Where Is The Bad News About The Booze?
A MAHA hit list without the alcohol industry is just propaganda.
The MAHA Report, an assessment from the RFK Jr. led commission tasked with bringing transparency to our food and drug guidelines and exposing the corporate capture of the US government by these industries, was released on May 22nd, and I can’t help but wonder—where is the bad news about the booze?
The seventy-three page report is broken down into four parts or four threats to the mental and physical health of children in America: ultra-processed foods, environmental chemicals, the technology-driven lifestyle, and overmedication.
Each of these categories deserves a look and represents a sector that currently enjoys a chummy relationship with our government, its leaders, and policy. Still, a MAHA hit list without the alcohol industry is just another example of the thing they claim to detest. So, why the obvious exclusion?
Former surgeon general Dr. Vivek Murthy’s new year advisory on the causal link between alcohol consumption and seven different types of cancer seemed to be setting the stage for an overhaul of the language around booze in our country. His willingness to go against historical messaging appeared to be an echo of the calls for less industry involvement in shaping the narrative around alcohol and health. Lines were drawn and conversations were started. Booze companies scrambled PR experts and readied the ships. Stocks plummeted and the media ran with Murthy’s words as headlines. The momentum was building, all signs pointed to a turning of the tides and inevitable changes to alcohol consumption guidelines.
Then—MAHA’s report. Is this deafening silence on the problematic alcohol industry an example of corporate capture in motion, or is it an orchestrated, calculated omission better understood in retrospect come August when the 2025-2030 dietary guidelines are released to the public?
The criticism of Kennedy and crew’s May report is coming from all angles. Several media outlets, including The New York Times, called out MAHA for using fake citations to back up their call to action. A CBS news medical contributor suggested these mistakes as well as the ambiguity about who actually authored the report could be because, “There are fingerprints of AI all over this report.” None of this screams transparency, the purported goal of Kennedy and MAHA.
Why does any of this matter? The 2025-2030 dietary guidelines are expected to be released by August and I am hopeful we might see reduced consumption recommendations for alcohol. The final say goes to HHS, Kennedy’s post, and the USDA. If you want a more in depth look at the process, the reports used to inform the guidelines, and what’s at stake go back to this post from December 24’ where I lay it all out.
As they currently stand, and have for over four decades, the guidelines suggest two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women is the “safe” limit on booze intake. The obvious problem with this language is the normalization of drinking alcohol, a highly addictive class one carcinogen, every single day. A move to weekly units instead of daily units would be monumental, shifting the landscape of drinking culture and the alcohol industry at large. The importance of this moment as well as the repercussions on an already suffering booze sector cannot be overstated.
The MAHA report is focused on the health of American children, so it seems like an egregious error to exclude alcohol from the discussion. According to the NIAA (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism), adolescents use alcohol more than nicotine, vaping, and marijuana products. This statistic alone explains why President Biden tasked a subcommittee of HHS, the ICCPUD (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking), with providing a report to help inform the new guidelines, a controversial move according to politicians in bed with alcohol executives. The ICCPUD report will be considered alongside the National Academies report by HHS and USDA as they consider updates to consumption recommendations.
Underage drinking isn’t the only harm potential when it comes to alcohol and youth. MAHA dedicated a significant portion of its report to the loneliness and mental health epidemics our children our facing, but of that portion only a few lines were dedicated to stressors within the family home. Should we not consider the negative effects of substance-abusing caregivers and how these toxic habits are passed down generationally? This report from Psychiatry Online does a pretty good job of outlining the many psychological and physical risks for children of parents who abuse alcohol; the numbers are pretty staggering.
Our country has a drinking problem and we cannot expect to “Make America Healthy Again,” until that is properly acknowledged as well as what has contributed to this rampant overconsumption. Again, a MAHA hit list without the alcohol industry is an incomplete list. If Kennedy and his team go after pharma, food, and tech but not alcohol—it discredits the entire MAHA movement.
CEO of the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance, Mike Marshall, told The Washington Examiner that he was disappointed but not surprised at the omission of booze from the MAHA commission report. “If you’re trying to look at chronic health conditions, you have to look at the underlying environment in which those conditions are either being created or being managed,” Marshall stated. He added that excessive alcohol consumption is “one of the biggest issues in the country that nobody wants to talk about.” I agree with Mr. Marshall.
When the guidelines are issued in August, Kennedy says we can expect a mere four-page report. Could there possibly be new language in those pages about alcohol consumption? It’s hard to say. That would be the most logical expectation given who’s charged with revising it. Kennedy knows firsthand the dangers of alcohol abuse, sober himself and an outspoken advocate of recovery.
Still, money talks. There’s no such things as complete objectivity when we are talking about a trillion dollars.
Pay attention as leaders on both sides of the aisle fear monger of neo-prohibitionists coming to lock up your whiskey. Those same leaders are opposing the legalization of cannabis products in their states, states where booze producers are losing customers to marijuana. Take Arkansas Senator, Tom Cotton (R), who vehemently opposes cannabis legalization but is outraged by the effort to reduce alcohol consumption guidelines.
We are going to see the true intentions of this Kennedy commission along with those of many of our congressional leaders play out this summer. Will the booze industry be blindsided or will they succeed, yet again, at framing the narrative?
It’s time to admit that booze is bad news—for our health, for our children, and for our culture, regardless of what that means for profits.
I have a feeling this will be a swift-moving story over the summer, new information is coming out daily; both supporters and detractors will be playing scare tactics and blame games. I will be covering this story closely and would love to hear your thoughts and feedback. If you’re personally invested in this story and would like to support my work I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber. $5/mo or $50/yr gets you full access to my work and makes a huge difference in my ability to continue producing these deeply researched pieces!
I grew up in a family and community where, unfortunately, lots of people normalized drinking vast amounts of alcohol. I'm sure lots of them remain unaware of the arguments against booze, from a health-standpoint. One of the best things our government could do would be to subject alcohol to the aggressive anti-smoking campaigns of the 1990s. But that would require real courage, not a lot of performative posturing. It won't be so easy to take on America's favorite legal drug.