A new report from a federal advisory panel charged with examining the evidence concerning the health outcomes associated with alcohol consumption paints a decidedly more alarming picture than a recent review from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Since both reports are supposed to guide this year's revision of the federal government's dietary advice, the question of which to believe is of keen interest to businesses that oppose a reduction in recommended drinking limits.
A coalition of alcohol-related trade groups yesterday slammed the scarier report, which was prepared by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD). The coalition, which includes groups representing distillers, vintners, brewers, restaurateurs, farmers, bartenders, and liquor retailers, argues that the ICCPUD can't be trusted because it is "tainted by bias" against alcohol. Those business interests understandably prefer the NASEM report. Critics of that report, meanwhile, complain that it was skewed by a pro-alcohol bias.
Questions of motivation aside, there are sound scientific reasons to treat both reports with caution, given the widely recognized weaknesses of the observational studies on which they rely. And regardless of which report you find more persuasive, the question of whether and how much to drink ultimately comes down to a value judgment that weighs individual risks against individual benefits. Neither public health bureaucrats nor physicians who follow their guidance are in a position to make that call, although their advice may factor into it.
