Health Claims Dossier

Background

Various observational studies have shown an ASSOCIATION between seven (7) types of cancer and alcohol consumption. It is common to see claims such as “alcohol consumption causes cancer”. This claim has been the basis for calls to put warning labels on alcohol containers and in stores. However, very few of these claims cite the actual increased risk of moderate alcohol consumption. In reality, the increase in cancer risk from moderate consumption of alcohol is minuscule.

Key Points

• The very same study that the U.S. Surgeon General used to hysterically claim alcohol containers ought to have cancer warning labels actually shows how insignificant the risk of moderate alcohol consumption.
• The study of 226,162 Australians showed that for men who drink moderately, their risk of contracting any of the seven cancers associated with alcohol increases from 10% to 11.4%, a mere 1.4% increase in their lifetime risk. In fact, the study shows that for 98.6% of moderate male drinkers, their choice to have a daily drink plays absolutely zero role in whether they develop one of these cancers over their lifespan.
• The same study shows that for women who drink moderately, their risk of contracting any of the seven cancers associated with alcohol increases from 16.5% to 19%, a mere 2.5% increase in their lifetime risk. 97.5% of moderate female drinkers see the same lifetime outcome regarding these cancers as a woman who never drinks.
• This side of the data—the “Absolute Risk” for moderate drinkers— is never cited in articles because it demonstrates that while, yes, some cancers see increases among those who drink moderately, that increase is minuscule. Writers much prefer to cite the “Relative Risk” because it sounds scarier. The 15% increase in risk of cancer from moderate consumption among women that it takes to take the lifetime risk from only 16.5% to only 19% sounds much scarier than the latter. And it becomes even less scary when you explain that 97.5% of moderate female drinkers see the same lifetime outcome regarding these cancers as a woman who never drinks.
• Studies show the risk of cancer from moderate alcohol consumption is minuscule.
• Writers and anti-alcohol zealots leave out critical information to scare people with alarmist rhetoric
• Studies show more than 97% of moderate drinkers will contract no more cancers than those who don’t drink.

What to Cite

Sarich, P., Canfell, K., Egger, S. et al. Alcohol consumption, drinking patterns and cancer incidence in an Australian cohort of 226,162 participants aged 45 years and over. Br J Cancer 124, 513–523 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-01101-2

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2023 famously claimed there is “No Safe Amount” of alcohol consumption. This absolutist claim came after the WHO’s 40 years of focusing on combating overconsumption. The “No Safe Amount” messaging has become ubiquitous in the media. The claim is based on a 2018 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study in The Lancet that found that while moderate drinking offered some protection against ischemic heart disease, this benefit was entirely wiped out by the aggregate risk of cancer, accidents, and other infectious diseases globally.

Key Points

• The “No Safe Amount” claim is a sleight-of-hand rhetorical trick that no individual with lived experience can take seriously. The entire claim is built on a study that found those who drink a mere 1 glass of wine with dinner increased their risk of developing an alcohol-related condition by a minuscule 0.004%. Sure, a 0.004 increase in risk technically means there is no “safe” amount. But you really have to redefine what “safe” means to make the “No Safe Amount” claim with a straight face.
• Evaluating the impact of a behavior (like having a glass of wine with dinner) and basing an entire public health campaign on the theory that something must be without any risk or it is “unsafe” is absurd. There is no safe level of using electric wiring in a home, but we don’t recommend building homes without it. There is no safe level of walking down a street, or driving a car, but we don’t recommend never leaving the home. There is no safe level of living, but we don’t recommend the alternative.
• The “no safe amount of alcohol” claim is fundamentally manipulative. It is based on only comparing increased levels of risks experienced by moderate drinkers to compared to non-drilnkers, instead of looking at the much more relevant overall risk between the two groups—which is minuscule.
• The “no safe amount” is unquestionably repeated by a lazy media that doesn’t take the time to understand what’s behind the claim and is more interested in alarmist, click-bait headlines than the truth
• Institutions like the WHO, the U.S. Surgeon General, and authoritarian Neo-prohibitionist groups cynically use the claim in the pursuit of draconian restrictions on alcohol sales and consumption.
• The “no safe amount” claim by the WHO amounts to little more than a manipulative campaign to convince governments to institute draconian controls on alcohol consumption and sales.
• The No Safe Amount claim reflects a near-zero 0.004% increase in the risk of cancer from having a glass of wine with dinner
• Other things that, according to the WHO’S logic, are unsafe in any amount are walking down the street, driving a car, drinking water, and lighting your home wth electricity.

What To Cite

Press Release, World Health Organization (January 4, 20230: “No Level of Alcohol Consumption is Safe For Our Health”, https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health

Spiegelhalter, David. Winton Center, “The Risk of Alcohol (Again)” August 23, 2018. https://medium.com/wintoncentre/the-risks-of-alcohol-again-2ae8cb006a4a

Background

In 1988, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, declared that ethanol (alcohol) is carcinogenic to humans. This designation is consistently cited by anti-alcohol groups and individuals, and in the media. It is frequently noted that other Group 1 Carcinogens include asbestos and tobacco. Critically, designation of something as a Group 1 Carcinogen is a measure of hazard (whether something CAN cause cancer under certain circumstances and in certain amounts). The Group 1 designation is NOT a risk assessment (how likely a substance is to cause cancer)

Key Points

• All things categorized as Group 1 Carcinogens are not equally likely to cause cancer. Simply noting two things (like alcohol and tobacco) are categorized together is manipulative.
• While both tobacco and alcohol are categorized as Group 1 Carcinogens, their use is not equally risky. People who smoke 10 cigarettes per day have a 700% to 1,400% higher risk of cancer than a person enjoying a single glass of wine with dinner. Yet both are designated as “Group 1 Carcinogens”.
• To demonstrate that the things designated as Group 1 Carcinogens are not all the same, think of the difference between a banana peel (wine) and a cliff with a 1,000-foot drop-off (tobacco): both can cause a fall (Group 1), but the probability and severity of harms (The real risk) are vastly different.

Among the things categorized as Group 1 carcinogens are beef jerky, tobacco, sunlight, wood dust, bacon, asbestos, alcohol, and furniture making.

• Anyone mentioning that both alcohol and tobacco are Group 1 carcinogens, but not pointing out the difference in risk between smoking and a glass of wine with dinner, isn’t concerned with providing information. They are concerned with propaganda
• Public health activists, neo-temperance organizations, and many media outlets have increasingly used the Group 1 designation to shift public perception away from the real problem of alcohol abuse and alcohol use disorder and toward targeting moderate, responsible consumption.
• Noting that alcohol is a Group 1 Carcinogen without providing context is an attempt to group moderate and responsible alcohol consumption with irresponsible and overuse of alcohol.
• A glass of wine with dinner, sunlight and cigarettes are all Group 1 carcinogens, but nobody believes they present an equal risk.

Background

Hundreds of studies over the past few decades have shown that light to moderate alcohol consumption appears to serve as some level of protection against various forms of cardiovascular disease. This research led to what is known as the “J Curve”, an observed phenomenon whereby light to moderate alcohol drinkers have fewer instances of cardiovascular diseases than abstainers or heavy drinkers. In 2025, the American Heart Association noted that its review of the literature found “No risk to possible risk reduction” for coronary heart disease, stroke, sudden death, and heart failure for those who drank moderately. Studies have found a 10%-30% reduction in risk of heart disease among those who drink moderately. Reasons for this protective effect against heart disease range from raised HDL cholesterol (the “good cholesterol”) levels to reduced stress by reducing amygdala (fight-or-flight reaction) activation in the brain.

Key Points

• Hundreds of studies have shown that light to moderate consumption protects against the risk of heart disease.
• Many of the recent claims that there is no protective impact on heart disease are a result of a new form of research called Mendelian Randomization that a number of authorities and researchers find unreliable.
• The fact that a protective impact on cardiovascular disease has been found is important since heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States.
• In 2020, The Lancet, among the most influential health journals in the world, reversed its position from 2018 when it said there is no safe amount of alcohol consumption. It noted in 2020 that “consuming small amounts of alcohol for people in this age group [40 and over] can provide some health benefits such as reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.”
• Hundreds of studies have found light to moderate alcohol consumption reduces the risk of heart disease
• Light to moderate alcohol consumption reduces stress, aiding in reducing risk of heart disease.

What to Cite

AHA Journals, June 2025, Volume 152, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001341

Ronksley, P. E., Brien, S. E., Turner, B. J., Mukamal, K. J., & Ghali, W. A. (2011). Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 342, d671-d671. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d671

Piano MR. Alcohol's Effects on the Cardiovascular System. Alcohol Res. 2017;38(2):219-241. doi: 10.35946/arcr.v38.2.06. PMID: 28988575; PMCID: PMC5513687. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28988575/

Background

Nearly every article that repeats the claim that there is “no safe amount’ of alcohol consumption cites the World Health Organization—the most prestigious health-related non-governmental organization. However, for many years the WHO focused on the prevention of excessive consumption. That change in 2023 when it switched to the absolutist claim that “when it comes to alcohol consumption, there is no safe amount that does not affect health.” To make this claim, the WHO ignores most of the rigorous evidence showing a reduced risk of heart disease from moderate alcohol consumption and focuses almost entirely on the much smaller increases in risk of cancer from alcohol consumption. The WHO cites a specific study in changing its perspective: The Global Burden of Disease study from 2018, which came to the same conclusion that there is “no safe amount” of alcohol consumption. However, in 2020, the same researchers switched their findings to conclude, “For adults over age 40, health risks from alcohol consumption vary by age and region. Consuming a small amount of alcohol for people in this age group can provide some health benefits, such as reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes.” The WHO never addressed this change. Prior to switching to its absolutist position, the WHO began collaborating with abstinence-focused, neo-prohibitionist non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The most notable is Movendi International (formerly the International Order of Good Templars), a heavily funded umbrella organization for the temperance movement. Today, WHO is decidedly anti-industry, lobbies for population-level controls such as higher taxes on alcohol, restrictions on all forms of alcohol marketing, and restrictions on access to alcohol.

Key Points

• The WHO has ignored studies that contradict its absolutist “No Safe Amount” mantra, including the same researchers who originated the “No Safe Level” claim and modified it by noting the protective impact alcohol had on cardiovascular health and Dementia for those over 40.
• The WHO’s closest partners in pushing an anti-alcohol agenda are prohibitionist NGOs like Movendi International.
• The WHO’s absolutist ideology on alcohol consumption undermines public health by discouraging moderate consumption, while at the same time alienating individuals and dissuading them from following the advice of public health officials due to the obvious hysteria of the “no safe level” claim.
• While the WHO once included alcohol industry input, today the WHO has become strictly anti-industry, lumping small, artisan, family producers with multi-national mega producers. At the same time, the WHO seeks significantly higher taxes on alcohol, severe restrictions on alcohol marketing and sales, and reductions in access to alcohol products.
• The WHO’s refusal to consider studies that contradict its “no safe level” messaging marks it as an institution that can’t be trusted.
• The WHO works closely with and is influenced by prohibitionist organizations.
• WHO has abandoned the directed efforts to prevent and treat abusive alcohol consumption.
• The WHO has discontinued pursuing rigor when discussing alcohol in favor of bias. For example, when they claim that “An estimated 474 000 deaths from cardiovascular diseases were caused by alcohol consumption in 2019,” they fail to mention that nearly all those estimated deaths would have resulted from alcohol abuse and not moderate consumption.

What to Cite

World Health Organization News Release. (2023) "No Level of Alcohol Consumption is Safe for Our Health." World Health Organization, www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health

Wine Business Monthly, Felicity Carter, “How NeoProhibitionists Came to Shape Alcohol Policy, May 25, 2024, https://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/article/284944

World Health Organization, Alcohol Fact Sheet, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol

BACKGROUND

The calls for placing cancer warning labels have been increasing for the past five years, beginning with the World Health Organization's claim in 2023 that there is “no safe level” of alcohol consumption. However, in January 2025, when the outgoing U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released an Advisory calling for cancer warning labels to be mandated for alcohol containers, the call for warning labels has increased exponentially. The argument is that if something is known to increase the risk of cancer, consumers ought to be warned of that risk. However, no calls for cancer warning labels have suggested including verbiage that the risk of light to moderate consumption is low or that it is heavy drinkers and alcohol abusers who face the highest risk. The addition of cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages would require an act of Congress.

Key Points

• The World Health Organization’s abandonment of preventing excessive use of alcohol and its switch to promoting the notion that, due to cancer risks, there is “no safe level” of alcohol consumption is the driving force behind the call for cancer warning labels on alcohol containers.
• There is no call among proponents of cancer warning labels on alcohol containers to include information about the level of risk or that light to moderate consumption poses a very low risk of cancer.
• The proposed labels are misleading because they would not disclose the level of cancer risk for those who are light to moderate consumers.
• Those advocating for warning labels simply want less consumption rather than warning against the type of abusive alcohol consumption that creates the vast majority of problems associated with alcohol consumption

What To Cite

U.S. Surgeon General. (2025). Surgeon General's Advisory on Alcohol and Cancer Risk. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/oash-alcohol-cancer-risk.pdf

BACKGROUND

A variety of studies have indicated that those who consume light to moderate amounts of alcohol live longer than those who abstain and those who drink heavily. These findings have roiled those who support and promote the World Health Organization’s claim that there is “no safe level of alcohol consumption. The primary critique of the studies that have shown moderate drinkers have lower all-cause mortality is that they suffer from “Abstainer Bias” or “Sick Quitters” in the abstainer group, which skews the results by including unhealthy people within the abstainer group.

However, the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, or NASEM, released a comprehensive study of the impact of alcohol consumption in 2024. It was used to inform the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines. That study found, “On the basis of a meta-analysis of eight eligible studies, there was a 16 percent lower risk of all-cause mortality among those who consumed moderate levels of alcohol compared with those who never consumed alcohol.” Equally important, the influential Global Burden of Disease study from 2020 found those who drank moderate amounts of alcohol and were aged 40 and older also had lower mortality rates than those who abstained. Finally, a 2023 study conducted by acknowledged anti-alcohol researchers found that “daily low or moderate alcohol intake was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality risk.”

Key Points

• Multiple robust studies—including the NASEM review used to inform U.S. Dietary Guidelines—consistently demonstrate that moderate drinkers live longer than both heavy consumers and strict abstainers.
• The World Health Organization's claim that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption is directly challenged by the recent NASEM report, which specifically excluded "sick quitters" and still found a 16 percent lower mortality risk for moderate drinkers.
• Even a major 2023 study led by researchers highly critical of alcohol concluded that daily low-to-moderate intake does not increase the risk of all-cause mortality, disproving the sweeping assertion that every single drop is dangerous.
• Substantial studies on the overall impact of moderate consumption contradict the World Health Organization’s biased and hysterical claims concerning alcohol consumption.

Studies show those who consume moderate amounts of alcohol suffer less mortality from all causes than abstainers.

• Studies by rabid anti-alcohol campaigners show moderate consumption of alcohol results in a lower risk of mortality

What To Cite

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28582.

Bryazka D, Reitsma M, Griswold M et al. Population-level risks of alcohol consumption by amount, geography, age, sex, and year: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020. The Lancet, 400, 185-235 https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(22)00847-9/full

Stockwell, T., Zhao, J., Clay, J. M., Sherk, A., & Naimi, T. (2023). Moving beyond trench warfare: the need for further hypothesis testing about whether observed health benefits from alcohol consumption are genuine. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00411

BACKGROUND

Before the recent questioning of the legitimacy of the J-Curve, the idea was that light to moderate drinkers had lower risk and instances of disease and death than abstainers and heavy drinkers. The J-Curve describes this finding by reference to the dip below the abstainer level of disease and death on a graph when it comes to those who drink in moderation, and the upward movement of the line describing the higher risk of disease and death by heaving drinkers. The J-Curve references lower rates of disease and death for light to moderate drinkers when it comes to cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes. While some have claimed that the J-Curve was a result of flaws in studies that counted very ill people in the “Abstainer” category, other recent studies have confirmed the J-Curve is alive and well.

For example, the influential 2020 Global Burden of Disease study showed that for adults over the age of 40 without underlying health conditions, consuming small amounts of alcohol (between one-half and two standard drinks per day) was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes compared to non-drinkers. Another study of 141,000 individuals published in 2021 by Di Castelnuovo et al. showed that those who drank up to a glass of alcohol a day showed reduced risk of total, cardiovascular, and other causes of mortality relative to abstainers. Finally, the 2025 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine’s “Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health” that informed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines revealed a J-Curve for all-cause mortality among those who drank moderately. All of these studies demonstrate not just the veracity of a J-Curve, but also the importance of this visual descriptor to describe the impact of light to moderate consumption of alcohol.

Key Points

• The J-Curve has shown up in hundreds of studies, particularly those finding lower risk and incidence of cardiovascular disease for moderate alcohol consumers.
• The J-Curve, which shows up in hundreds of recent and older studies of alcohol consumers, contradicts the World Health Organization’s absolutist claim that there is “no safe level” of alcohol consumption.
• The claim that the J-Curve has been debunked is only made by those anti-alcohol researchers who purposefully suppress studies that don’t fit the narrative they want to present about alcohol.
• A 2026 study published in the respected NatureHealth journal found “J- or U-shaped relationships between alcohol consumption and type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke and haemorrhagic stroke.”

What To Cite

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28582.

Bryazka D, Reitsma M, Griswold M et al. Population-level risks of alcohol consumption by amount, geography, age, sex, and year: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020. The Lancet, 400, 185-235 https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(22)00847-9/full

Stockwell, T., Zhao, J., Clay, J. M., Sherk, A., & Naimi, T. (2023). Moving beyond trench warfare: the need for further hypothesis testing about whether observed health benefits from alcohol consumption are genuine. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00411

Dai, X., Nicholson, S.I., Lawlor, H.R. et al. Health effects associated with alcohol consumption: a Burden of Proof study. Nat. Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44360-026-00139-5

The World Health Organization, Movendi International, and numerous other public health advocates have, over the past 10 years, switched from an approach that targets problem and abusive drinking to an approach that targets entire populations, including those who drink responsibly. Historically, alcohol policy largely focused on "downstream" or targeted interventions—such as screening, clinical treatment, and educational campaigns aimed specifically at individuals exhibiting abusive drinking behaviors. The new, population-level approach advocates seek to reduce all consumption, including largely harmless moderate consumption, through strict limits on alcohol marketing, including online marketing, huge increases in alcohol taxes, and severe restrictions on access to alcohol.

However, broad, population-wide controls punish the moderate majority of drinkers. These population-wide controls infringe on personal autonomy by penalizing the broader public to control the behaviors of an abusive minority. Equally important, these policies do not benefit all subgroups equally. For individuals with low socioeconomic status, broad price increases consume a disproportionately larger share of their income. Furthermore, individuals with severe alcohol dependence may not simply reduce their consumption in response to price hikes; instead, they may divert critical household funds away from essentials like food, housing, or healthcare to maintain their alcohol intake or switch to lower-priced alcohol.

Most importantly, population-level policies fail to address the root causes associated with alcohol abuse and misuse—the primary drivers of problems associated with alcohol. Population-level controls fail to address deeply rooted sociocultural factors, operating instead on the simplistic mechanism of reducing physical availability.

Key Points

• Public policy should address directly those who suffer from alcohol related problems rather than punishing the vast majority of people who drink responsibly.
• Advocates for population-level controls on access to alcohol, pricing and marketing always appear more concerned with punishing small, artisan and family-led alcohol producers, rather than helping those who need intervention.
• It is no coincidence that advocates for population-level controls such as the World Health Organization, the Alcohol Action Network and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance regularly advocate to restrict the speech rights of those in the alcohol industry so that any information contradicting their own is excluded from public policy discussions.
• Public health advocates have abandoned the needy minority—those who suffer most from harm associated with alcohol abuse. Instead, they pursue irresponsible policies that seek to punish responsible alcohol producers and consumers.

What To Cite

The Alcohol Action Network, https://www.alcoholactionnetwork.com/the-issue

The World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/alcohol

U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance, https://www.alcoholpolicy.org/about-us

Stringham, Edward, “The Catastrophe of What Passes for Alcohol Policy Analysis”, The Reason Foundation. 2009 https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ff926f265106f06e8ead75bbb830c380.pdf

Snowden, Christopher, “Alcohol Advertising: What Does the Evidence Show”. The Institute of Economic Affairs. 2023 https://iea.org.uk/publications/alcohol-aadertising-what-does-the-evidence-show/

BACKGROUND

Recent media coverage has consistently reported that new studies show alcohol is not only not protective of health, but that it is dangerous from the first drop. However, the media has not taken into account the most comprehensive study of recent literature: The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s (NASEM) “Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health” from 2025. This study, which was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and was meant to inform the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines, was both rigorous and carried out by 14 top scholars in the field of alcohol and health, and it was reviewed by 10 more, including those identified as anti-alcohol. Additionally, the study took account of “Abstainer Bias”, a confounder of many studies that lump sick people in with the Abstainer control group to which alcohol consumers are often compared.

Perhaps most importantly, the review found that “compared with never consuming alcohol, moderate consumption is associated with lower all-cause mortality.” Additionally, while the NASEM Review found with moderate certainty an increased risk for cancer – specifically with respect to breast cancer and colorectal cancer- while for other cancers no conclusion could be drawn. The report also noted that the evidence shows that moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction, nonfatal strokes, and cardiovascular death.

The findings of the NASEM study are similar to a statement made by the American Heart Association in 2025: “The available evidence suggests no risk to possible risk reduction when alcohol is consumed in low amounts (such as no more than 1 to 2 drinks a day) regarding coronary artery disease, stroke, sudden death, and possibly heart failure.”

The NASEM Study raises an important question: Should Americans trust the World Health Organization, which claims there is no safe level of alcohol consumption and the harm from alcohol states at the first drop consummed or should they trust the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which did a formal review of the most recent studies and uncovered where harm comes from alcohol consumption and where moderate consumption has a negligible impact on various diseases?

Key Points

• The most rigorous review of recent studies of alcohol and health concluded that light to moderate drinkers live longer than abstainers and heavy drinkers.
• A review panel of renowned alcohol and health researchers looking at the best recent studies could only conclusively say that breast and colorectal cancer were increased with alcohol consumption.
• The 2025 “Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health” conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) is the most comprehensive review of recent alcohol and health studies.
• In comparison to its competitor, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the World Health Organization’s conclusions on alcohol and health are clearly biased by a determined anti-alcohol agenda and can’t be trusted or taken seriously.

What to Cite

AHA Journals, June 2025, Volume 152, Number 1
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001341

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28582.

Background

For decades, there has been a perception among the public that wine drinking is not only the least harmful form of alcohol, but that it also has health benefits when consumed in moderation. This impression was backed up by studies, including the famous “French Paradox” that was outlined on “60 Minutes” in 1991. More recently, researchers have called into question the notion that moderate wine consumption has any beneficial impact on health and that wine, like any other alcohol, is not safe at any level.

However, studies dating back more than 30 years and continuing to the present show that moderate wine consumption, in contrast to beer and spirits consumption, confers protective health benefits. Most recently, a 2026 study reported at the American College of Cardiology showed that moderate wine drinkers had a 21% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with never or occasional drinkers. The paper speculates that wine’s protective effect found in the study may result from the presence in wine of “polyphenols and antioxidants, which may have benefits for cardiovascular health. Wine is also more likely to be consumed with meals and by people who have higher-quality diets and healthier behaviors in general”. A 2022 review of scientific literature around wine concluded that “wine differs from other alcoholic beverages and its moderate consumption not only does not increase the risk of chronic degenerative diseases but is also associated with health benefits.” A 2019 review of scientific literature revealed that “moderate red wine consumption has beneficial effects on health. Phenolic compounds present in red wine have shown antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, being able to reduce insulin resistance and to exert a beneficial effect by decreasing oxidative stress. As a consequence, a clear effect on the reduction of risk factors and the prevention of cardiovascular diseases has been observed.” Finally, going all the way back to 1995, a study of the impact of wine on health concluded that “Low to moderate intake of wine is associated with lower mortality from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease and other causes. Similar intake of spirits implied an increased risk, while beer drinking did not affect mortality.”

Key Points

• The scientific evidence that wine, separate from beer and spirits, has health benefits is consistent and goes back decades.
• Studies cite several reasons for wine having unique health benefits when consumed in moderation, including the presence of antioxidants and polyphenols
• Numerous studies show that because wine is more commonly consumed with meals and more slowly, it has unique benefits for health.
• Anti-alcohol public policy activists and some journalists who dismiss the scientific evidence that moderate consumption of wine generally do so by speculating on unproven problems with studies or by claiming that harm caused by alcohol in general overrides any benefits. This is activism and bias, not science.

What to Cite

Castaldo, L., Narváez, A., Izzo, L., et al. (2019). Red Wine Consumption and Cardiovascular Health. Molecules, 24, 3626. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24193626

Hrelia, S., Di Renzo, L., Bavaresco, L., et al. (2022). Moderate Wine Consumption and Health: A Narrative Review. Nutrients, 15, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15010175

American College of Cardiology Press release,” The Health Impacts of Alcohol Depend on What You Drink – And How Much. March 19, 2026
https://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-releases/2026/03/18/20/23/the-health-impacts-of-alcohol-depend-on-what-you-drink-and-how-much

Gronbaek, M., Deis, A., Sorensen, T. I. A., et al. (1995). Mortality associated with moderate intakes of wine, beer, or spirits. BMJ, 310, 1165–1169. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.310.6988.1165

BACKGROUND

The Alcohol Intake and Health Study was published in 2026 in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. This is the same study that was conducted by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) and meant to inform the 2025-2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines. The Study was not commissioned by Congress to inform the Dietary Guidelines, as the review of science by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was. Importantly, the Congressional Committee on Oversight and a bipartisan group of U.S. representatives condemned the study for being hopelessly biased.

Key Points

• The Alcohol Intake and Health Study (2026) is based on work the authors did for the Interagency Coordinating Committee for Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) in 2023 and 2024. This newly released study is nearly identical to the Draft Report that was released by ICCPUD in 2024 and highly criticized for bias, no transparency in the process or methodology, and the authors’ earlier work with anti-alcohol organizations.
• The authors of this study were comprised of six scientists, all of whom are affiliated with U.S. and international anti-alcohol advocacy groups. Two of the six authors helped write the
• Two of the authors of the study, Naimi and Shields, were part of the 2023 Canadian research team that proposed changing Canada’s Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines. These new proposed Canadian guidelines were questioned by scientists and medical researchers in Canada because of faulty methodology and the fact that the authors largely used their own research to make recommendations. The recommendations were not adopted by Canada.
• Of 7,300 studies reviewed for this work, 7,000 were excluded without clear explanation. Their final analysis included only 56 of those, 17 of which were authored by the study’s authors, raising concerns about bias and transparency.
• The authors of the study include instances of injury, including drunk driving deaths, falls, etc as outcomes from alcohol consumption to increase the apparent impact of moderate consumption. These are nothing like cancer, heart disease, or other conditions that are commonly studied in relation to alcohol consumption.
• The study actually finds fewer alcohol attributable deaths for those who have one drink per day compared to those who abstain, but the authors of the study don’t highlight this. It doesn’t fit their narrative.

In 2024, a bipartisan group of more than 100 lawmakers condemned the report as being biased, the process being nontransparent, and the work unauthorized by Congress to be part of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines

What To Cite

George S, Naimi TS, Keyes K, et al. Alcohol Intake and Health Study: No Protective Effect at Low Levels, With Mortality Increasing to 1 in 25 at 14 Drinks Per Week. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2026;87(4):621-638. https://www.jsad.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.15288%2Fjsad.25-00435

House Committee On Oversight and Government Reform, “A Study Fraught with Bias: How the Biden Administration’s Alcohol Intake and Health Study Tried to Undermine the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.” January 2026. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Final-Report-ICCPUD-Alcohol-Intake-Study-010726.pdf

Interagency Coordinating Committee on Underage Drinking, “Draft Report: Scientific Findings of the Alcohol Intake and Health Study for Public Comment.” January 2025. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-draft-public-comment-alcohol-intake-health-study.pdf

BACKGROUND

Anti-Alcohol advocates and activists regularly claim the alcohol industry, led by “Big Alcohol,” prevents needed alcohol-related public policy measures from being enacted through lobbying, advertising, and misinformation. These activists, as well as the World Health Organization, Movendi International, and U.S. aligned organizations such as the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance, all argue that severe restrictions on lobbying and speech ought to be imposed upon any alcohol-related company to blunt their influence over policy so that needed reforms can be instituted. However, in making these recommendations, none of the activists address the First Amendment violations inherent in their call for speech restrictions. Moreover, the claim that the alcohol industry or “Big Alcohol” controls public policy does not take into account the fact that the anti-alcohol activists count as allies one of the most powerful non-governmental groups in the world, the World Health Organization, as well as numerous individuals and agencies within the federal government and state governments.

KEY POINTS

• Anti-alcohol advocates are calling for severe restrictions on free speech by advocating that the alcohol industry be prevented from communicating with policymakers. This is the kind of draconian policy recommendation that led to Prohibition.
• Anti-alcohol activists’ claims that the alcohol industry controls alcohol policy do not take into account the fact that the World Health Organization and its allies such as Movendi International, the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance, and numerous policymakers within the state and federal governments are all advocates of alcohol restrictioons.
• Advocating that the alcohol industry be restricted from communicating to the public and policymakers concerning policy surrounding alcohol amounts to “running to mommy” for help when the child thinks failing is unfair. If the anti-alcohol advocates of severe restrictions on marketing, advertising and sales of alcohol, along with higher taxes, want to get their way, they should commit to making better arguments rather than taking the other team off the playing field.
• The term “Big Alcohol”, regularly used by anti-alcohol activists, is an attempt to equate alcohol with tobacco since the term was used so successfully in the effort to restrict tobacco use. The two are not the same.

WHAT TO CITE

U.S. Right To Know, Pamela Ferdinand, “Alcohol industry uses tobacco tactics to downplay deadly risks and block reforms, studies show”, September 2025. https://usrtk.org/healthwire/alcohol-industry-uses-tobacco-tactics-to-downplay-deadly-risks-and-block-reforms/