New Evidence on Alcohol Harm Buried Amid Industry Interference and Political Influence
A major federal study providing new evidence on alcohol’s cancer risks has been buried by the Trump administration, despite years of work by independent researchers and its potential to increase the public’s awareness of alcohol risks and to inform the upcoming 2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
According to a recent Vox exclusive, the suppression of the “Alcohol Intake and Health Study” reveals a disturbing pattern of alcohol industry interference in public health policymaking. The study was originally commissioned in 2022 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The report, co-authored by respected public health researchers including Dr. Priscilla Martinez, Dr. Katherine Keyes, and Dr. Tim Naimi, clearly shows that the negative health effects of alcohol begin at low levels of consumption.
Among its key findings:
- Alcohol use increases mortality risk even at low levels, with risks compounding significantly at higher levels.
- Alcohol causes seven types of cancer – including breast, liver, colorectal, and esophageal cancer.
- Women face higher cancer risks per unit of alcohol consumed compared to men.
- People who die from causes due to alcohol lose an average of 15 years of life.
Despite these findings aligning with existing and growing scientific consensus and recommendations by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other global health bodies, the Trump administration has refused to publish the final version of the report, informed researchers that it would not be included in upcoming congressional reports, and is now moving to defund the interagency group that commissioned the report.
Instead, the administration has promoted a parallel report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). But this report is heavily influence by alcohol industry interests, riddled with conflicts of interest, and has serious scientific flaws.
Consequently, independent public health experts are heavily criticizing the NASEM report for:
- Relying heavily on observational studies prone to confounding variables (e.g., income, lifestyle).
- Favoring observational over Mendelian randomization studies (the gold standard of studies).
- Underplaying the link between alcohol and cancer.
- Overlooking experimental and Randomised Control Trials evidence on cardiovascular risk factors.
- Not fully dealing with abstainer reference group bias.
- Omitting discussion of other more comprehensive systematic reviews.
- Failing to include many more studies that used very light alcohol consumers as the reference group.
- Suggesting that moderate alcohol use may offer health benefits – a claim long disputed and debunked by rigorous studies and meta-analyses.
Why Two Competing U.S. Alcohol Health Reports Say Such Different Things
Two major reports reviewing the health effects of alcohol – one from the National Academies (NASEM) and another from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) – reached sharply different conclusions, largely because they used different methods and one was influenced by alcohol industry interests.
NASEM’s report suggested moderate alcohol use might reduce risk of death, but it relied on studies that are prone to bias from other lifestyle and health factors unrelated to alcohol. In contrast, the ICCPUD study focused on diseases known to be clearly linked to alcohol, like cancer and liver disease, giving a more accurate picture of alcohol’s real health risks.
The difference matters: while NASEM downplayed alcohol harm, ICCPUD found that as few as 9 alcoholic drinks per week increases a person’s risk of alcohol-related death, and 14 alcoholic drinks raises it by 4% – even when alcohol consumption is considered “moderate.” The contrast shows how industry-favored science can distort public understanding, while stronger, independent, and more focused science exposes the full harm alcohol causes – already at low levels.
The Battle of the Reports: What You Need to Know
Two major U.S. government reports on alcohol health risks have come to very different conclusions – here’s how to tell them apart:
The Alcohol Intake and Health Study
Commissioned by the Biden administration, this study looked at how different alcohol consumption levels affect health. It focused on deaths directly caused by alcohol (such as cancer and liver disease) and used new modeling based on U.S. population data.
Key finding: Health risks from alcohol start at low levels and rise sharply with rising alcohol consumption – especially for cancer and early death.
The National Academies (NASEM) Report
Commissioned later by Congress on behest of the Big Alcohol lobby, this review compared moderate alcohol consumers to alcohol abstainers. It focused on all-cause mortality (not just alcohol-related deaths) and did not include new modeling.
Key finding: It suggested small health benefits from low-level alcohol use and downplayed links to most cancers – except for breast cancer in women.
Bottom line:
One report emphasizes clear, evidence-based harm from alcohol – even at low levels. The other report has been commissioned on the behest of the alcohol industry and designed to conduct a broader and less precise analysis, more open to confounding and industry-favored narratives.
A Clear Pattern of Alcohol Industry-Backed Obstruction
The Vox investigation details how the alcohol industry and its Congressional allies launched a coordinated campaign to discredit the “Alcohol Intake and Health Study”:
- Circulating documents to lawmakers that accused researchers of bias.
- Pressuring HHS through letters and spending bill provisions to disregard the study.
- Labeling independent researchers as “neo-prohibitionists” in media outlets.
- Pushing for the National Academies report to be the sole basis of dietary guideline revisions.
This pattern reflects the alcohol industry’s longstanding tactic: obstruct evidence-based policy by sowing doubt, discrediting science, and leveraging political interference – all to protect profits at the expense of people’s health.
A Betrayal of Public Health
The silencing of this study has serious real-world consequences. It undermines public awareness of alcohol-related cancer risks, at a time when U.S. alcohol consumption is declining and support for alcohol policy reform is growing. It also jeopardizes the integrity of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines, which may now omit specific alcohol consumption limits entirely.
As Dr. Priscilla Martinez, deputy scientific director of the Alcohol Research Group at the Public Health Institute and one of the co-authors of the “Alcohol Intake and Health Study” said to Vox:
People are going to get sick who might have avoided getting sick, because they might have decreased their [alcohol intake].”
Dr. Priscilla Martinez, deputy scientific director, Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute
The suppression of this report – despite its scientific rigor and alignment with global recommendations – highlights the urgent need to protect public health science and policymaking from corporate interference, especially when it concerns products such as alcohol, which cause widespread harm that many people are not fully aware of and informed about.
What’s Next?
The researchers are working to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Meanwhile, the Trump administration must be held accountable for burying crucial scientific evidence and prioritizing alcohol industry interests over people’s health.
Movendi International joins voices calling for:
- The immediate release of the full Alcohol Intake and Health Study.
- The inclusion of its findings in the 2025-2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
- The end to alcohol industry-influenced policymaking that puts corporate profits before people’s health.
- The implementation of alcohol cancer warning labels, as previously recommended by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.
This case underscores the need for continued vigilance and global advocacy to ensure transparency, integrity, and justice in alcohol science and policy processes.
Additional Source
IAS Blog Post by Professor Tim Stockwell, Isabella Priore, and Dr Pek Kei Im: “Alcohol’s harm is likely underestimated and its benefits inflated: Lessons from recent expert reports“
JSAD Study: “The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Were Economical With the Truth About Alcohol and Health”
In Defense of Wine: “National Academies Science Engineering Medicine: ‘Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health’. Dr. Catena’s Response”