/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/01144618/data138166256-4954ef.jpg)
U.S. Alcohol Guidelines delayed Amid Industry Influence and Scientific Debate
Washington D.C. – New U.S. federal guidelines on alcohol consumption are stalled as a contentious debate over the health effects of even moderate drinking intensifies, fueled by industry lobbying and questions surrounding the independence of key scientific advisors. The delay raises concerns that political considerations and commercial interests may outweigh public health recommendations.
For decades, guidelines have suggested moderate drinking-typically defined as up to one drink per day for women and up to two for men-could offer some health benefits.However, recent research has challenged this notion, prompting a review of those recommendations. The process has become mired in controversy, wiht critics alleging the alcohol industry is actively working to undermine stricter guidelines by amplifying uncertainty and funding research favorable to its interests.
A central point of contention is a forthcoming report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The New York Times revealed that at least four members of the committee involved in drafting the report received funding from the alcohol industry, and their previous research frequently enough highlighted potential health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. This has cast a shadow over the report’s objectivity.
the debate extends beyond the scientific realm. At a recent congress in Paris, experts discussed the potential for political interference, with some fearing that politicians might view stricter advice as overly paternalistic. This concern appears to be materializing.Vox reported in early September that the government withdrew a report from a youth committee which concluded that even small amounts of alcohol carry risks. That report will no longer inform the final alcohol guidelines.
According to sources familiar with the process, the alcohol industry has engaged in extensive lobbying efforts, warning anti-alcohol organizations and seeking to influence the narrative around alcohol consumption. The strategy, as described by researcher Kampman, appears to focus on “zooming in on the contradictions to grow uncertainty, and justify drinking.”
The delay in releasing the new guidelines, now past the beginning of October, signals the potential success of these industry campaigns. The outcome will have meaningful implications for public health messaging and the ongoing discussion about responsible alcohol consumption in the United States.
