Many thanks to Tom Wark for offering such sensible analysis and commentary to counter a statistically and scientifically insubstantial declaration from the Surgeon General. Following Mr. Wark's modest lead, I won't address the medical or clinical issues for lack of training in the relevant fields, choosing the term "insubstantial" rather than "irresponsible" (despite being tempted toward the latter). The "wine trade" and "alcohol industry" can stand up for themselves, I suppose, but writing like this is important as a matter of civic sanity. We are in an era of hysteria being intensified by officials who should know better, advising moderate usage and explaining what constitutes that for a nation in which two-thirds of citizens partake of alcoholic beverages fairly regularly. Michael Franz Ph.D., editor, Wine Review Online and Professor Emeritus of Political Science.
While it's true that the report may not provide a complete or definitive picture, it does highlight some concerning trends and associations between drinking and cancer risk. As you note, two-thirds of the country partake of alcoholic beverages fairly regularly, which underscores the need for responsible messaging and public health education.
Moreover, I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that this report is an example of hysteria or alarmism. The report itself represents a serious attempt by public health experts to address a significant issue. By downplaying the scientific significance of these findings, we risk overlooking the genuine concerns and uncertainties that surround excessive drinking.
I also take issue with your suggestion that those who are critical of this report are somehow lacking in civic responsibility or are engaging in hysteria. As someone who has devoted their career to studying and analyzing complex issues like this one, I believe it's our duty as citizens to engage critically with the evidence and to demand more nuance and precision from policymakers.
Regarding your comment about not addressing the medical or clinical issues due to lack of training, I understand where you're coming from. However, as someone who has spent years studying and following on wine related topics, I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to engage with the substance of this issue. By sidestepping it altogether, we risk leaving the conversation dominated by those who may not be equipped to address these complex questions.
While I agree with your emphasis on maintaining civic sanity, I think we need to do more than simply avoiding hysterical or alarmist rhetoric. We need to engage constructively and critically with the evidence, even when it's uncomfortable or challenging to do so. By doing so, we can build a more informed and nuanced public discourse that truly serves the needs of our citizens.
Walker...thank you for being so polite when addressing the possible points of disagreement between us. I think some of them may evaporate if I express myself more carefully, but let's see. You are quite right that excessive drinking is a phenomenon meriting very serious warnings. As a university professor for many years, I have some acquaintance with how dangerous binge drinking can be, and know that it isn't limited to inexperienced college students. However, my sharp disagreement with the Surgeon General's flat declaration stems from what I regard as conflating excessive drinking with measured and responsible consumption. The risk I see here is that the declaration will result in it being simply ignored by many who will consider it alarmist -- or will result in many others being alarmed to a level that approaches the hysteria I mentioned, having no awareness of what responsible consumption entails in practice. For example, an adult of average size who consumes a glass of wine when fully hydrated and with a dinner that will slow absorption into the bloodstream is--I believe--running a very minimal risk. It is probably somewhat higher than a risk of zero, but I don't know what number to attach to it, which is why I chose not to address the medical or clinical issues needed to determine that. To be precise, what I meant is that I'm not a specialist in biochemical research related to oncology, so I'm simply unqualified to "engage with the substance of the issue" at that level. Still, I'm not "...sidestepping it altogether." The example I noted of reasonable consumption above merits consideration by contrast to other actions against which stern warnings by public health officials are appropriate. For example, there's no way to safely smoke 7 cigarettes per day, and no comparable moderating measures like full hydration prior to smoking or just smoking after a meal. Similarly, ingesting any sort of street drug in an era when such substances may be cut with fentanyl is courting potentially lethal disaster, and an absolute warning against this in the sharpest terms is fully warranted. I believe these examples stand in stark contrast to how alcoholic beverages can be consumed, and my guess is that you'd agree--but that's not for me to say. As a last point, I remain aware of the limits of my expertise, and respect for scientific research prompts me to acknowledge that the day may come when it is clinically demonstrated that any level of consumption of alcohol in any manner entails a serous health risk. But prior to such a verified finding, a flat declaration such as the one from the Surgeon General is likely to do more harm than good.
You've given me some ideas to consider, and I'm glad we're having this discussion.
You make a strong point about the distinction between excessive drinking and moderate consumption. I agree that conflating these two concepts can lead to unnecessary alarm and confusion among the public. However, I still have some concerns about how the report's findings might be interpreted by some individuals or groups as a blanket warning against any drinking at all.
Regarding your example of responsible consumption, I think it's a great point that even occasional drinking can be done in a relatively safe manner. And you're right to emphasize that there are indeed some behaviors for which stern warnings are entirely justified.
You're right that we should be cautious not to overstate or misinterpret the findings, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like cancer risk. That being said, I still have some concerns about how the report's message might be received by the public, particularly in light of ongoing conversations around social drinking and cultural norms surrounding alcohol consumption. While it's true that excessive drinking is a serious issue, I worry that a blanket warning against any drinking at all might inadvertently stigmatize or shame those who engage in moderate or occasional drinking.
In this regard, I'd love to see more research and discussion around the potential impacts of this report on public attitudes and behaviors.
Thank you for the summary. On Friday, I wrote the SG regarding his alcohol pronouncement. I’m confident I’ll get a prompt reply, and an immediate retraction of the HHS SG Alcohol Causes Cancer alert. 🤣🤣🤣
Batten down the hatches indeed. Unfortunately the hatches have been battened down since before Covid. Seems like time to pull the boat to shore. 🤬🤯
Tom, I respectfully disagree with your dire predictions about the impact of the Surgeon General's report on the wine industry. While it's true that some consumers may be influenced by the report, I think you're underestimating the resilience and adaptability of the industry.
Firstly, the report itself is not a blanket condemnation of all types of alcohol consumption. It specifically highlights the risks associated with excessive drinking, not moderate enjoyment. As long as wine producers continue to emphasize responsible drinking practices and provide clear information about their products, I don't see this report having a significant impact on sales.
Secondly, consumers are already increasingly aware of the health risks associated with excessive drinking, thanks in part to previous reports from the CDC. If anything, the Surgeon General's report will likely reinforce existing attitudes rather than create a new wave of concern.
Lastly, I'm not convinced that increased taxes on wine or restrictions on advertising are inevitable consequences of this report. Governments have historically been reluctant to impose heavy taxes or regulations on industries with strong lobby groups and economic impact, such as the wine industry.
Let's keep things in perspective: wine consumption has continued to grow over the past decade, despite numerous setbacks and challenges. I'm confident that the industry will once again adapt and evolve in response to changing consumer attitudes and market conditions.
You've got me cornered with that single sentence, don't you? "The report says...". Well, I'm not convinced by your selective interpretation of the evidence.
You're putting the best spin on a complex issue, but ignoring the nuances and context that are essential to understanding this report. The Surgeon General's report is about the risks associated with excessive drinking, not moderate enjoyment - which happens to be the vast majority of wine consumption.
The fact remains that the report itself acknowledges the importance of responsible drinking practices and clear information about alcohol products. I'm not convinced that this report is a catastrophic blow to the wine industry. I think it's just another opportunity for us to have a more informed and nuanced conversation about responsible drinking.
But how exactly can we have a "more informed and nuanced conversation" with a starting point of inaccuracy and fear-mongering? Evidence does not show that risk goes up with one or fewer drinks, yet that's the talking point being offered. That is nothing even approaching non-moderate drinking, but rather a warning against any drinking at all. It's like saying the statement "evidence shows risk goes up with one immigrant or fewer" as a starting point for "more informed and nuanced" conversation on immigration. Ignoring the untruthfulness and scare-tactic essence of an public statement doesn't allow for the conversation you're looking for. None of us would have an issue with it if it did.
While it's true that the report may have some areas of controversy, aren't you fear mongering by implying deliberate deception?
When you compare the report to an example of immigration policy, do you really think that's a fair analogy? Immigration is a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue, whereas the Surgeon General's report is, at its core, a scientific assessment of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "none of us would have an issue with it if it did." Are you implying that we should be more accepting of public statements that distort or misrepresent facts? That we should be less critical when the information presented is inaccurate or misleading?
I think we need to do better than just criticizing the messenger and ignoring the substance of the report. Instead, let's focus on engaging with the actual evidence and arguments presented in the Surgeon General's report, rather than relying on rhetorical flourishes and emotional appeals.
Alcohol is also a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue - especially in a country that spearheaded prohibition with a capital "P", and we know for a fact that the "science" that the Surgeon General's new "scientific assessment" is based on has been dubunked and was cobbled together and promoted by the very same organization that was behind prohibition in the early 20th century (International Organisation of Good Templars which recently rebranded as "Movendi International".)
That's not a conspiracy theory - it's public knowledge, and taking action on debunked "science" is the same as pushing back against anti-vaxxers. The pushback is important, and not done to have an "open and nuanced conversation" which the science deniers aren't interested in having. My "none of us would have an issue with it if it did" the "it" referred to "allow for the conversation you're looking for." If that's what it was about, sure, let's have the conversation. But that's not what these actions are leading to, nor what its cheerleaders want, any more than anti-vaxxers want to have open conversations. They just want what they want, non-debunked science be damned.
There is no evidence that alcohol causes cancer to a greater degree than any other substance, when consumed in alarming quantities. Those pushing the issue removed the "J curve" from actual studies to show that "any alcohol consumption is risky/dangerous, which isn't true, studies have in fact shown the opposite - that moderate consumption is slightly healthier than teetotaling. Everyone "criticizing" the report is doing so because we HAVE been following it closely in terms of the actual facts vs. the overt politicization of the issue. It seems plain that you have not, and are playing devil's advocate out of a sense of fairness without knowledge - which isn't helpful to anyone.
So I'm going to turn the onus of definition back on you, Walker: does pointing out that an ostensibly scientific organization is doubling down on debunked science "fear mongering"? Or is said scientific organization embracing debunked science to scare people away from using a product "fear mongering"? Facts matter.
It's quite rich of you to accuse me of playing devil's advocate without knowledge when your own arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant on this topic, at least have the decency to get your facts straight before opening your replying to me in a thread.
Movendi International is not some shadowy organization pushing debunked science on alcohol consumption. It's a legitimate public health organization that has been working tirelessly to address the real issues surrounding excessive drinking.
The J curve you're so fond of citing was indeed removed from studies because it doesn't support your assertion that moderate drinking is healthier than teetotaling. In fact, numerous scientific reviews have consistently shown that any level of heavy drinking increases the risk of various health problems, including...cancer.
As for your implication that I'm not taking a nuanced view on this issue, let me tell you: I am precisely doing so. I recognize that there are complexities and controversies surrounding alcohol consumption, but it's essential to separate fact from fiction and evidence-based science from ideology driven agendas.
Your comparison of the Surgeon General's report to anti-vaxxers is laughable. The two issues couldn't be more different, and it's insulting to reduce this complex public health debate to a simplistic vaccine conspiracy narrative.
Furthermore, I take issue with your claim that I'm not knowledgeable about this topic because I haven't been following the details closely. As someone who has taken the time to engage in an informed discussion about the report, I think my contributions are far more valuable than your sensationalized diatribes and unsubstantiated claims.
As for your final question – does pointing out that Movendi International is doubling down on debunked science constitute fear-mongering? – let me say this: no, it doesn't. What you're doing, Dave, is trying to intimidate and bully others into silence by implying they're part of some vast conspiracy or scientific cabal. That's not debate; that's propaganda.
If you want to have an honest conversation about the Surgeon General's report, I'm happy to engage with actual evidence and arguments. But until then, please refrain from spreading misinformation, exploiting conspiracy theories, or trying to silence others through guilt by association tactics. That's not how we have meaningful discussions.
Thanks Tom for such a thought provoking and insightful article. As the CEO of a non-alcoholic wine company, it might be felt that I should be celebrating this news but actually the opposite is true, I find this dismaying and worrying.
In the US, approx 40,000 people each year die in road traffic accidents. Does that mean we should have a warning flash up on the dashboard each time we start the car “driving causes deaths and injuries”. After all, if I don’t travel on the roads then I have zero risk of dying in a road traffic accident. Wait…who can I sue that there is not enough non-road public transport to use instead?
I can but hope that many of these recommendations are not implemented. The wine industry is being hit from many angles at the moment and I fear that winery bankruptcies and the ripping out of vineyards will only accelerate.
One slight positive for the industry is I think non-alcoholic wine. It’s a tiny amount right now and doesn’t really move the needle but I do hope that more wineries create high quality NA products so that the consumers that are reducing or abstaining from alcohol, can continue to be their customers. But the quality of many of the current NA wines needs to improve significantly.
While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the non-alcoholic wine market, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your points.
Firstly, comparing the risks associated with driving and drinking is not an apples-to-apples comparison. While it's true that both activities carry risks, the nature and context of those risks are fundamentally different. Drinking can lead to a range of health problems, including cancer, heart disease, and liver damage, whereas driving can result in immediate physical harm or even death.
Moreover, the regulatory approach to drinking is not analogous to the treatment of driving-related risks. For instance, we don't have a right to drink like we do with the right to drive. And yet, excessive drinking is a major public health issue that warrants attention and action from policymakers, medical professionals, and industry leaders.
I also take issue with your suggestion that warning labels on drinks would be equivalent to plastering warnings on car dashboards. Drinking carries unique risks that are distinct from those associated with driving, and warning labels can help consumers make informed choices about their consumption habits.
Regarding the potential impact of regulations on winery bankruptcies and vineyard rip-outs, I agree that these scenarios are concerning. However, it's crucial to distinguish between legitimate businesses operating within a regulated environment and irresponsible companies prioritizing profits over public health.
While non-alcoholic wine is an exciting area of growth for the industry, let's not downplay the importance of responsible drinking practices among consumers who do choose to consume alcoholic beverages. By promoting education, research, and innovation in this space, we can address the challenges facing wineries and vineyards while also ensuring that those who do drink responsibly are supported and catered to.
I expect that someone will re-write the Bible to remove all references of wine. I expect that because Jesus drank wine, someone will write that he probably developed brain cancer which caused him to do all those risky, counter-culture things. I expect that many Christians will have a hard time accepting federal law that prohibits them from using wine as a sacrament.
I am so happy that we have been making excellent wine in our garage for our own use and for sharing with friends for almost 30 years. I would protect my right to do this with my life.
I’m in my middle 70’s and lead a healthy and active life. I do not have, nor have I ever had, cancer of any kind.
I appreciate your passion for wine and your willingness to defend your right to enjoy it. However, I must respectfully disagree with your invocation of the bible and christianity as a justification for wine consumption.
While Jesus did indeed drink wine, which is often depicted in biblical accounts, this fact has been used throughout history to justify and even promote excessive drinking. Unfortunately, the same Christian denominations that cite Jesus' example have also contributed to problematic attitudes towards substance use, including alcoholism and abuse.
Moreover, the notion that Jesus' actions should serve as a model for individual behavior is a form of fundamentalist cherry picking that neglects the complexities and nuances of biblical teachings. The bible itself warns against the dangers of excessive drinking and emphasizes the importance of responsible behavior.
Rather than using the bible, christianity, and any spiritual beliefs as a justification for wine consumption, perhaps we should focus on promoting responsible drinking habits, education, and awareness about the risks associated with excessive drinking.
I think this whole issue is about the selection of alcohol as the whipping boy. Why is the surgeon not suggesting that the over consumption of sugar is also dangerous for your health. Far more people are killed by diabetes than the supposed damage from cancer involving alcohol, yet sugar gets a pass from this surgeon general? It is laughable and goes to show that the facts are of little importance to this governmental agency. How many other products should have warning labels like the ones that are already on alcohol labels? I have not met a single person in my life that did not understand that over consumption of alcohol is bad for them but I have met many people that did not understand the roll that over consumption of sugar played in their overall health.
If the goal is better health outcomes for Americans, this is doing very little to affect that and the position of Surgeon General could be used more effectively for greater outcomes.
I stopped trusting the government for diet and health advice around the same time I realized their glorious “Food Pyramid” was basically an upside-down joke. It’s not that I believe lizard people run the place from underground bunkers. I’m just worn out by the pompous lectures they dole out—lectures that ignore the meat of real life, like whether people are actually happy, how much they move around during the day, or if they’ve shared a decent meal with friends in the past six months.
Alcohol it’s not some demon lurking in a corner waiting to jump you the second you take a sip of Chianti. Sure, there are extremes—heavy binge drinkers on one side and teetotalers on the other. But, like most things, the real story is in the middle. That sweet spot, that gorgeous part of the bell curve, is where many of us sit, savoring a decent glass of wine or a cold beer after a hellish week at work. It’s not rocket science; it’s life. We’re social creatures, and sometimes we bond over a pint and stories from the road.
Yet here we are, with the Surgeon General piping up about how alcohol causes cancer—like it’s some grand revelation. Next thing you know, they’ll be telling us that water’s wet and the sky is blue. It feels like they’re slapping a one-size-fits-all label on 300-plus million people, as if we’re identical robots from the same assembly line. Never mind how everyone’s individual biology, diet, or daily habits differ. Let’s lump them all into one stale, alarmist press release.
Meanwhile, the hospitality world—a world I know a bit about—relies on people going out, experiencing life, enjoying a few drinks, spending cash in bars and restaurants. That’s livelihood, that’s craft, that’s culture. But, hey, “just be afraid” is apparently easier to sell. Nuance? Not in a political memo. The big boys behind the podium think we’re too dim to navigate moderation for ourselves, so they hammer us with worst-case headlines to “protect” us.
Maybe I’m cranky because I’ve seen how people from Tokyo to Tangier manage to eat, drink, and be merry without meltdown. Maybe I just can’t stand shallow statements—especially from an agency that pretends it cares about our health but rarely addresses the fundamentals of our daily grind. Yes, long-term, obscene alcohol abuse will do horrible things to your body. We knew that. But it’s a leap to paint every sip of vino as the devil’s handshake.
I prefer a little honesty about the complexities of food, booze, and life. I like the brutal truth that, sometimes, happiness stems from a well-timed cocktail among friends.
That is a reality for a lot of folks—and ignoring it while trotting out fear-based slogans doesn’t do a thing but breed more confusion.
So I’ll keep enjoying my drinks, keep questioning the party line, and definitely keep an eye on whichever “official” decides they’re the final voice on how I live.
Cheers to that—and cheers to a little common sense in this bizarre conversation.
As a former math major and lifelong journalist, I thought it was obvious that the statement by the surgeon general committed one of mathematics' most widespread fallacies. And that is innumeracy. It is taking some of the facts of an argument and interpreting them in a way that his mathematically unsound. His conclusion sounds as if it's valid, but if properly analyzed anyone can easily see it was completely faulty. This was explained in two books written by a professor of mathematics, John Allen, Paulos of Temple University. One of his books, "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," brilliantly speaks of how often journalists report on complicated mathematical issues (such as this one) completely incorrectly. They do so by creating homilies that sounds very good, and sound as if they are based on science, when they are fallacious. I encourage anyone who has an interest in this subject to read one of the Paulos books. They are not technical; you don't have to know anything about mathematics to understand the concepts. Also, I stand by my earlier post in which I listed winemakers' ages at death.
Further, if you read the the Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health, which was written for the USDA prior to their dietary guidelines review in 2024, the research shows little support for the recommendation that alcohol causes all cancers. There is more support that show breast cancer does indeed go up but the others listed are insignificant. Further, all cause mortality and cardiovascular disease actually fell by a large amount for moderate consumers. Again, don't take my word for it read the research for yourself. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/28582/review-of-evidence-on-alcohol-and-health
Lastly, if we in the alcohol industry lean on research that shows the media and country that not all alcohol consumption is equal we may stand a chance. Hence the research by Rosario Ortola which was published on the JAMA website this past year, which showed that drinking wine, especially with food, had a positive P value beyond the abstainers in the study for all cancer mortality as well as cardiovascular disease.
Now those prior remarks are factual data driven points. This is an opinion. I opine that the Surgeon General was taking advice from our renowned temperance researchers Tim Stockwell and Tim Naimi who insert an extreme bias into all of their media interviews. The same is true of the World Health Organization post last year. I personally feel that the greater public needs to be aware that so much of this hyperbole is being pushed by a few individuals who are directly funded and work for IOGT-NTO as well as Movendi International. When these organizations openly outline strategies to eliminate all alcohol on the planet and then fund these researchers work there is a conflict of interest. And nobody is talking about it. There is the 60 Minutes episode that needs to happen.
In the mean time, small mom and pop producers such as myself will kiss our children's college fund goodbye and start working on making jellies.
Alcohol will always be a deeply emotional topic—revered by those who find joy and connection in its presence and reviled by those who see it only as a source of harm. This divide is immovable, but what is most troubling is the way the current neo-Prohibitionist zeitgeist has been weaponized to shift the narrative entirely. Tom is absolutely right: those who hate alcohol have managed to harness this moment, fueled by cultural forces and personal stories of struggle. The rise of sober influencers and famous figures recounting their battles with addiction has created fertile ground for a sweeping generalization: all alcohol is bad. This narrative has been further legitimized by the WHO’s declaration that any amount of alcohol is harmful—a position as reductive as it is politically expedient. But this is the new narrative. And it is believed by many. And it will make governments money through taxes and litigators money through lawsuits.
While I cannot speak for all forms of alcohol, I will always advocate for wine. Wine is not just a beverage; it is an ancient gift, woven into the story of humanity itself. It was Jesus’ first miracle in the Bible—a transformation of water into wine at a moment of celebration. Call it divine, call it nature’s alchemy, but wine is a marvel. Smash grapes in a vat, let them sit, and nature takes over. Fermentation is as old as life itself, perhaps older than humanity. (Look no further than the “drunken monkey hypothesis.”) And yet, this neo-Prohibitionist movement seeks to demonize wine, equating it with cigarettes—a product offering no intrinsic benefits or meaningful connection to health, nature, or humanity.
We live in an unprecedented era. Microplastics infiltrate our bodies; forever chemicals pollute our air, land, and water; ultra-processed foods dominate our diets; and sedentary lifestyles tether us to screens, with prolonged sitting now likened to smoking in its health risks. Cancer risk comes from all directions, including practices tied to industrial agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and more. These industries have the luxury of massive government influence. Many former employees work in the government.
Wine needs to push back with its own narrative. Wine is and always has been about connection. Connection with each other. Connection with a place and time. Connection with the past. Connection with the earth. Something shared around a table. Real wine is a direct line to nature. It invites us to slow down. Be present. Enjoy the moment. Recognize you are not here forever so savor. Memento mori, for lack of a better way to say it. As Horace said in his Odes, “Be smart, drink your wine. Scale back your long hopes to a short period. Even as we speak, envious time is running away from us. Seize the day, and trust as little as possible in the future.”
This rising tide of fearmongering aims to erase the ancient gift of wine in favor of a convenient scapegoat for modern ailments. Let us not allow this. Let us advocate for wine—not as an industry, but as a symbol of connection, culture, and the joy of living well. Let us not lose an ancient and beautiful gift to the politics of oversimplification.
America doesn't want to look at it's diet. America has highest levels of obesity and consumption of ultra processed food. The last thing I would be worrying about is wine, if I was the Surgeon General. The whole American food system is in the hands of large corporations, hence, it's in the bin.
Many thanks to Tom Wark for offering such sensible analysis and commentary to counter a statistically and scientifically insubstantial declaration from the Surgeon General. Following Mr. Wark's modest lead, I won't address the medical or clinical issues for lack of training in the relevant fields, choosing the term "insubstantial" rather than "irresponsible" (despite being tempted toward the latter). The "wine trade" and "alcohol industry" can stand up for themselves, I suppose, but writing like this is important as a matter of civic sanity. We are in an era of hysteria being intensified by officials who should know better, advising moderate usage and explaining what constitutes that for a nation in which two-thirds of citizens partake of alcoholic beverages fairly regularly. Michael Franz Ph.D., editor, Wine Review Online and Professor Emeritus of Political Science.
Michael,
While it's true that the report may not provide a complete or definitive picture, it does highlight some concerning trends and associations between drinking and cancer risk. As you note, two-thirds of the country partake of alcoholic beverages fairly regularly, which underscores the need for responsible messaging and public health education.
Moreover, I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that this report is an example of hysteria or alarmism. The report itself represents a serious attempt by public health experts to address a significant issue. By downplaying the scientific significance of these findings, we risk overlooking the genuine concerns and uncertainties that surround excessive drinking.
I also take issue with your suggestion that those who are critical of this report are somehow lacking in civic responsibility or are engaging in hysteria. As someone who has devoted their career to studying and analyzing complex issues like this one, I believe it's our duty as citizens to engage critically with the evidence and to demand more nuance and precision from policymakers.
Regarding your comment about not addressing the medical or clinical issues due to lack of training, I understand where you're coming from. However, as someone who has spent years studying and following on wine related topics, I'm surprised that you wouldn't want to engage with the substance of this issue. By sidestepping it altogether, we risk leaving the conversation dominated by those who may not be equipped to address these complex questions.
While I agree with your emphasis on maintaining civic sanity, I think we need to do more than simply avoiding hysterical or alarmist rhetoric. We need to engage constructively and critically with the evidence, even when it's uncomfortable or challenging to do so. By doing so, we can build a more informed and nuanced public discourse that truly serves the needs of our citizens.
Walker...thank you for being so polite when addressing the possible points of disagreement between us. I think some of them may evaporate if I express myself more carefully, but let's see. You are quite right that excessive drinking is a phenomenon meriting very serious warnings. As a university professor for many years, I have some acquaintance with how dangerous binge drinking can be, and know that it isn't limited to inexperienced college students. However, my sharp disagreement with the Surgeon General's flat declaration stems from what I regard as conflating excessive drinking with measured and responsible consumption. The risk I see here is that the declaration will result in it being simply ignored by many who will consider it alarmist -- or will result in many others being alarmed to a level that approaches the hysteria I mentioned, having no awareness of what responsible consumption entails in practice. For example, an adult of average size who consumes a glass of wine when fully hydrated and with a dinner that will slow absorption into the bloodstream is--I believe--running a very minimal risk. It is probably somewhat higher than a risk of zero, but I don't know what number to attach to it, which is why I chose not to address the medical or clinical issues needed to determine that. To be precise, what I meant is that I'm not a specialist in biochemical research related to oncology, so I'm simply unqualified to "engage with the substance of the issue" at that level. Still, I'm not "...sidestepping it altogether." The example I noted of reasonable consumption above merits consideration by contrast to other actions against which stern warnings by public health officials are appropriate. For example, there's no way to safely smoke 7 cigarettes per day, and no comparable moderating measures like full hydration prior to smoking or just smoking after a meal. Similarly, ingesting any sort of street drug in an era when such substances may be cut with fentanyl is courting potentially lethal disaster, and an absolute warning against this in the sharpest terms is fully warranted. I believe these examples stand in stark contrast to how alcoholic beverages can be consumed, and my guess is that you'd agree--but that's not for me to say. As a last point, I remain aware of the limits of my expertise, and respect for scientific research prompts me to acknowledge that the day may come when it is clinically demonstrated that any level of consumption of alcohol in any manner entails a serous health risk. But prior to such a verified finding, a flat declaration such as the one from the Surgeon General is likely to do more harm than good.
Michael,
You've given me some ideas to consider, and I'm glad we're having this discussion.
You make a strong point about the distinction between excessive drinking and moderate consumption. I agree that conflating these two concepts can lead to unnecessary alarm and confusion among the public. However, I still have some concerns about how the report's findings might be interpreted by some individuals or groups as a blanket warning against any drinking at all.
Regarding your example of responsible consumption, I think it's a great point that even occasional drinking can be done in a relatively safe manner. And you're right to emphasize that there are indeed some behaviors for which stern warnings are entirely justified.
You're right that we should be cautious not to overstate or misinterpret the findings, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like cancer risk. That being said, I still have some concerns about how the report's message might be received by the public, particularly in light of ongoing conversations around social drinking and cultural norms surrounding alcohol consumption. While it's true that excessive drinking is a serious issue, I worry that a blanket warning against any drinking at all might inadvertently stigmatize or shame those who engage in moderate or occasional drinking.
In this regard, I'd love to see more research and discussion around the potential impacts of this report on public attitudes and behaviors.
Hi Tom,
Thank you for the summary. On Friday, I wrote the SG regarding his alcohol pronouncement. I’m confident I’ll get a prompt reply, and an immediate retraction of the HHS SG Alcohol Causes Cancer alert. 🤣🤣🤣
Batten down the hatches indeed. Unfortunately the hatches have been battened down since before Covid. Seems like time to pull the boat to shore. 🤬🤯
Tom, I respectfully disagree with your dire predictions about the impact of the Surgeon General's report on the wine industry. While it's true that some consumers may be influenced by the report, I think you're underestimating the resilience and adaptability of the industry.
Firstly, the report itself is not a blanket condemnation of all types of alcohol consumption. It specifically highlights the risks associated with excessive drinking, not moderate enjoyment. As long as wine producers continue to emphasize responsible drinking practices and provide clear information about their products, I don't see this report having a significant impact on sales.
Secondly, consumers are already increasingly aware of the health risks associated with excessive drinking, thanks in part to previous reports from the CDC. If anything, the Surgeon General's report will likely reinforce existing attitudes rather than create a new wave of concern.
Lastly, I'm not convinced that increased taxes on wine or restrictions on advertising are inevitable consequences of this report. Governments have historically been reluctant to impose heavy taxes or regulations on industries with strong lobby groups and economic impact, such as the wine industry.
Let's keep things in perspective: wine consumption has continued to grow over the past decade, despite numerous setbacks and challenges. I'm confident that the industry will once again adapt and evolve in response to changing consumer attitudes and market conditions.
The report says, "“evidence shows that this risk may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day.”
Tom,
You've got me cornered with that single sentence, don't you? "The report says...". Well, I'm not convinced by your selective interpretation of the evidence.
You're putting the best spin on a complex issue, but ignoring the nuances and context that are essential to understanding this report. The Surgeon General's report is about the risks associated with excessive drinking, not moderate enjoyment - which happens to be the vast majority of wine consumption.
The fact remains that the report itself acknowledges the importance of responsible drinking practices and clear information about alcohol products. I'm not convinced that this report is a catastrophic blow to the wine industry. I think it's just another opportunity for us to have a more informed and nuanced conversation about responsible drinking.
But how exactly can we have a "more informed and nuanced conversation" with a starting point of inaccuracy and fear-mongering? Evidence does not show that risk goes up with one or fewer drinks, yet that's the talking point being offered. That is nothing even approaching non-moderate drinking, but rather a warning against any drinking at all. It's like saying the statement "evidence shows risk goes up with one immigrant or fewer" as a starting point for "more informed and nuanced" conversation on immigration. Ignoring the untruthfulness and scare-tactic essence of an public statement doesn't allow for the conversation you're looking for. None of us would have an issue with it if it did.
Dave,
While it's true that the report may have some areas of controversy, aren't you fear mongering by implying deliberate deception?
When you compare the report to an example of immigration policy, do you really think that's a fair analogy? Immigration is a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue, whereas the Surgeon General's report is, at its core, a scientific assessment of the health risks associated with alcohol consumption.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "none of us would have an issue with it if it did." Are you implying that we should be more accepting of public statements that distort or misrepresent facts? That we should be less critical when the information presented is inaccurate or misleading?
I think we need to do better than just criticizing the messenger and ignoring the substance of the report. Instead, let's focus on engaging with the actual evidence and arguments presented in the Surgeon General's report, rather than relying on rhetorical flourishes and emotional appeals.
Alcohol is also a highly politicized and emotionally charged issue - especially in a country that spearheaded prohibition with a capital "P", and we know for a fact that the "science" that the Surgeon General's new "scientific assessment" is based on has been dubunked and was cobbled together and promoted by the very same organization that was behind prohibition in the early 20th century (International Organisation of Good Templars which recently rebranded as "Movendi International".)
That's not a conspiracy theory - it's public knowledge, and taking action on debunked "science" is the same as pushing back against anti-vaxxers. The pushback is important, and not done to have an "open and nuanced conversation" which the science deniers aren't interested in having. My "none of us would have an issue with it if it did" the "it" referred to "allow for the conversation you're looking for." If that's what it was about, sure, let's have the conversation. But that's not what these actions are leading to, nor what its cheerleaders want, any more than anti-vaxxers want to have open conversations. They just want what they want, non-debunked science be damned.
There is no evidence that alcohol causes cancer to a greater degree than any other substance, when consumed in alarming quantities. Those pushing the issue removed the "J curve" from actual studies to show that "any alcohol consumption is risky/dangerous, which isn't true, studies have in fact shown the opposite - that moderate consumption is slightly healthier than teetotaling. Everyone "criticizing" the report is doing so because we HAVE been following it closely in terms of the actual facts vs. the overt politicization of the issue. It seems plain that you have not, and are playing devil's advocate out of a sense of fairness without knowledge - which isn't helpful to anyone.
So I'm going to turn the onus of definition back on you, Walker: does pointing out that an ostensibly scientific organization is doubling down on debunked science "fear mongering"? Or is said scientific organization embracing debunked science to scare people away from using a product "fear mongering"? Facts matter.
Dave,
It's quite rich of you to accuse me of playing devil's advocate without knowledge when your own arguments are riddled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. If you're going to accuse me of being ignorant on this topic, at least have the decency to get your facts straight before opening your replying to me in a thread.
Movendi International is not some shadowy organization pushing debunked science on alcohol consumption. It's a legitimate public health organization that has been working tirelessly to address the real issues surrounding excessive drinking.
The J curve you're so fond of citing was indeed removed from studies because it doesn't support your assertion that moderate drinking is healthier than teetotaling. In fact, numerous scientific reviews have consistently shown that any level of heavy drinking increases the risk of various health problems, including...cancer.
As for your implication that I'm not taking a nuanced view on this issue, let me tell you: I am precisely doing so. I recognize that there are complexities and controversies surrounding alcohol consumption, but it's essential to separate fact from fiction and evidence-based science from ideology driven agendas.
Your comparison of the Surgeon General's report to anti-vaxxers is laughable. The two issues couldn't be more different, and it's insulting to reduce this complex public health debate to a simplistic vaccine conspiracy narrative.
Furthermore, I take issue with your claim that I'm not knowledgeable about this topic because I haven't been following the details closely. As someone who has taken the time to engage in an informed discussion about the report, I think my contributions are far more valuable than your sensationalized diatribes and unsubstantiated claims.
As for your final question – does pointing out that Movendi International is doubling down on debunked science constitute fear-mongering? – let me say this: no, it doesn't. What you're doing, Dave, is trying to intimidate and bully others into silence by implying they're part of some vast conspiracy or scientific cabal. That's not debate; that's propaganda.
If you want to have an honest conversation about the Surgeon General's report, I'm happy to engage with actual evidence and arguments. But until then, please refrain from spreading misinformation, exploiting conspiracy theories, or trying to silence others through guilt by association tactics. That's not how we have meaningful discussions.
Thanks Tom for such a thought provoking and insightful article. As the CEO of a non-alcoholic wine company, it might be felt that I should be celebrating this news but actually the opposite is true, I find this dismaying and worrying.
In the US, approx 40,000 people each year die in road traffic accidents. Does that mean we should have a warning flash up on the dashboard each time we start the car “driving causes deaths and injuries”. After all, if I don’t travel on the roads then I have zero risk of dying in a road traffic accident. Wait…who can I sue that there is not enough non-road public transport to use instead?
I can but hope that many of these recommendations are not implemented. The wine industry is being hit from many angles at the moment and I fear that winery bankruptcies and the ripping out of vineyards will only accelerate.
One slight positive for the industry is I think non-alcoholic wine. It’s a tiny amount right now and doesn’t really move the needle but I do hope that more wineries create high quality NA products so that the consumers that are reducing or abstaining from alcohol, can continue to be their customers. But the quality of many of the current NA wines needs to improve significantly.
Gary,
While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the non-alcoholic wine market, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your points.
Firstly, comparing the risks associated with driving and drinking is not an apples-to-apples comparison. While it's true that both activities carry risks, the nature and context of those risks are fundamentally different. Drinking can lead to a range of health problems, including cancer, heart disease, and liver damage, whereas driving can result in immediate physical harm or even death.
Moreover, the regulatory approach to drinking is not analogous to the treatment of driving-related risks. For instance, we don't have a right to drink like we do with the right to drive. And yet, excessive drinking is a major public health issue that warrants attention and action from policymakers, medical professionals, and industry leaders.
I also take issue with your suggestion that warning labels on drinks would be equivalent to plastering warnings on car dashboards. Drinking carries unique risks that are distinct from those associated with driving, and warning labels can help consumers make informed choices about their consumption habits.
Regarding the potential impact of regulations on winery bankruptcies and vineyard rip-outs, I agree that these scenarios are concerning. However, it's crucial to distinguish between legitimate businesses operating within a regulated environment and irresponsible companies prioritizing profits over public health.
While non-alcoholic wine is an exciting area of growth for the industry, let's not downplay the importance of responsible drinking practices among consumers who do choose to consume alcoholic beverages. By promoting education, research, and innovation in this space, we can address the challenges facing wineries and vineyards while also ensuring that those who do drink responsibly are supported and catered to.
I expect that someone will re-write the Bible to remove all references of wine. I expect that because Jesus drank wine, someone will write that he probably developed brain cancer which caused him to do all those risky, counter-culture things. I expect that many Christians will have a hard time accepting federal law that prohibits them from using wine as a sacrament.
I am so happy that we have been making excellent wine in our garage for our own use and for sharing with friends for almost 30 years. I would protect my right to do this with my life.
I’m in my middle 70’s and lead a healthy and active life. I do not have, nor have I ever had, cancer of any kind.
If wine was OK for Jesus, it’s OK for me.
Tom,
I appreciate your passion for wine and your willingness to defend your right to enjoy it. However, I must respectfully disagree with your invocation of the bible and christianity as a justification for wine consumption.
While Jesus did indeed drink wine, which is often depicted in biblical accounts, this fact has been used throughout history to justify and even promote excessive drinking. Unfortunately, the same Christian denominations that cite Jesus' example have also contributed to problematic attitudes towards substance use, including alcoholism and abuse.
Moreover, the notion that Jesus' actions should serve as a model for individual behavior is a form of fundamentalist cherry picking that neglects the complexities and nuances of biblical teachings. The bible itself warns against the dangers of excessive drinking and emphasizes the importance of responsible behavior.
Rather than using the bible, christianity, and any spiritual beliefs as a justification for wine consumption, perhaps we should focus on promoting responsible drinking habits, education, and awareness about the risks associated with excessive drinking.
I think this whole issue is about the selection of alcohol as the whipping boy. Why is the surgeon not suggesting that the over consumption of sugar is also dangerous for your health. Far more people are killed by diabetes than the supposed damage from cancer involving alcohol, yet sugar gets a pass from this surgeon general? It is laughable and goes to show that the facts are of little importance to this governmental agency. How many other products should have warning labels like the ones that are already on alcohol labels? I have not met a single person in my life that did not understand that over consumption of alcohol is bad for them but I have met many people that did not understand the roll that over consumption of sugar played in their overall health.
If the goal is better health outcomes for Americans, this is doing very little to affect that and the position of Surgeon General could be used more effectively for greater outcomes.
I stopped trusting the government for diet and health advice around the same time I realized their glorious “Food Pyramid” was basically an upside-down joke. It’s not that I believe lizard people run the place from underground bunkers. I’m just worn out by the pompous lectures they dole out—lectures that ignore the meat of real life, like whether people are actually happy, how much they move around during the day, or if they’ve shared a decent meal with friends in the past six months.
Alcohol it’s not some demon lurking in a corner waiting to jump you the second you take a sip of Chianti. Sure, there are extremes—heavy binge drinkers on one side and teetotalers on the other. But, like most things, the real story is in the middle. That sweet spot, that gorgeous part of the bell curve, is where many of us sit, savoring a decent glass of wine or a cold beer after a hellish week at work. It’s not rocket science; it’s life. We’re social creatures, and sometimes we bond over a pint and stories from the road.
Yet here we are, with the Surgeon General piping up about how alcohol causes cancer—like it’s some grand revelation. Next thing you know, they’ll be telling us that water’s wet and the sky is blue. It feels like they’re slapping a one-size-fits-all label on 300-plus million people, as if we’re identical robots from the same assembly line. Never mind how everyone’s individual biology, diet, or daily habits differ. Let’s lump them all into one stale, alarmist press release.
Meanwhile, the hospitality world—a world I know a bit about—relies on people going out, experiencing life, enjoying a few drinks, spending cash in bars and restaurants. That’s livelihood, that’s craft, that’s culture. But, hey, “just be afraid” is apparently easier to sell. Nuance? Not in a political memo. The big boys behind the podium think we’re too dim to navigate moderation for ourselves, so they hammer us with worst-case headlines to “protect” us.
Maybe I’m cranky because I’ve seen how people from Tokyo to Tangier manage to eat, drink, and be merry without meltdown. Maybe I just can’t stand shallow statements—especially from an agency that pretends it cares about our health but rarely addresses the fundamentals of our daily grind. Yes, long-term, obscene alcohol abuse will do horrible things to your body. We knew that. But it’s a leap to paint every sip of vino as the devil’s handshake.
I prefer a little honesty about the complexities of food, booze, and life. I like the brutal truth that, sometimes, happiness stems from a well-timed cocktail among friends.
That is a reality for a lot of folks—and ignoring it while trotting out fear-based slogans doesn’t do a thing but breed more confusion.
So I’ll keep enjoying my drinks, keep questioning the party line, and definitely keep an eye on whichever “official” decides they’re the final voice on how I live.
Cheers to that—and cheers to a little common sense in this bizarre conversation.
As a former math major and lifelong journalist, I thought it was obvious that the statement by the surgeon general committed one of mathematics' most widespread fallacies. And that is innumeracy. It is taking some of the facts of an argument and interpreting them in a way that his mathematically unsound. His conclusion sounds as if it's valid, but if properly analyzed anyone can easily see it was completely faulty. This was explained in two books written by a professor of mathematics, John Allen, Paulos of Temple University. One of his books, "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," brilliantly speaks of how often journalists report on complicated mathematical issues (such as this one) completely incorrectly. They do so by creating homilies that sounds very good, and sound as if they are based on science, when they are fallacious. I encourage anyone who has an interest in this subject to read one of the Paulos books. They are not technical; you don't have to know anything about mathematics to understand the concepts. Also, I stand by my earlier post in which I listed winemakers' ages at death.
Tom,
Thank you for the well written overview. It is apparent the USDA recommendations are not going to include a reduction in alcohol intake. I've read this in a couple other posts and here is another if you will allow me to insert an outside link : https://www.aicr.org/news/new-dietary-guidelines-for-americans-ignore-critical-evidence-on-alcohol-and-cancer/
Further, if you read the the Review of Evidence on Alcohol and Health, which was written for the USDA prior to their dietary guidelines review in 2024, the research shows little support for the recommendation that alcohol causes all cancers. There is more support that show breast cancer does indeed go up but the others listed are insignificant. Further, all cause mortality and cardiovascular disease actually fell by a large amount for moderate consumers. Again, don't take my word for it read the research for yourself. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/28582/review-of-evidence-on-alcohol-and-health
Lastly, if we in the alcohol industry lean on research that shows the media and country that not all alcohol consumption is equal we may stand a chance. Hence the research by Rosario Ortola which was published on the JAMA website this past year, which showed that drinking wine, especially with food, had a positive P value beyond the abstainers in the study for all cancer mortality as well as cardiovascular disease.
Now those prior remarks are factual data driven points. This is an opinion. I opine that the Surgeon General was taking advice from our renowned temperance researchers Tim Stockwell and Tim Naimi who insert an extreme bias into all of their media interviews. The same is true of the World Health Organization post last year. I personally feel that the greater public needs to be aware that so much of this hyperbole is being pushed by a few individuals who are directly funded and work for IOGT-NTO as well as Movendi International. When these organizations openly outline strategies to eliminate all alcohol on the planet and then fund these researchers work there is a conflict of interest. And nobody is talking about it. There is the 60 Minutes episode that needs to happen.
In the mean time, small mom and pop producers such as myself will kiss our children's college fund goodbye and start working on making jellies.
Alcohol will always be a deeply emotional topic—revered by those who find joy and connection in its presence and reviled by those who see it only as a source of harm. This divide is immovable, but what is most troubling is the way the current neo-Prohibitionist zeitgeist has been weaponized to shift the narrative entirely. Tom is absolutely right: those who hate alcohol have managed to harness this moment, fueled by cultural forces and personal stories of struggle. The rise of sober influencers and famous figures recounting their battles with addiction has created fertile ground for a sweeping generalization: all alcohol is bad. This narrative has been further legitimized by the WHO’s declaration that any amount of alcohol is harmful—a position as reductive as it is politically expedient. But this is the new narrative. And it is believed by many. And it will make governments money through taxes and litigators money through lawsuits.
While I cannot speak for all forms of alcohol, I will always advocate for wine. Wine is not just a beverage; it is an ancient gift, woven into the story of humanity itself. It was Jesus’ first miracle in the Bible—a transformation of water into wine at a moment of celebration. Call it divine, call it nature’s alchemy, but wine is a marvel. Smash grapes in a vat, let them sit, and nature takes over. Fermentation is as old as life itself, perhaps older than humanity. (Look no further than the “drunken monkey hypothesis.”) And yet, this neo-Prohibitionist movement seeks to demonize wine, equating it with cigarettes—a product offering no intrinsic benefits or meaningful connection to health, nature, or humanity.
We live in an unprecedented era. Microplastics infiltrate our bodies; forever chemicals pollute our air, land, and water; ultra-processed foods dominate our diets; and sedentary lifestyles tether us to screens, with prolonged sitting now likened to smoking in its health risks. Cancer risk comes from all directions, including practices tied to industrial agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and more. These industries have the luxury of massive government influence. Many former employees work in the government.
Wine needs to push back with its own narrative. Wine is and always has been about connection. Connection with each other. Connection with a place and time. Connection with the past. Connection with the earth. Something shared around a table. Real wine is a direct line to nature. It invites us to slow down. Be present. Enjoy the moment. Recognize you are not here forever so savor. Memento mori, for lack of a better way to say it. As Horace said in his Odes, “Be smart, drink your wine. Scale back your long hopes to a short period. Even as we speak, envious time is running away from us. Seize the day, and trust as little as possible in the future.”
This rising tide of fearmongering aims to erase the ancient gift of wine in favor of a convenient scapegoat for modern ailments. Let us not allow this. Let us advocate for wine—not as an industry, but as a symbol of connection, culture, and the joy of living well. Let us not lose an ancient and beautiful gift to the politics of oversimplification.
America doesn't want to look at it's diet. America has highest levels of obesity and consumption of ultra processed food. The last thing I would be worrying about is wine, if I was the Surgeon General. The whole American food system is in the hands of large corporations, hence, it's in the bin.