Dear Client:
Hot off the presses: This morning the Trump Administration held a press conference announcing the release of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), “informed by the best and most reliable research,” per Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Mostly, the new DGAs focus on combating the scourge of “low quality, highly processed foods” in America. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the new guidelines the “most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in history.”
But what do they say about alcohol?
IF ALCOHOL IS CONSUMED, IT SHOULD BE DONE IN MODERATION. “The guidelines’ longstanding, overarching advice is that if alcohol is consumed, it should be done in moderation,” per alert that NBWA chief Craig Purser just shared with members. “These updated guidelines, underpinned by the preponderance of scientific evidence, reaffirm this important guidance.”
The official DGAs fact sheet says little about alcohol except to “limit” it, and of course that certain classes, like pregnant women, should avoid it altogether. But again, there is no wholly prohibitive prescription.
IMPLICATION IS “DON’T HAVE ALCOHOL FOR BREAKFAST.” One of the first questions from the White House press conference announcing the new guidelines referenced alcohol, with a media member asking if the Administration could “explain the science” behind moving away from “2 drinks per men and 1 drink per women” a day, and why ultimately, the Government did not say “alcohol is unhealthy and you shouldn’t drink it?”
Dr. Oz, who serves as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, fielded that one, saying first that “alcohol is a social lubricant that brings people together,” but “in the best case scenario, I don’t think you should drink alcohol.”
Still, alcohol “does allow people an excuse to bond and socialize and there’s probably nothing healthier than having a good time with friends in a safe way,” Dr. Oz continued. “If you look at the Blue Zones, for example, around the world… people live the longest [where] alcohol is sometimes a part of their diet — again, small amounts taken very judiciously and usually in a celebratory fashion.”
So, “there is alcohol on these Dietary Guidelines,” Dr. Oz said, “but the implication is don’t have it for breakfast. This should be something done in small amounts with hopefully some kind of event that might have alcohol added.”
On the move away from 2 drinks for men and 1 drink for women a day, Dr. Oz said “there was never really good data to support that quantity of alcohol consumption,” adding, “that data was probably primarily confused with broader data about social connectiveness.”
ESSENTIAL INDUSTRY ADVOCACY. But we might have seen a different outcome were it not for the dogged advocacy of our industry trade orgs.
In his alert, NBWA chief Craig Purser noted how his organization petitioned, alongside other industry orgs, for “reasonable and unbiased updated DGA recommendations” since the spring of 2024, as they had to combat agenda-driven efforts from the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD), and worldwide rhetoric on “no safe level” of alcohol consumption (read our timeline below) from the WHO and more. They successfully lobbied for the DGAs to be informed by the congressionally mandated National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) study. (BBD readers may recall that the NASEM study found that moderate alcohol consumption [up to 2 drinks/day for men, 1 drink/day for women] is associated with a 16% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to non-drinkers, with moderate certainty. But note, the updated DGA guidelines do not reference these numerical guardrails for alcohol consumption.)
And Craig also pointed to still other collaborative efforts, such as the Science Over Bias “resource hub” about the Dietary Guidelines process.
Indeed, in our 25 years of publishing, we’ve never seen the entire industry come together behind this issue, including the BI, NBWA, DISCUS, WSWA, Wine Institute and others — who usually are bickering. It’s a first, and gives us hope for the future as the neo-probes continue to attack bev-alc from all sides.
It’s paid off.
MEDIA: “MY ’26 RESOLUTION IS TO START DRINKING AGAIN.” In the media, we’re already starting to see a backlash to Dry January and the “alcohol is bad” storyline. Earlier this week, GQ’s Oura-wearing health writer wrote an expose about how boring excessive sobriety can be (of course, for those who don’t actually need it) and what we call the cult of wellness.
A few weeks ago, The Economist shed light on alcohol’s evolutionary role in “help[ing] human settlements grow without falling apart” (even as it mulled sobriety). Such lubricated commiseration is as important today as it ever was (Sam Calagione calls it “social fitness”; more on that next week at our Summit). And I’m sure many of you have seen the clips of viral podcaster and professor Scott Galloway telling multiple outlets that any alcohol health risks are outweighed by its ability to combat social isolation, especially for young men: “Get out, drink more, and make a series of bad decisions that might pay off,” says Scott.
It’s a great way for the industry to kick off the year.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT ON ICCPUD FINDS THE STUDY GROUP WAS “FRAUGHT WITH BIAS.” Also today: The House Oversight Committee’s report on ICCPUD’s alcohol study dropped.
Unsurprisingly for BBD readers, it concluded that the Biden Administration greased the wheels and provided cover for a deliberately biased ICCPUD (again, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking) report that sought to inform the new Dietary Guidelines on alcohol, in direct competition to NASEM (again, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine), which had already been allocated $1.3 million by Congress to study the relationship between alcohol and health outcomes. Chairman James Comer says the Biden Administration “violated federal law and ignored Congress in order to push an agenda on the American people.”
When the Trump Administration came in, Secretary Kennedy was happy to provide the Oversight Committee with “82 pages of unredacted copies of internal documents and communications, including meeting minutes, shedding light on the biased nature of the Biden Administration study.”
You can read the entire report here, but this paragraph sums the findings: “The ICCPUD AIH study group in fact was fraught with bias. All six study group members are anti-alcohol advocates who had conducted previous research linking negative health outcomes with alcohol,” many of whom hail from outside the U.S. “The evidence points to the AIH study group having a pre-determined goal—to publish a biased study that parroted a ‘Canadian model’ conclusion that no amount of alcohol consumption is safe. The AIH study group then took active steps to conceal their study from Congress and the public.” They are mulling legislation to prevent something like this from happening again.
It’s been a long road to today. How long? Read on.
HOW WE GOT HERE: THE ROAD TO THE 2025 DIETARY GUIDELINES ON ALCOHOL (A TIMELINE)
More than a year before the 2025 Dietary Guidelines neared release, BBD began flagging a growing public-health push framing alcohol as carrying risk at any level of consumption — particularly around cancer. That narrative gathered momentum as HHS and USDA oversaw a contentious review process that ultimately involved two competing assessments: a Congressionally funded National Academies review supporting moderation, and a separate effort tied to the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) that reached far harsher conclusions (as noted above).
What followed was a year marked by dueling reports, public backlash, congressional scrutiny, and repeated questions around authority and transparency — culminating in legislative language affirming the National Academies’ work, reports that ICCPUD-linked studies had been pulled back, and signals that alcohol guidance was unlikely to dramatically change.
A FOREBODING NARRATIVE TAKES SHAPE. In early 2024, BBD chronicled the rise of the “no safe level” narrative, as public-health groups and WHO-aligned researchers increasingly pushed messaging linking any amount of alcohol consumption to heightened cancer risk. The concern was not only the surge in media coverage, but how this framing could ultimately influence federal policy, particularly the Dietary Guidelines, which are routinely cited in broader regulatory and advocacy efforts.
SCRUTINY ON THE PROCESS. As the Dietary Guidelines review cycle unfolded, attention shifted to how alcohol and health were being evaluated [see BBD 07-01-2024]. It became clear that two parallel efforts were underway: a transparent, Congressionally directed review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), and a separate internal HHS process tied to ICCPUD — a committee created to prevent underage drinking. Lawmakers and industry groups questioned ICCPUD’s authority to weigh in on adult alcohol consumption, as well as the lack of transparency surrounding its work.
NASEM REPORT LANDS FIRST. In December 2024, NASEM released its long-awaited review of evidence on alcohol and health [see BBD 12-19-2024]. The report concluded that while heavy drinking increases the risk of all-cause mortality, moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a lower risk of death and cardiovascular disease. The panel acknowledged the limitations of observational research and emphasized cautious moderation, reinforcing long-standing guidance rather than overturning it.
NOISE TURNS UP WITH SURGEON GENERAL CALL FOR WARNING LABELS. In early January 2025, the U.S. Surgeon General elevated the debate by calling for cigarette-style warning labels on alcoholic beverages, citing cancer risk and asserting that some risks may rise at one drink per day or less [see BBD 01-03-2025]. While Congress would need to act on any labeling changes, the advisory further intensified focus on how alcohol would ultimately be treated in the Dietary Guidelines.
THE SECOND REPORT LEAKED, BACKLASH FOLLOWS. Just a couple weeks later, a draft report from ICCPUD leaked, asserting that the risk of dying from alcohol use “begins at low levels of average use” [see BBD 01-15-2025]. The report relied heavily on meta-analyses of observational cohort studies and was met with immediate criticism from trade groups and lawmakers, who cited bias, conflicts of interest, lack of transparency, and statutory overreach. A public comment period followed, but confidence in ICCPUD’s role continued to erode (at least, for the Oversight Committee).
CONGRESS STEPS IN. By the spring of 2025, alcohol guidance in the Dietary Guidelines had drawn formal congressional scrutiny [see BBD 04-30-2025]. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer pressed HHS and USDA for documents and communications related to ICCPUD’s formation and involvement, arguing the effort was duplicative of the Congressionally mandated National Academies review and inconsistent with congressional intent.
SIGNALS POINT TOWARD STATUS QUO. As summer approached, early indications suggested stricter alcohol recommendations might not materialize [see BBD 06-13-2025]. In June 2025, Reuters reported the Dietary Guidelines could be released soon and that alcohol recommendations were “not slated to dramatically change,” with the primary focus expected to land elsewhere in the document.
ICCPUD’S INFLUENCE ERODES. In September 2025, the New York Times reported that HHS had withdrawn a government-commissioned study warning that even low levels of drinking raise cancer risk — a study tied to ICCPUD [see BBD 09-07-2025]. The move further complicated the standing of ICCPUD’s work as the Guidelines process neared completion.
CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE REINFORCES NASEM REPORT. Later in 2025, an agricultural spending bill added another clear signal, affirming that the National Academies’ research — not ICCPUD’s — was to inform beverage alcohol recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines [see BBD 11-14-2025]. The language echoed NASEM’s conclusion that heavy drinking raises mortality risk, while moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of death.
FINISH LINE DELAYED. In December 2025, HHS confirmed that a government shutdown had delayed release of the Dietary Guidelines into early 2026 — extending uncertainty just as final decisions were expected.
Yet here we are. Cheers. (Though don’t get too cozy, the anti-alcohol brigade won’t give up so easily. Stay tuned.)
=============================
THE SUMMIT AGENDA IS LIVE. We’ve added Brendan Whitworth, CEO of Anheuser-Busch, to finalize our lineup of speakers. The full schedule for the Beer, Wine & Spirits Summit is now live. The Summit is taking place January 18-20, 2026 at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, CA. You’ll hear from execs across tiers, including A-B, Molson Coors, Dogfish Head, Circle K, Constellation Brands, Stateside Brands, Instacart, Hyatt, Southern Glazer’s Wine & Spirits, Breakthru Beverage Group, and many more. You can register and learn more here.
And don’t forget to book your hotel.
Until tomorrow,
Jenn, Jordan, Bianca, and Harry
“Let not the sands of time get in your lunch.”
– National Lampoon
———- Sell Day Calendar ———-
Today’s Sell Day: 4
Sell days this month: 21
Sell days this month last year: 22
This month ends on a: Fri.
This month last year ended on a: Fri.
YTD sell days Over/Under: 0
