPUD had stacked its deck. Reports started coming out that at least half of the six-person research panel not only had well-publicized anti-alcohol stances but also didn't even reside in the United States. The decision over whether alcohol would be deemed safe or not was being put in the hands of a group of biased international academics who were essentially accountable to no one. (Several commentators have also pointed out that ICCPUD, whose putative focus is supposed to be underage drinking, was being put in charge of determining adult drinking recommendations.)
A potential "no safe level" declaration was particularly worrisome for the alcohol industry, since perceptions about the health impact of alcohol have already been trending negatively among younger demographics, a trend that would likely accelerate if the U.S. government were to state that no amount of alcohol is safe to drink. Attorney Sean O'Leary noted that such a declaration would also be likely to trigger a wave of Tobacco-style class action lawsuits against the drinks industry.
Congress—surprisingly—reacted to this backdoor attempt to smuggle a neo-prohibitionist agenda into the American dietary guidelines by playing a decently effective watchdog role. It first tasked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to prepare a separate report on the health effects of drinking, which concluded that while moderate drinking raises the risk of certain types of cancer, it reduces all-cause mortality by decreasing the risk of heart disease.
The remaining elephant in the room, however, was how President Donald Trump's administration would handle the ICCPUD draft report that it inherited from the Biden administration. All eyes were on the new HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., famously a teetotaler, but he was silent about how the 2025 Dietary Guidelines would address alcohol.
At long last, in early September, the House Appropriations Committee announced it was planning to defund ICCPUD, followed by news that ICCPUD's draft report would no longer play a role in the 2025 guidelines revisions. It now appears that the alternative NASEM report will inform the new guidelines, although it's not even certain that the guidelines will mention alcohol at all anymore (RFK Jr. has previously suggested that the 2025 Guidelines would be a mere 4 pages long, down from 160 pages in 2020).
In the end, this counts as a narrow escape for the alcohol industry and U.S. drinkers. The science of drinking will likely be debated for years to come, but at the very least, the process should be allowed to play out in public view.
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
Was going to ask “Who gives a fuck?” but millions pf sheep lined up for an experimental shot so it makes sense that if top men told them to curtail drinking that some would…and alcohol sales would suffer.
Also unbanking, uninsuring, and lawsuits against alcohol companies, could be a result of declaring alcohol completely unsafe.
Right- this is the true path of American Authoritarian Totalitarianism favored by the left. Shop around for "Experts" proffering The Science!™ that you prefer. Then, make it a regulatory ruling. Now the lawyers take care of the rest- sue private participants out of business, or sue the government to step in and enforce things, then sue the government again when a new administration tries to roll back the regulations.
Sure when it comes to guns, solely the left wingers really and that has been the focus more recently. Left and right, both did it for years controlling the science behind marijuania. Controlled the approved supply, making sure the only the correct scientist got their hands on it who insured the results were always going to be negative.
Interesting that guns are banned at today’s Charlie Kirk hootenanny. You would think with all those Second Amendment advocates it would be open carry.
I guess they just want to protect the innocent.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#aversion-therapy
Did you know we can treat pedophilia with guns?
I believe Utah offers it as an option.
Florida for sure does.
I know right? It’s not like several people posted videos calling for the murder of his wife and kids too.
And it’s not like private people/companies own their property and get to decide what happens on it.
You remain one of the dumbest motherfuckers to post here.
It is frequently the unofficial impacts of indirect regulation that are the worst. More importantly it allows the officials to shrug and say that it's not their fault, that they were just innocently offering advice to the public. My real concern is that there is no such thing as "no safe level" in scientific studies. This was a purely fictional concept invented by socialist warrior scientists to scare the public into giving government officials more and ever more authority to "protect" us from the boogey-man. Even highly-trained and educated scientists frequently misunderstand causation and what it takes to prove a cause and effect relationship. In the case of alcohol and cancer, the studies cited so far don't even come close!
And there's no "no safe level" because there's no "safe level" — of anything! All that can be said is that for some things there's a level below which, by current experimentation, no effect has been observed.
I disagree. If we have enough data to tell us probabilities, we can characterize some levels as safe, some as dangerous, and some in between. Commercial air travel is "safe"; squirrel suit cliff diving is "dangerous".
If the data tell me I can have a few drinks each week and only face a very small risk of significant negative health effects over a normal life time, then alcohol is safe.
Well, we're talking about too different assessments of safety here. My assertion does not contradict yours. "No safe level" is an imaginary concept. Roberta's statement is correct: there is always some level of exposure in the context of substances where there is "no observable effect." The "no safe level" concept is an illogical construct that extends tested levels of exposure with a measurable effect to much lower levels that cannot be measured and ASSUMING that there must be some unmeasurable effects.
If you drink or don't drink based on the "findings" of this 6-judge panel or that government agency, you are a fragile little lemming. Crawl back into your burrow, little lemming, before a different panel tells you it's totes safe to run over the lip of yonder cliff.
So, the puritan cunts are at it again. Remember the last time Angry
Women imposed Prohibition?
#MeToo? Handmaids tale?
Trantifa?
Speaking of which. Kavanaugh assassin is Trans.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-attempted-kavanaugh-assassin-identifies-as-transgender-woman-legal-filings-show
'A filing from Roske’s defense attorneys shows that Roske now goes by “Sophie Roske” and that his legal team will refer to him using female pronouns. A footnote on the filing, obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire, explains that the defense will not use Roske’s legal name “out of respect” for the would-be assassin.'
And "Sophie's" legal team is totally not pandering to progressive ideology and attempting to gain sympathy for their wanna-be cunt client.
Well, when there is no other defense tactic they can really use why not? After all, it's worked before.
It's not surprising that despite the miniscule population of trans people they are now responsible for at least three shootings that made national news, if not more. It makes sense as the only thing that gains you entry into that particular demographic is a mental illness.
Minuscule? How dare you! I hear at least 50% of the population is trans but feels too oppressed to come out.
Dude doesn't want to be in men's prison.
Another rainbow cult member? Perhaps Jimmy Fallon can lie about how it is a MAGA groyper.
He’s not a huge asshole like the two that just got shitcanned. Fallon just toes the line. He got a taste of what happens if he doesn’t when he had a trump on his show.
I'd love to see Jeffy's response to that.
Most forgot who Al Capone was. Most forgot how the Mob got its start.
It's absolutely hilarious that people believe the government should be dictating what people can and cannot consume. That includes cars, trucks, ice cream and alcohol.
Hilarious but sad and a bit frightening. Even after 250 years of the American experiment, we have millions who literally demand a nanny/authoritarian state and are eager to give up personal freedom.
Since the disastrous response to the Communist Chinese Virus, no one pays any attention to the federal government "guidelines".
And, oh by the way, why would anyone pay attention to dietary guidelines changed every five years? The human body doesn't change that fast. These "guidelines" are clearly a make-work project for federal employees.
Well, it says right in the article that class action lawsuits are based upon Federal guidelines. I do not know what the basis for this assertion might be, but if it's true - especially if court rules document it - then guidelines could be interpreted as having the effect of regulations without having gone through the required public comment process.
See environmental suits or suits against Monsanto. Even the carbon suits happening in Washington.
“Show me the man and I'll show you the crime”
Talk to the veterans of Viet Nam about Monsanto and Agent orange.
My older brother died from brain cancer after being exposed to that crap. He a a heli pilot for the First Air Cavalry and they flew cover and even sprayed that crap.
His oldest, a son died from a rare form of lung cancer and the oldest daughter had a spot on her brain removed.
Monsanto should be Monsatan.
What does that have to do with Roundup?
Why is Monsanto to blame for the US Army spraying their own soldiers?
The very first ones were an attempt to boost sales of agricultural products whose subsidies had resulted in overproduction.
I think what we learned from 2020-2022 was that far, far too many people pay very close attention to federal government guidelines.
And most of them need authoritative direction and emotional support. Too bad only government can provide this, right?
I await sarc’s take on this because…you know.
Two articles for aarc to enjoy in a row. When he wakes from his hangover he will be so happy.
“Democrats did it first!”
One of shrikes favorite outlets describes the rise of right wing violence. Written by an open professor who is a member of antifa.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/19/the-economist-cites-a-study-by-literal-antifa-to-talk-about-right-wing-violence/
From the Federalist article:
“Left-wing violence isn’t violence, while anyone can be considered rightwing violence, even if it isn’t right-wing or particularly violent.”
Yup, as progressives, including elite university professors and serious pundits, have told us many times, left wing violence is speech, and any speech they don't like is violence.
Crooks was a bitter clinger MAGA Republican!! A true Deplorable!! Good riddance!!
Up is down, black is white, and the sky is green. Thanks, shrike.
Kill yourself.
Fuck off, Kirkland.
Another ACA victory.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/19/budget-office-estimates-tens-of-billions-lost-to-obamacare-exchange-fraud/
More Groyper threats.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/09/nh-man-arrested-for-allegedly-plotting-to-kill-republican-governor-kelly-ayotte-with-pipe-bombs/
She’s a McCain Republican.
And your point is, Kirkland?
He’s too stupid to have a point.
Although I could not care less about "the alcohol industry" what I find alarming is that Federal "guidelines" are even a thing in the first place! Even more alarming to me is that "class action lawsuits" can be based on Federal guidelines. I don't believe that the Federal government should even include agencies whose sole purpose is to issue guidelines. Government is rarely even competent to tie its own shoelaces, let alone tell me how to tie mine - or tell the shoe industry how to design them. But when "advice" turns into the equivalent of regulation in the real world, that should be - and I believe that it is if the Supreme Court would actually do its job - UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
I guess you don't look to government for personal guidance (and financial and emotional support). You fascist!
Wow this article bends over backwards with Passive Voice and vague prose to obfuscate a very clear story: Republicans in Congress, working with RFK Jr stopped a brazen attempt by the Biden administration to put the Alcohol Industry out of business.
How fucking hard is that to admit?
"Alcohol escapes a government crackdown"...No Alcohol is inanimate. It doesn't "escape" anything.
"A quiet push...has fizzled out". No. It did not "fizzle out". It was actively blocked by Republican members of Congress and RFK Jr who acted to stop a rogue report by neo-prohibitionists from being used to destroy an industry.
"Congress—surprisingly—reacted...playing a decently effective watchdog role."
Oh look, the only reference to the ACTUAL work done to stop this power grab and it is a backhanded compliment.
Let's be clear what happened here: Republican Representatives lobbied and pushed to get funding for a competing report into the consolidated appropriations bill being passed in congress. Without active lobbying from republicans (who were in the minority in congress, under the Biden administration that was pushing this) this wouldn't happen.
"All eyes were on the new HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., famously a teetotaler, but he was silent about how the 2025 Dietary Guidelines would address alcohol."
Oh you get that? Even though there is furious activity going on between HHS and Congress, RFK was silent, you see. There were numerous letters sent from Republicans in Congress to the department and numerous leaks saying that they were planning on shelving the rogue report (which was released incomplete weeks before Biden left office in a clear attempt to generate anti-liquor headlines with half-baked The Science!™). But because RFK didn't make a pronouncement, well we get to now spend a paragraph criticizing him.
Look, I get it. We aren't on team Red or Blue. But at the same time, there are dozens of articles on Reason complaining about the Republicans' drift away from freedom and free enterprise. Well, if you ever want to change that, you need to encourage this type of behavior not actively write articles that hide it.
Yeeeesh.
I also found interesting the lack of mention that Trump too is a teetotaler.
Hitler occasionally sipped some sacramental wine, to not be extremist
That is EXACTLY how I read it
I don't care what you're thinking
I ain't drunk
I'm just drinking
One drink ain't enough Jack,
You better make it three
Gonna get drunk
I'm gonna make it real clear
I want one bourbon. one scotch and one beer
One bourbon, one scotch and one beer.
Sounds like Sarc's anthem.
Or perhaps evolution has already taken this into consideration.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/09/chimps-consume-alcohol-equivalent-of-nearly-2-drinks-a-day/
Considering that received scientific wisdom is that DNA shows that humans evolved lactose tolerance within the last 10,000 years, I'd say anything which chimps have been doing for millions of years has probably been in human genes just as long.
So you’re saying Sarc is part Ugandan chimp?
How much would society be hurt if the cost of illnesses were charged to the sellers of booze, or guns, or sports, or...any fall guy? People are paying those costs already, and of course there would be dead weight losses from severing costs from their true causes, but how great would those dead weight losses be? How great are they in societies were all medical costs are paid collectively?
Is the extra cost mostly in encouragement of risk? And if that's where it lays, wouldn't that mitigate the cost to the purveyors of the dangerous products, by encouraging people to consume more of them because they come bundled with insurance for injury?
You forgot automobiles and motorcycles. How many people are dead and injured because of those? The leftists must surely be concerned over the number of injured and fatalities due to cars running amok.
I'm not. Those are, however, an intermediate case wherein individual responsibility has not been banished from the law, but insurance has been made mandatory. Except, in some states, it is no-fault, and I'd like to know whether costs have increased in those states compared to others.
So would it be really costly on net if, for instance, booze came with mandatory insurance for drinking-related health issues, or if guns came with mandatory insurance even for deliberate use in crimes? Would both institutions cause people to become so much more careless with liquor or guns as to increase the total costs noticeably? Or, with no fault, would litigation costs be so reduced that total costs would actually decrease?
I love how Leftists live in this complete fantasy world where everything is in an actuarial table. The "True Causes" of any illness are usually a bunch of confounding factors especially when dealing with some of these major illnesses. And as has been shown, drinking moderate levels of alcohol actually improves your chances on heart disease...so Roberta would like to hold them accountable for negative affects, but not credit them for positive ones.
How about instead of trying to use The Science!™- as often wrong, biased and abuses as it often is- to craft the cogs on your fantastical civilization machine, you instead let people make up their own damn minds and live with the consequences?
Who said anything about not crediting positive effects? Only thing is, the purchaser is already paying for those and not incurring additional costs for the benefits of guns and drugs, so how would that figure?
Before that, people were thrown from and trampled by horses.
How about the users pay for their consumption and its consequences?
No, that's a stupid concept.
That's the baseline for comparison. What I'm looking for is, how much more would collectivism in the form of liability cost, collectively? In the case of no-fault car insurance, it can reasonably be argued that such an abrogation of individual responsibility (and hence of liberty, so construed) actually saves us money. Similar arguments are made regarding vaccines and nuclear energy.
Nope. Either charge the individual who causes damage first hand or start banning things you don't think others should have. That way we know who the nanny state elitists are.
Which question is nope the answer to? AFAICT the only one it's a properly formatted response to is the question of whether it would increase risk-taking.
For decades, the guidelines have held that men can safely consume up to two alcoholic drinks a day and women one.
What about transgenders? Do they magically become capable of higher consumption if they put on a pair of trousers and call themselves Hank, or suddenly become beer-neck lightweights when they smear on lipstick and call themselves Sally?
Or all they all still just a bunch of fags drinking Zima and Appletinis (or whatever the 2025 equivalent of that is. Bud Light, I guess?)
Trans can drink as much as they want because they can just claim they are sober. Don't tell sarc.
Trannies can have 1.5. Somewhere in the middle.
Altruistic Totalitarian reminds readers that Hitler was Catholic.
I guess all those calling on the government to step in and do something about Americans consuming alcoholic beverages forgot about the past experiment with Prohibition. We all know how that turned out, well, at least many know.
The number of drug related deaths are into the hundred thousand plus along with those murdered involved with drug gangs/cartels and the related crime waves smothering American cities. But then, those cities are run by democrats and the results of such are to be expected.
No, I suspect they think there's some intermediate solution that's not as prohibitive as prohibition but results in the average person's becoming more careful with liquor. Or they actually want no-fault insurance for health.
Are you really some kind of collectivist?
No, I just like to see things from various points of view. I'm always questioning my own ideas, not taking things for granted. So one question I frequently have is, what if collectivists are right (about whatever)?
Today on arguing with idiots, Reason doesn’t praise Trump enough and doesn’t attack Democrats enough. That makes them leftist Marxists with TDS. Must be a day that ends in ‘y’.
*yawn*
Then you don't notice how the Trump administration seems not to get credit here for good things, but gets most of the blame for bad things? And like they think their readers don't/won't notice?
Seriously, they spend decades assembling a readership that judges things according to liberty/tyranny criteria, and then apply a different standard while pretending it's the same yardstick?
As much as I hate that Fatto-Fascist I can admit to a good thing he just did. The $100,000 fee on HB-1 job thieves.
It’s not very libertarian (nothing he does is) but to import an Indian to take an American job should have a cost. This is the only tariff I would ever support.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#aversion-therapy
Please explain what happened to your original SPB account.
So broken. Go play with jeff’s titties.
Sarc cant hold the weight of the world you know.
An article right up your (gin) alley, and you choose, instead, to drag TRUMP!® into it.
Of course I click an article on alcohol and get an ad for Tito's.
Ads? What ads?
Exactly. I block ads.
The problem here is a kind of intellectual dishonesty, which has the same effects when considering other active ingredients such as nicotine and THC. While there may be bureaucratic reasons for wanting to link ethanol with other no-safe-level exposures like lead and ionizing radiation, but lead and radiation do not have extremely large numbers of the general public who like them and want them.
Most Americans, I suspect, are in fact aware of and accepting of the costs in blood and treasure the continuing legality of these drugs entrains. Kinda like the bullets and blades that kill people, if you think about it. If any US government had ever had the (misguided) courage to try to add ethanol and nicotine to Schedule I or Schedule II, there would have been the mother of all whiskey rebellions. A reasonable takeaway from this IMO: There are limits to how far people will let you fuck with their daily pleasures in the paper sack and the full pack.
They were so afraid of that logic that when they passed the CSA they included a provision precluding malt beverages, wine, distilled spirits, and tobacco from being considered as controlled substances.
He took down from a shelf a bottle of colourless liquid with a plain white label marked VICTORY GIN
Let me see............let me see.............Oh, yeah, here it is. Article l, section 8. enumerated powers; clause 13,762: Congress may authorize the federal government to recommend to Americans what they should be eating and drinking.
Bingo! There is no Constitutional authority for FedGov to be issuing dietary guidelines.
Where is that take from Reason, a (laughably) self-professed libertarian site?
Anyone, but especially any Scientist, who subscribes to the concept of "no safe level" should be beaten to a pulp.
Not only anathema to the basics of toxicology - the dose makes the poison - it is a phrase only used to steal one's material liberty.
Sadly, this article is clickbait. Government health guidelines are meant to help people make decisions. Information is a classic "public good," which generally will not be privately provisioned. Further, nothing about those guidelines bans alcohol. Finally, alcohol, like cigarettes (and fried foods, etc) are definitely detrimental to physical health. And I say that as someone who indulges in all of the above "vices."
This was a fascinating look into how quietly sweeping policy changes can almost happen behind closed doors. Whether someone drinks or not, the idea that an interagency committee—originally focused on underage drinking—could influence adult dietary guidelines based on biased or non-U.S.-based input is deeply concerning. Glad to see some pushback and congressional oversight for once.
The debate over alcohol’s health impact is valid and ongoing, but declarations like “no safe level” should be based on transparent, balanced science—not moral panic or political agenda. Hopefully, future revisions keep the focus on informed choice rather than top-down mandates.