logo
Trump admin to scrap alcohol limits in stunning U-turn

Trump admin to scrap alcohol limits in stunning U-turn

Daily Mail​18-06-2025

America is set to scrap its decades old recommendation that people do not consume more than two alcoholic drinks a day.
Under the current guidelines, women are told not to drink more than one alcoholic beverage a day while men are told to drink no more than two.
But now, sources say this could be replaced with more generic advice to drink 'in moderation' or to limit alcohol intake due to associated health risks.
Three sources — who asked not to be named — leaked the proposed update to Reuters, potentially marking the first time alcohol limits have been changed since 1990.
It is set to be revealed in the updated Dietary Guidelines, published every five years to give dietary recommendations to Americans, that could be released this month.
The proposal moves America's guidelines away from its neighbor Canada, which recently introduced stricter guidelines urging Canadians to limit alcohol intake to just two drinks per week.
It's a U-turn on the Biden administration's proposal to investigate emulating Canada's guidelines, revealed in a DailyMail.com interview in 2023.
Even moderate drinking is linked to some health risks, studies suggest, such as higher risk of cancer and dementia.
A fourth source told Reuters that the updates to the guidelines were being made because the scientific basis for the current recommendations was 'limited'.
One source said the new alcohol-related recommendation will probably be limited to a sentence or two in the new report.
The new guidelines are being developed by the US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture.
Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Junior is a known teetotaler, but has remained largely silent on alcohol — instead emphasizing whole foods in the upcoming dietary guidelines.
Donald Trump also famously does not consume alcohol after his older brother Fred — an alcoholic — died at age 50 from a heart attack.
In remarks last week, the 79-year-old President said his advice on good parenting was 'no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes... I also say no tattoos'.
Some experts had feared tighter alcohol limits would be set under the guidelines after a federal report released in January suggested just one alcoholic drink a day raises the risk of suffering from more than a dozen health conditions.
These included a higher risk of colon and esophageal cancers and of liver cirrhosis.
That same month, former US Surgeon General Dr Vivek Murphy warned that drinking alcohol could raise the risk of suffering from seven types of cancer.
He also recommended that all alcoholic beverages include a cigarette-style warning on their packaging to highlight the link between alcohol and cancer.
Major industry players including Diageo — which makes Captain Morgan's rum and Smirnoff Vodka among others — and Anheuser-Busch — which owns Bud Light — have spent millions lobbying lawmakers over the guidelines and other issues over the last two years.
The guidelines are reviewed every five years and have advised drinking as no more than one drink per day for women and two per day for men since 1990.
Eva Greenthal, a senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit focused on nutrition, health and food safety, said the more general language expected in the guidelines was 'so vague as to be unhelpful'.
Under such a change, the message that even moderate drinking can increase risks, especially for breast cancer, would get lost, she added.
Two studies were produced to inform the development of the guidelines. The first found that moderate drinking was associated with increased risk of some cancers, but a decreased risk of dying from any cause and some cardiovascular problems like stroke.
The evidence for some other health impacts was insufficient to draw conclusions, it found.
The other report conversely found the risk of dying from alcohol use, including increased risk for seven cancers, begins at any or low levels of alcohol use and increases with higher consumption.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What is the healthiest breakfast cereal?
What is the healthiest breakfast cereal?

Times

time4 hours ago

  • Times

What is the healthiest breakfast cereal?

I s this the beginning of the end for breakfast cereal? The morning staple took off in the 1950s as a convenient alternative to porridge or eggs. Quick, tasty and 'fortified with vitamins and minerals', it has been filling our bowls ever since — but recently the total sale of branded cereals has dipped by 6.5 per cent, with only oats and granola bucking the trend. Why have we fallen out of love with cornflakes and co? Mostly it's due to an increase in health-conscious consumers avoiding ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and added sugars — many cereals can be packed full of them, regardless of the benefits trumpeted on the front of the box. However, experts say it can be a healthy choice, with some caveats. 'Cereal isn't inherently good or bad — it depends on the type and how you serve it,' says Rob Hobson, a nutritionist and the author of Unprocess Your Life. This is your guide to navigating the cereal aisle.

US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr

The Guardian

time5 hours ago

  • The Guardian

US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr

A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store