2025 and Alcohol Guidelines

Will corporate capture reign supreme or are we on the eve of a new era?

For over forty years the U.S. government has maintained its stance on alcohol, holding tight to the recommended guidelines first established in 1980-two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women. Every five years The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (USDA) jointly release updated guidelines, informed by the latest scientific research, to promote healthy choices for all Americans. Over the years we’ve seen updates of recommended sodium and sugar consumption, new guidelines on trans fats and “bad cholesterol,” but no changes have been made to the apparent darling of the food chain: booze. Could 2025 be the year this changes? The short answer is…maybe. The long answer is outlined below and addresses the challenges that must be overcome in order for that shift to occur, the parties involved who would do anything to assure that it doesn’t, and the implications of such a shift for one of the world’s most powerful industries. It’s a thrilling ride through the painful truth of corporate capture and controversial scientific research, deep pockets and deeper secrets, freak-off parties and celebrity liquor brands, wine-loving politicians and their donors, and people like me who are ready to see alcohol dethroned from its place on high.

The stage has been set for revisions to be made to the alcohol consumption guidelines for 2025-2030, due to be released sometime in late 2025. Following The World Health Organization’s findings of no safe amount when it comes to alcohol consumption, we saw Canada make pretty drastic changes to their own guidelines, adopting a “risk scale,” in lieu of recommended daily units. In the 84 page report from The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, with language echoing that of the WHO, CCSA confirms no amount of alcohol is healthy and even small amounts increase a person’s risk of developing breast and colon cancers and cardiovascular disease. They consider 1-2 drinks per week to be low risk, 3-6 drinks-moderate risk, and 7 or more-increasingly high risk. Could the United States follow suit? Possibly. Especially given the fact that some of the same individuals responsible for the Canadian reevaluation are part of one of the two committees tasked with presenting reports that will inform the government’s decision on any guideline updates. As you can imagine, this isn’t sitting well with an alcohol industry that is already reeling from lower sales, the rise of the non alcoholic sector, and the mass exodus of younger generations from booze culture.

There are two very different teams of scientists, doctors, and researchers charged with studying alcohol’s effect on America’s health. These two committees, both facing backlash for their appointees, will apprise HHS and USDA of their findings and jointly those two agencies will release the new guidelines sometime next year. In one corner we have The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine whom Congress asked to form a committee of experts to review, evaluate, and report its findings on the relationship between alcohol and health, specifically in the context of cancer, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and neurocognitive health. This move by Congress raised eyebrows given the “last hour” nature of the $1.3 million dollar allocation to The National Academies to fund the research via The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Since its formation, the committee has been mired in controversy for questionable nominations and their ties to the alcohol industry. The committee is chaired by Dr. Bruce N. Calonge of Colorado University, an appointed replacement for Dr. Eric B. Rimm of Harvard whose appointment was rescinded after a New York Times article highlighted the egregious conflict of interest presented by the former appointee’s ties to the booze industry including several financial disclosures of monies received from alcohol companies. Dr. Michael B. Siegal of Tufts University School of Medicine has been an outspoken critic of many of the appointees to the NASEM committee, claiming the replacements are no better than the experts removed after the controversy. Dr. Luc Djousse of Harvard, a confirmed committee member, spoke at the 8th Beer and Health Symposium which is supported financially by The Brewers of Europe according to their website. Another interesting fact about the NASEM committee is that out of its fourteen members only one has any experience in cancer research.

In the other corner we have a subcommittee of HHS, The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking, charged with completing its own investigation into alcohol and its associated health risks. Three members of the ICCPUD team were involved in the Canadian policy shift that saw our northern neighbors move drastically from a recommended guideline of 15 drinks per week down to 2 drinks per week and this has Congress up in arms. In a letter signed by over 100 members of Congress, lawmakers are calling for HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, to explain why he’s solicited the study from a group who’s work focuses on preventing underage drinking. The fear among alcohol executives and Congress members and US Representatives from alcohol producing states like Kentucky and California is that the ICCPUD committee is shrouded in secrecy and comprised of anti-alcohol vigilantes, eager to reduce recommended consumption units. Committee member, Dr. Tim Naimi, has previously vocalized support for reducing daily consumption for men from two drinks to one. In a New York Post article from October 2024, Michael Kaiser of Wine America said, “There would be a ripple effect if the guidelines change and consumers could reduce their consumption of alcohol.” He went on to say, “We want it done like it’s always been done,” a nod to the NASEM’s committee of alcohol industry allies.

There would indeed be a ripple effect if 2025 brings new guidelines for alcohol consumption and new information about its influence on an individual’s likelihood of developing certain cancers and other health problems. It would ripple far beyond a decrease in sales for Kaiser and other industry leaders. To address what the future of the alcohol industry might look like if we get a “no safe amount” finding in the next set of government guidelines, we must look to the past. More specifically, we must look to the nineties and the downfall of Big Tobacco.

In 1999, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of The American Cancer Society and other plaintiffs against the four major players in the tobacco industry, accusing them of decades of corrupt marketing practices and deceiving the American public about the dangers associated with smoking cigarettes. The DOJ cited a violation of the Rackateer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and in 2006 a Federal Court Judge found the tobacco giants guilty of lying to the American people about the first and secondhand harm their products caused. According to the American Lung Association, the most troubling findings of the 2006 ruling against the tobacco industry include the suppression of evidence that nicotine is addictive, the intentional marketing of cigarettes to young people, and the internal knowledge spanning decades of the “immeasurable human suffering and economic loss” that resulted from selling a highly addictive and disease causing product. The lawsuits against tobacco manufacturers continue to this day, coming from individuals as well as states, like this one won in 2024 by the state of Massachusetts.

If Americans get new guidelines for alcohol reflecting a clear link between consumption at any level and a higher risk for deadly disease, the industry could face legal trouble that rivals the catastrophic litigation hurled at Big Tobacco twenty-five years ago. The messaging and marketing coming from Big Alcohol is to “drink responsibly,” but what if the U.S. Government announces sometime next fall that there’s no way to do that? The legal landscape that this possibility presents is wide and reaching. Of course, new findings on breast cancer and alcohol could bring about class action suits from cancer survivors and the families of the deceased as well as their doctors and insurance companies. Perhaps, there are other negative consequences that alcohol manufacturers and distributors could be held responsible for. I’ve never known anyone to smoke a pack of cigarettes and drive their car into oncoming traffic or spin into a violent rage and assault their wife and child. Fifty-five percent of domestic abuse perpetrators were using alcohol prior to their attacks according to the WHO, and many of those aggressors are repeating a cycle of alcohol use and abuse they witnessed in their own childhood. The industry would claim that these outcomes, while tragic, represent a small portion of their consumer base: alcoholics and addicts. However, the language around substance abuse has evolved in recent years and that kind of black and white thinking, normal vs. problem drinkers, doesn’t paint an accurate picture of the way our society interacts with booze. Because of the current (and longstanding) guidelines, a person who may benefit greatly from reducing intake or eliminating alcohol from their lives may continue drinking because they do not technically qualify as a problem drinker. Alcohol has been a source of trauma and a vehicle of destruction for millions of people across the globe. Armed with a “no safe amount” finding from their governments, those people and their stories could become a legal nightmare for the alcohol industry. If the committees charged with researching alcohol’s relationship to our health were thorough, they would also include the effects of alcohol on mental health and public safety. To get a clear picture of the risks associated with booze, a holistic view of wellness and the overall societal impact is paramount. However, a confirmed correlation with breast cancer risk would be a starting point that opens up the conversation.

Another gray cloud looming over the heads of alcohol executives happens to be another RICO case, not the tobacco case from 1999, but the fourteen-page indictment filed against disgraced music mogul, Sean “P Diddy” Combs. The filing details how Mr. Combs “relied on his employees, resources, and influence” to commit and cover up his alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, forced labor and obstruction of justice. The document also lists Combs’ corporate entities such as a clothing line, a media company, and an alcoholic spirits business as potential pipelines for criminal activity. For those unaware, Combs struck a deal with alcohol giant, Diageo, in 2007 to rep its vodka brand, Ciroc. This agreement brought in around sixty million dollars per year of new resources for Combs and led to another deal with Diageo in 2014 to acquire DeLeon tequila, a premium bottle that sells for over $100. Diddy filed a suit against the London-based spirits conglomerate in 2023 citing racism, claiming that the company intentionally only marketed his product to urban markets and didn’t show his brand the same level of investment and support it offered other brands with non-black owners. The suit was quickly settled after a video surfaced of Combs assaulting then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, with Combs receiving a $200 million dollar payout for his stake in DeLeon and severing ties between Combs and Diageo. Don’t get me wrong, the accusations against Combs are heinous, but I think two things can be true. Combs and Diageo were making a lot of money together and had no conflict until the former started asking for more money, more ownership, more power. What lengths would an empire like Diageo go to in order to keep control of a multi-million dollar brand? Would they make a phone call to their friends in high places about whispers of “freaky” parties and incriminating videos? Maybe. It’s hard for me to believe that a company as big as Diageo would go into serious business with someone they hadn’t done any proper reconnaissance work on. The real takeaway from the Combs case in relation to the alcohol industry is exposure. At the very least, Ciroc Vodka and DeLeon Tequila, both co-owned by Diageo, sponsored the “Diddy Parties,” and at worst, they knew what their business partner liked to do behind closed doors. I think as the case proceeds in 2025 we could see some of these corporate entities associated with Combs formally named and even added as defendants. In this complaint filed against Combs in October Macy’s was named as a defendant. The retail giant is accused of covering up a violent sexual assault, perpetrated by Combs, that occurred in one of their Manhattan stores. Sean Combs is not the only celebrity to have a major deal with a liquor brand. As more A-listers are added to the “Diddy List,” those relationships could play a role if any of those brands co-sponsored parties or knowingly benefitted from criminal activity.

So, what do The National Academies committee, hundreds of U.S. Government officials, Sean “P Diddy” Combs, and the American public have in common? They all seem to be caught in the mighty chokehold of Big Alcohol. This trillion dollar industry worldwide has controlled the narrative for decades when it comes to alcohol and health and I don’t anticipate any backtracking on their part until they have no other option. This sobering reality makes it hard to believe we will see new guidelines released next year, but despite it all, I believe there are people who want to do the right thing, who believe that truth and transparency have a place in Washington and at the dinner tables of the American people.

The NASEM committee’s report was published last week. Their findings, while not surprising, are disappointing. As expected, this group of experts can’t seem to find conclusive evidence on most of the investigated items. However, they did link breast cancer risk to even small amounts of alcohol with high certainty. Dr. Seigal says that alone should be enough to alter the guidelines. “Essentially, what this means is that alcohol is clearly a carcinogen.” We are still awaiting the report from the ICCPUD committee and many believe that evaluation will take a tougher stance on alcohol, leaving the deciding parties with a difficult choice: protect the status quo or buck the system in the name of rightful clarity. Clearly, there is a lot at stake.

The impact of new language around alcohol consumption cannot be overstated. Just shifting from daily recommendations to weekly units could have a massive positive impact on our health and attitudes towards alcohol. Our current guidelines, the ones that have been in place for fourty-four years, normalize drinking alcohol every single day. That sends the dangerous message that it’s safe to consume an addictive substance daily. Positively, an acknowledgment of risk would help to destigmatize addiction and recovery, while adding new life to the modern sobriety movement. While the research informing the new guidelines isn’t focusing on the addictive nature of alcohol, it’s an elephant in the room that will become impossible to ignore once we allow this conversation to evolve. A change in guidelines could also mean new parameters around alcohol marketing campaigns. I’ve always found it bizarre that every pharmaceutical commercial ends with fifty ways a person could die by taking the drug but alcohol commercials usually end with an absurdly attractive human having the time of their life and the text, “Drink Responsibly,” flashed quickly on the bottom of the screen for good measure. If alcohol begins to be associated with serious health consequences we could see “Pharma-like” disclosures required in advertisements and television executives choosing to sell their most valuable air time to other, less implicated, industries. Refreshed guidelines could also bring warning labels to booze packaging and mandated nutritional information on every bottle.

This conversation is layered and complex and doesn’t even begin to cover all of the issues that an unchecked alcohol industry presents to our society. Still, I do see a paradigm shift on the horizon. In a country divided by political rhetoric and pitted against one another by talking heads and supposed leaders, we can all agree that we just want to be able to make health and lifestyle choices for ourselves based on a complete and factual picture. As long as the corporate capture of our government continues, Americans will not be privy to that picture. Contrary to the narrative being churned out by booze PR firms, people like me are not “Neo-Prohibitionists,” or “anti-alcohol.” We have no desire to ban alcohol or remove an individual’s right to consume as much of it as they like. I’ve got my own long and storied past with booze and there was a time in my life that the idea of the U.S. Government telling me to curb my drinking would have been motivation for a weekend bender, but with nearly five years of sobriety under my belt, it’s clear that my life and health are infinitely better now that I’ve kicked alcohol off of the pedestal. Perhaps, it’s time for our governing bodies to do the same.

2025 is shaping up to be a time of significant change. From celebrity culture to food and drug regulation to UAPs and quantum chips, the age of truth and awareness is upon us. Collectively, we are looking for answers and no longer accepting the information presented to us at face value. The question of alcohol’s place in a healthy lifestyle is only one of the questions being asked this year but I argue that it’s a monumental one. What will the answer be? I don’t know…but I hope it’s a new one.