Main Edition
US
FR
January 6, 2025 - 6:30pm
United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy wants Americans to believe there’s no safe amount of alcohol consumption. His recent advisory calling for cancer warning labels on alcohol bottles follows a familiar pattern in American public health messaging: take a complex scientific issue, reduce it to its most frightening elements, and propose heavy-handed interventions that go well beyond what the evidence suggests.
Murthy’s timing is particularly interesting. His dramatic proclamation arrived just weeks after the National Academies of Sciences released a comprehensive review showing moderate alcohol consumption is actually associated with lower all-cause mortality than no alcohol consumption at all. The disconnect between these positions offers a window into how public health institutions sometimes shape research interpretations to justify interventions, much like during various phases of the disorganised and at times ham-fisted Covid-19 response.
The National Academies’ report tells a more nuanced story than Murthy’s blanket condemnation suggests. Specifically, it found that moderate drinking is linked to lower cardiovascular mortality and reduced risk of heart attacks and nonfatal strokes. While they did identify some increased breast cancer risk with moderate consumption, the overall picture is complex enough that it hardly justifies warning labels equating any amount of alcohol with cancer.
Perhaps most tellingly, heavy drinkers — who make up just 7.2% of alcohol consumers — account for roughly 75% of alcohol-related cancers. The risk ratios for light drinkers are minimal and often offset by other lifestyle factors. Yet Murthy’s advisory makes no distinction between someone who enjoys an occasional glass of wine with dinner and someone who drinks heavily every day.
The timing of this crusade raises questions about institutional motivations. Murthy’s second non-consecutive term (he has served under both Obama and Biden) ends on 20 January and his dramatic stance suggests possible political considerations. Public health bodies have a documented tendency to pursue increasingly aggressive interventions over time. We need look no further than the government’s decades-long campaign against the tobacco industry. It started with warning labels before progressing to advertising restrictions, steep taxes, and eventually outright bans in many spaces.
The National Academies’ methodology highlights just how carefully such health data needs to be handled. They specifically excluded studies that combined never-drinkers with former drinkers to avoid “abstainer bias” — the sort of rigorous distinction absent from the Surgeon General’s sweeping demand for a warning label. They also focused on research from 2010 onwards, ensuring their conclusions reflected the most current understanding rather than outdated assumptions.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf only the US had conducted an experiment in banning alcohol and discovered all the unexpected side effects this might have …
Bingo.
Also…who would vote this down?
The local rep for the Temperance Movement
That is a clever comment. Prohibition didn’t work so well, did it. But I’m not sure any experiment would have shown the results that we saw from it.
Because there had been experiments. Before the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol was ratified in 1919, several states had already passed their own prohibition laws. Maine passed a statewide prohibition law as early as 1851. Other states like Vermont (1852), Kansas (1880), and North Dakota (1889) followed with their own prohibition laws. Those laws worked fairly well.
Even after the 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933, some states remained dry.
Kansas and Oklahoma remained dry until 1948 and 1959, respectively, and Mississippi until 1966. No state remains completely dry today, but some states do contain dry counties.
Certainly bans, mandates, subsidies and even nudges do need to be more carefully considered than they are. Too many government officials think if they do A the result will be B, not realizing that in complex systems things are not that simple.
People in business, with skin in the game, quickly learn that they need to test simplistic assumptions in the real world or they will lose some skin. They don’t just make bold moves without real-world evidence to support them.
But you don’t want to be too timid either — faint heart never laid lovely lady. It’s a fine line to draw between boldness and timidity, but it’s a line that must be drawn. Experienced business people learn where to draw it, or they don’t survive.
So we learn by trial and error, and we have to make some bold trials. That means we will make some big errors along the way. Punish us too much for failure, and we become fearful of failure and don’t try anything new. Or we become defensive and won’t admit our errors, and that hinders learning too.
So I am not sure Prohibition was such a bad idea to try. Maybe it was worth the try to see what would happen. And maybe we should try some ideas like this one of Vivek Murthy and even the harebrained ideas of Bobby Kennedy. As the adage goes, you never know unless you try.
But we should always try experiments that have some evidence to support them, and that will not wreak havoc if they fail. Failure is always an option, and we need to be able to survive it.
This isn’t complicated folks. Bureaucrats have political, ideological, and personal agendas like everybody else. There are reasons bureaucrats do these things, often quite rational reasons. In this case, I suspect we have government bureaucrats looking at data that says alcoholism and alcohol consumption costs the US some ridiculous amount of money through government supported healthcare. It doesn’t matter that a small percentage of drinkers produce most of those costs. They can use probability theories and reason that there exists a certain chance a drinker will become an alcoholic and thus a burden on the healthcare system and perhaps cause other problems as well. It comes down to the number of people who drink X times a probability Y to produce a number of alcoholics Z. In other words, if they can scare people into avoiding alcohol entirely, they will reduce X and thus reduce Z and save costs in the aggregate. They’re probably right, but they probably couldn’t use their actual logic to convince most people or get any laws passed through, so they have to come up with something else. Straight up lying or making up evidence usually gets discovered eventually, so instead they use the greatest tool yet invented by mankind to aid thieves, liars, and con-artists in practicing the art of deception. I’m speaking of statistics of course.
They cherry pick scientific studies and sometimes even scientists themselves who happen to agree with their predetermined conclusion. Scientists are smart, usually smart enough to design studies in such a way that skews the results towards a desired result. They can also use brute force and statistics, running hundreds of studies with varying results, then simply publish and publicize the ones that support their conclusion and never let the others see the light of day. Ultimately, they come out with a report that includes whatever studies they chose to put in it, and whoever questions their conclusions gets accused of ‘denying the science’. They get their policy, the government gets their cost savings, and the fact that they’ve deceived the people is justified by setting against the ‘greater good’ of saving lives and saving government dollars.
Corporations do it too. Big pharma is notorious at this point. It’s become commonplace to see an advertisement for a new drug run for a few months, then a year or two later, there’s another set of ads about the same drug, but this time its run by the lawyers filing the class action lawsuit against the company than made the drug because it causes some side effect that somehow managed to avoid detection in various safety studies. Somebody is of course either lying outright or fudging the data and its up to a court to determine who and award damages. It plays out in the average American living room on their TV for everybody to see. This doesn’t have to happen too many times before people decide they can’t trust any of these studies or statistics and then they form their own opinions, which will be resistant to any statistical data to the contrary.
This is how government, corporations, and scientists have lost their credibility. It’s basically like the boy who cried wolf. That fable is about credibility, trust, and the consequences of abusing it. The important thing to remember is that when trust is lost, warnings get ignored, resulting in consequences for everyone. The boy gets eaten by the wolf of course, but so do the livestock of the villagers he deceived. Such ancient fables teach us about human nature, but modern man thinks he’s too smart for such things. When trust is abused, whatever the reason, there will be consequences. Good intentions and saving lives may sound like sufficient justification for a little white lie here or there, but over time, these little deceptions can undermine the common trust that holds a village, and a society, together. When nobody believes each other, the only winners are the wolves.
So is this luigi mangione effect?
Not sure what relevance Mangione has to the discussion actually.
Good points, but I think this is complicated, or rather, complex. We humans don’t handle complexity well, so we try to make things simple. We don’t understand that we are driven more by emotion than by fact so we overanalyze everything. As a result, we spend too much time debating things in the abstract rather than getting things done in the real world. We act as though things are right or wrong, a clear binary. We don’t accept that, as Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
So I don’t think of things in binary terms. I don’t think trust is a binary thing where you have it or you don’t. And I don’t think trust alone is a deciding factor in government or healthcare or business or science. Trust is certainly an important factor, but only one of many. It’s complicated (or rather, complex).
When we are faced with new problems, like a pandemic or a questionable drug or a sluggish economy or a scientific puzzle, we need to realize that no one has a solid answer. Trust in people does not mean much. There is no way for them to know what will work best. Trial and error is the only way to learn. As the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman said, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. Only data matters. Only results. Not who says what, and who we can trust.
So what to do? We should take a lesson in dealing with complex problems from people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. One of Elon Musk’s biggest talents is knowing how to get things done. He and Donald Trump are alike in that regard. Both men know that in an uncertain and complex situation the best thing to do is not so much to think as to act. To do small things that are risky but not bet-the-company important. Then look at the result. Do more of what works and less of what doesn’t. Rinse and repeat.
Too many politicians instead come up with brilliant but untested plans that never have a chance of succeeding. And too many of us expect experts in government or business or science to know what to do. Instead of trusting in them, we need to realize they will make mistakes, and let them. Judge them by their results, not their words. We all need to follow Elon Musk’s approach to solving problems — summed up best by a tweet of his just after he bought Twitter. “We will be doing lots of stupid things at Twitter over the coming months. We will keep doing the things that work & stop the things that don’t.”
Wise words.
I concur that these are indeed complex problems and a practical approach is the only approach, but I still think there’s something to be said for time honored values like honesty and humility, and that the lack of such values can have serious consequences. There are far too many people out there operating on the basis that it’s OK to lie or cheat or break the rules for the sake of some ‘greater good’. When the government uses the language of certainty and science to encourage/coerce people into compliance but then its later discovered the threat wasn’t quite what they said it was, that damages their ability to get compliance in the future.
Here’s an example. When I was a child, we had tornado watches all the time, but only on a couple of occasions did we have warnings, which meant there actually was a tornado that had been seen on the ground. Fast forward a few years. I’m in high school and college and suddenly we’re getting about ten times as many tornado warnings as we ever did before. I’m a curious person, so of course I’m wondering why suddenly there are more tornadoes. It seems unlikely that the weather is suddenly producing ten times as many tornadoes, so I looked into things. Turns out they were issuing warnings every time their radar saw a certain pattern indicating a funnel cloud. In my area, nine out of ten times, a funnel cloud, even if it’s really there, is not going to ever touch ground, so I had my explanation. They changed the standards for a ‘warning’ from something real has been seen by somebody and its coming right now to, we saw a pattern on the radar that might indicate there’s a threat and we’re issuing a warning so people take action just in case. They were using the precautionary principle of course, and they had good reason to do so, but people don’t actually operate like that. I shouldn’t have to tell you what ended up happening. Nobody takes the warnings seriously anymore. They might check the radar themselves or even go look outside, but they’re not going to drop what they’re doing and take shelter in the basement just on the issuing of the official warning. Whether they should is irrelevant. Human nature is what it is, and governments have to deal with things as they are, not as they should be. The fables remind us that there are things about ourselves that hold true over very long periods of time and can’t be altered for the sake of convenience or expediency.
I remember saying to a scientist friend during Covid that science is political in context to vaccine (do not come with pitch fork here and I am not saying my status one way or another lol). She looked at me as if I had accused her of heresy. But the reality is that science is a form of interpretation, and of course, it’s political tool – perhaps the best one. Everything is political—until it pertains to your own body. Only then can you truly make decisions based on what’s personal to you.
But the question is, why now? I believe it’s a way to discriminate against people within the U.S. healthcare system. Some loony lobbyist likely came up with this idea, but much like the Wild West days of Prohibition, the unintended consequences will be significant. For instance, at minimum, people may stop disclosing their alcohol intake on medical forms, and we’ll just have to wait and see what kind of outcomes that leads to. But it can also be another reason to sabotage the upcoming administration – sort of flood the system to distract the oncoming agenda! so nothing else gets done than running after what the last guy left to attend!
I think we need to bring back the word – liar! without the fanfare of beautiful psychological words!
Science isn’t political at all, but the work of scientists can be politicised. When that happens, it’s no longer science.
This distinction matters, because if the general public become disillusioned due to politicised scientists then the danger of throwing the science baby out with the bathwater is obvious
I think the answer to that problem is to always demand data. Don’t let scientists just tell you their opinion or theory or hypothesis, but make them show you the proof. Whether it’s Vivek Murthy or Tony Fauci or whoever who is flaunting their expertise, remember that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (as physicist Richard Feynman said). Experiments matter, expertise does not.
I am not smart enough so I will provide a quote I found fits the conversation:
“… In the discourse of today’s financial backers of research, the only credible goal is power. Scientists, technicians, and instruments are purchased not to find truth, but to augment power.”
― Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
At the end, like I said one must really use their own research and body when need it because what is said today may be not said tomorrow due to the $$$$ involved. Academia is a business just like everything else.
Finding an absence of science to actually follow during COVID, eg the declaration that it came from a ‘pangolin in a wet market’ , or that universal masking definitely worked, I tried following the money. And that’s where I found the science.
There’s a similar approach in the U.K. where a group of doctors have stated “there’s no safe limit for alcohol”. If that’s the case, then there’s no safe limit for anything. The moment we are born we are dying.
It’s not safe to feel safe.
Actually, all the current research shows that moderate consumption of alcohol protects against a range of disease whilst excessive consumption causes cancers. It’s not binary.
Didn’t say it was. My point is if doctors say there’s no safe limit for alcohol then there’s no safe limit for grapes for example as you may choke on one.
Lots of very lengthy and interesting posts on this page – but isn’t the truth really quite simple: politicians and bureaucrats are just busybodies looking for any excuse to meddle in the lives of others?
Good point. Politicians and bureaucrats have the misbetton idea that government can solve any problem, not realizing that in almost every case their cure not only doesn’t work, but does more harm than the disease.
“When institutions consistently overstate risks or ignore countervailing evidence, they erode public trust, trust they’ll need when confronting genuine health emergencies that do require dramatic interventions.”
They won’t require any trust at all. They’ll mandate vaccines, or other health interventions, upon penalty of prison or loss of employment or loss of eligibility for government benefits.
You don’t expect a nuanced evaluation from a bureaucratic propagandist seeking to expand his power and importance. Such men use statistics like a drunk leaning on a lamppost more for support than illumination – old joke I know. It is nothing to do with genuine science.
Next they’ll outlaw baiting bears on Sundays.
Puberty blockers, on the other hand…
Good points. If the pandemic taught us anything, it’s that government experts like Vivek Murthy will abuse their power unless restrained. They think their opinion obviates the need for evidence. That statistical links and associations are somehow enough to show causation. That politics trump science.
We need people in charge of our public health who act based on evidence and scientific principles, not opinion (even, and especially, expert opinion) and politics. Instead we get people like Vivek Murthy and even worse, Bobby Kennedy. That Donald Trump nominated the anti-science grifter Bobby Kennedy to head up the health department in his administration is a travesty.
The warnings on cigarette packs and the coming alcohol containers remind me of those dreadful pinned ribbons which are obligatory for every politician to now wear. A useless ornament which attempts to identify the wearer as caring when in fact it is as useful as the proverbial on a bull. Next they will have the warnings on the glass containing a pint of Guinness. James Joyce weeps. Where is the fun and the Porterhouse blue to stave off a useless end of life, in wet bed, misery.
What a most considered and intelligent article
What society needs to do is educate it’s people’s about Alcohol
It’s good and bad points
Then responsible Citezens can make a informed choice as to the relationship they adopt to Alcohol
Which if partaken off responsibly
And in the correct context and social situation then the benefits are
Of great value to society
Whilst the opposite is true whan alcohol abused and to give a wee example
Man has yet to find a better lubricant for the thinking mind
Than that of a fine Single Malt whisky Slowly nosed , sipped, savoured and thourghly enjoyed whether alone or
In convivial company
Like Donald Trump, I have seen the effects of alcohol on some people and will never take that drug myself. Alcohol is a neurotoxin and an addictive drug. I don’t think it adds to society any more than smoking does. Drinking is a vice, not a virtue.
So you throw the Baby out with the Bath Water
Tis a miracle that by only a handful of barley, a cup of water and a touch of yeast
That such a wonderful beverage comes about
Something the canny Scot knew off and kept the secrets of a fine Single Malt for themselves for over a 100.yrs
Before a vicious economic down turn led to the closure and demolition of many a fine Distilleries and the Industry in the 1970,s In desperation the industry released a Classic Malt collection into the Market
Not expecting much of a reaction were astounded at the reaction
Single malts from all Distilling Nations is now the fastest growing Alcohol in global markets and bottles of very rare
Bottles of exceptional malts fetching well over $ 10000 for a bottle and $ 1 million for a Barrel
If you are a Alcoholic then soon you would be bankrupt if these were your Tipple
Human ingenuity is to be encouraged and never Thwarted
The 1st recorded history of Whisky distilling believe it or not was in Iraq over 2000 yrs ago Whose people’s today
Are about to complete 2 huge infrastructure projects rated as being in the top 10 Of global projects of this decade globally by the UN
Seems illegal invasion and war is bad for the invaders but turns out good for those badly wronged
Jesus’ first recorded miracle was turning water into wine at a wedding. Requested by his mum!
“a familiar pattern in American public health messaging: take a complex scientific issue, reduce it to its most frightening elements, and propose heavy-handed interventions that go well beyond what the evidence suggests.”
Yes, but it goes far beyond public health; this is the playbook for the entire Progressive agenda.
Np need to ban alcohol, just tell them the truth: any level of consumption increases the risks of mouth and throat cancers.
Make your choice.