Lawmakers representing winemakers across the country brushed off a recent surgeon general advisory that cited alcohol use as the “leading preventable” cause of cancer in the country and called for updated warning labels on drinks.
“I’ve been around long enough to see surgeon general recommendations come and go,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, who owns a vineyard and co-founded the Congressional Wine Caucus. “There’s been no end to the number of items that have been pointed out to possibly be causing cancer, and if you subscribe to all those, you wouldn’t eat, drink anything, you wouldn’t do anything.”
Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s Jan. 3 report concludes that the risk of some cancers increases even when consumers drink in moderation but that most Americans don’t realize it. Researchers found that the risk of developing certain cancers starts to increase with “one or fewer drinks per day.”
Preview research has linked alcoholic beverages to cancer, and they are listed as a carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
But lawmakers said they were skeptical.
“I think just looking at the science there, and coming from the state of California, I think a glass of wine or two isn’t a bad thing,” Rep. Ami Bera, a member of the wine caucus, told NOTUS.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor and another wine caucus member, told NOTUS he thinks Murthy’s recommendations verge on turning America from “a free society” to a “nanny state.”
“These studies are very complicated,” Cassidy said. “I’m old enough to remember when there was a study thinking that if you drank coffee, you’d decrease your risk of pancreatic cancer. Now no one actually thinks that anymore. So I’m willing to take a little bit of a wait-and-see attitude.”
Lawmakers from both parties have routinely gone to bat for the alcohol industry. In October, more than 100 Democrats and Republicans signed a letter urging Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack to suspend an alcohol intake and health study that was set to be considered in the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Michael Kaiser of WineAmerica, which lobbies for the interests of American wineries, told NOTUS that he doesn’t expect Murthy’s recent statement to change lawmakers’ mindsets or cause them to address alcohol labeling.
“Congress is very pro-alcohol, primarily because of what the businesses mean in their districts,” Kaiser said. “Right now, I don’t think there’s any congressional district that does not have a distillery or a brewery or a winery. These are small businesses in their district, so that’s why they’re very supportive.”
Lawmakers quickly rejected Murthy’s urging that Congress update already-existing labels on alcoholic drinks to include the line: “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers,” citing “conclusive evidence on the cancer risk” that has prompted dozens of other countries to add such a warning.
Sen. Rand Paul told NOTUS that Murthy “should be careful to stick to facts that are not in dispute.”
“Nobody argues that too much alcohol is not a problem, but I think there is still some debate over what level of alcohol is safe and whether or not alcohol causes cancer,” he said.
Some studies have drawn less conclusive results about the ties between alcohol and cancer. In December, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine issued a report concluding with “moderate certainty” that people are not more likely to die by drinking moderately compared to those who have never consumed alcohol. (The study did find that women who drink have a higher risk of developing cancer.)
“I feel like we’re all getting a little dizzy as reports are flying back and forth, and it’s hard to know who to believe,” said Karen MacNeil, who authored a book on wine production and tasting and spoke with Thompson at an event last year. “There are just too many doctors and too many studies showing that you cannot make this blanket statement that alcohol slash wine gives you cancer.”
California Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas told NOTUS that he understands why people are confused about the link between alcohol and cancer.
“If there really was the surety that, in fact, it does cause cancer, why didn’t they know this earlier?” he asked. “I mean, they figured that out pretty quickly with cigars and cigarettes. Why not with alcohol? So I don’t know, it seems to me like the jury’s still out a bit on this one.”
While congressional action seems unlikely, members of Congress and wine experts did not rule out the off chance that President-elect Donald Trump will weigh in on alcohol risk.
Trump doesn’t drink, and his brother died of a heart attack that his family said was linked to alcoholism. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for health secretary, is in recovery for addiction and has said he regularly attends AA meetings.
Both are wild cards in the next administration.
“I think with RFK Jr. there, I think the craziness is going to come out,” Vargas said. “We don’t know what the hell he’s going to do.”
One Democratic lawmaker said he viewed Trump’s lack of drinking as the go-to approach.
“If you look at what the best approach is, President Trump has said that he never drinks and doesn’t recommend it to his kids, so maybe we can make sure that we aren’t recommending things that are causing cancer to people,” Rep. Ro Khanna told NOTUS.
“I think that we have to take seriously the cancer risks and make sure that people are informed about the consequences of alcohol,” Khanna said.
—
Torrence Banks and Mark Alfred are NOTUS reporters and Allbritton Journalism Institute fellows.