Studies find no amount of alcohol is without health risks, but the government left that out of its most recent dietary guidelines (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
A study that looked at the health risks of alcohol was released independently this week, after the Trump administration omitted the findings from new U.S. dietary guidelines.
Researchers who authored the study blame the alcohol industry and a congressional committee for suppressing the report’s data.
No amount of alcohol is good for you
The backstory:
The study was commissioned during the Biden administration to help inform the new dietary guidelines, which were released earlier this year.
The study’s findings, published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, aligned with years of warnings that even one drink a day increases health risks, and no level of alcohol is good for you. Even levels considered "moderate" raise the risk of premature death and more than 200 diseases, including heart disease and cancer, researchers found.
RELATED: These states are drinking less alcohol as habits shift, analysis finds
The study was one of two government reviews meant to help inform the new dietary guidelines.
Moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for the heart, but better research methods have thrown cold water on that idea.
Alcohol study omitted from health guidelines
Dig deeper:
Instead of explaining that even one drink a day increases the risk of disease, the U.S. guidelines said "less alcohol" is "better for overall health."
What they're saying:
The authors of the now independently released study say that one statement didn’t provide enough information.
Robert Vincent, a former Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration alcohol policy official who led the research, accused the Trump administration of "sidelining" the research. He said that while he was in the Trump administration, he was "asked to kill the study" but did not. Vincent was laid off last year as part of a government reduction in force.
RELATED: Alcohol linked to rising colon cancer risk as disease becomes leading killer
"The challenges confronting alcohol policy today are not rooted in scientific uncertainty," Vincent wrote. "What remains contested is whether evidence will meaningfully inform policy when it conflicts with commercial interests."
The other side:
Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the U.S. The Department of Health and Human Services, denied that the research was purposely omitted. She did not address Vincent’s claims that he was "asked to kill the study."
HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture "reviewed the study alongside the broader body of available scientific evidence and followed the established process for developing the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans," she said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The Guidelines are informed by the totality of the scientific record, not any single report or analysis."
Alcohol industry responds
The alcohol industry quickly mobilized against the draft study when it was released last year, launching campaigns to discredit its work. The House oversight committee also criticized the study, releasing a report earlier this year that called it "fraught with bias" and accused the study authors of having predetermined conclusions based on their past research and affiliations.
Amanda Berger, senior vice president of science and research for the alcohol trade association the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, said in an email to the AP that the congressional committee’s findings showed the study was "irretrievably flawed."
In his explanation of the new guidelines, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said that drinking is "a social lubricant that brings people together" and that even though not drinking is preferred, being social has health benefits.
"I don’t know of any studies that have teased out the social effect from the health effect," said Priscilla Martinez-Matyszczyk, one of the authors of the new study and a deputy scientific director at the Public Health Institute’s Alcohol Research Group.
Trump vs. science
Big picture view:
The dispute over the study highlights ongoing tensions between the medical and scientific community and the Trump administration, which has questioned or ignored longstanding science in its policymaking, fired a slew of veteran scientists from the federal workforce and cut scientific grants that proponents say help keep the U.S. at the forefront of medical innovation.
The Source: This article includes information from The Associated Press and previous FOX Local reporting.