The frenzy over alcohol being dangerous is hitting a fever pitch that hasn’t peaked. From the WHO’s alcohol risk starts at the first drop, to proposed warning labels on alcohol, there is no doubt the industry has taken a hit, but the worst is still yet to come.

The nutritional labeling requirements recommendation have yet to come out, which will recommend mandating extra labeling requirements for the alcohol industry, and the recommendations on safe levels of alcohol consumption will come out soon.

But expect the worst! The WHO whose credibility was blown away by abject failures during COVID is trying to make itself relevant again and throw its weight around by thrashing alcohol with suspect evidence.

The Biden Administration is trying to leave a legacy on alcohol that will be hard to undo and will provide a parting gift to one of the Democratic Party’s biggest and partial donors, trial lawyers. With the Surgeon General’s government warning labels and new hyperbole reports on the dangers of alcohol, it will be open season for trial lawyers to attack the industry.

What is most absurd is how the Surgeon General goes out of his way to attack alcohol. The report states that alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable cancer after tobacco and obesity.

While admitting obesity in his own view kills more people than alcohol, the Surgeon General does not go on the attack to save us from our obese selves!

There is no doubt there is a link between excessive sugar intake and obesity, no one will dispute this. Many kid’s cereals contain copious amounts of sugar and use cartoon characters like Captain Crunch to sell their sugary brands, yet there is no talk about putting a warning label on Captain Crunch’s head.

Fast food is positively related to obesity according to the NIH. But will we put a warning label on McDonald’s food, maybe a cancer warning on Shamrock shakes for Irish people to spell out the dangers would be appreciated.

We must wonder why the Surgeon General has taken aim at the alcohol industry when he considers obesity more dangerous?

But we also must ask, when we start with warning labels, where does this all end? Suppose the Surgeon General was fair and slapped a warning label on Captain Crunch and sailed him out to sea by banning his cartoon image. Does this really help and is the cost of excessive government involvement in the market worth the cost? And once the government regulator is left unhinged, where does the line get drawn on where to stop?

We may create a paranoid society where nobody wants to eat anything with warning labels and we are left with an appealing diet of tofu and carrots.

Further, the Surgeon General, while not mentioning the word “moderate”, justifies warning labels because moderate levels of consumption may cause cancer. Specifically, the report states: “For certain cancers, like breast, mouth, and throat cancers, evidence shows that the risk of developing cancer may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day.”

The Surgeon General’s own word shows that he fails to demonstrate direct causation between moderate alcohol use and numerous cancers. According to a quick google search, may means “expressing possibility.” Which means the Surgeon General provides no evidence directly linking moderate drinking to causing cancer. Similar to the WHO, which can’t provide causation between the first drop of alcohol and cancer, the Surgeon General goes out of his way to create a crisis without evidence.

We should demand more

COVID has taught us that standing back and letting our government act with carte blanche authority without questioning them led to great societal harms. Before we allow a government to take drastic actions, we should question their assumptions and their evidence.

The Surgeon General wants to brand alcohol products with a scarlet letter and possibly destroy an industry’s sales and open it up to great legal challenges.

The trial bar maybe happy and get its gifts out the door in the worst-case scenario. However, I am hoping for a good ending.

Alcohol is a non-partisan world, where the economic benefits extend from red Kentucky to blue California to purple Wisconsin. With James Comer, Republican Congressman from Kentucky, challenging these pronouncements there is at least some positive movement. It would be great for him to be joined by a Democrat from the Napa area or Washington or Oregon wine country.

Bipartisan push back is what we need. What is fair is fair and if the evidence is out there let the surgeon general and WHO present it. But half-truths and “I think assumptions” should not mandate implementing radical change that could cause irreputable harm to an industry and ruins people’s livelihoods!