Excellent discussion. Merits of the studies aside, regarding the “WHY” the SG issued the Advisory, let’s add “Why NOW” - as in, why not a preventable cancer advisory during the first week on the job instead of the last?
Could party donations from the alcohol sector play a hand in timing, if not the advisory’s positioning? Maybe he wanted to issue this in Week 1 vs Week 208, but that would roil many political races. I have no idea about party affiliations and fundraising from these lobbyists, but it’s interesting to consider two scenarios. An early advisory during a democratic administration and congressional majority would likely be met with “hey dude can’t you just keep your mouth shut we’ve got the ball!” The late advisory heading into a republican administration and majority is saying “ok you guys deal with this one we are outta here”.
Ironic that President Trump has a wine label and does not drink. Or is it?
My dad was a political science professor. He would have loved batting this issue around from all sides. Perfect topic for a glass of Cabernet and a cigar.
Great post Dave! If you haven’t already heard it. Derek Thompson’s Plain English podcast from last Friday (1/17) was one of the most insightful conversations about the conflicting reports on alcohol consumption over the last few weeks.
Great post Dave! Too much of anything is bad. I personally think if wine was actually causing cancer, that it's not the wine itself, but the chemicals used to kill the pests in the vineyards. (Thank you Monsanto). But, the S.G. message is out now, and I don't think we'll win the war on that information. But I think this battle needs to be reframed as whole topic of, what is being sprayed on and chemically added to our food & drink supply. This year I'm trying to switch my wine consumption to organic, if I can. I know there are plenty of wineries that are using organic practices without the label, so that might be a fun topic of exploration as well. The young consumer prohibition is a hot topic and will be on a panel at the DTC Wine conference in Monterrey next week. Are you going? I'll be there! BTW - Congratulations on this new writing phase! I'm looking forward to your future posts!
So these statistics present a best-case scenario that a lifetime of total abstention, versus a lifetime of daily moderate wine drinking, decreases my chance of getting cancer by 3%, from 13% to 10%., not taking into account any possible offsetting cardiovascular benefits. That's not nothing, a fact we should acknowledge, but it's also very far from pack-a-day smoker territory, a reality that the hysterical media attention seems to be ignoring.
So if I drink a glass of wine a day I may extend my lifespan to 100 but may also die 2 weeks earlier than 100 due to a cancer caused by the glass of wine I drink a day maybe kinda sort possibly!
The problem is that no one is told the difference between relative and absolute risk and the sad reality that many do not understand percentages.The headline scary relative risks are always highlighted and the absolute ( actual) risk is always well hidden in the data and requires Science degree level to analyse the reports and make a fully informed choice.
All fine points, and increasingly the point I perfunctorily made in my post a couple of weeks ago. As you note the report says "increased cancer risk starts with the first drink." From my POV, it is the same as nonsensically writing this truism: "Boarding an airplane risks increasing chance of crashing and dying." or (probably) obviously "increased cancer risk starts with your first grilled steak'" Bottom line, don't believe anything fanatics and fundamentalist thinkers say.
Joel - I totally agree. But I think there's a trap here, which I may try to unravel in a future post. If we shrug off these statements as circular truisms, or as "nothing new," we risk getting sandbagged by an argument that gets locked into the public perception as truth, not truism.
I really appreciate this insight and take on the messaging. It reminds me of the book “How to Lie with Statistics.” Like another commenter, I think the “why” is a pretty important question. Is there any link to the rise of legalizing weed and some of the new health studies on that? Something political? Someone in charge has an issue with alcohol in general?
While I think Prohibition may be a bit strong of a word (it’s not like it’s being made illegal), it sure leans strongly into shaming.
One thing that hasn't been reported on is WHY the Surgeon General decided to release this Advisory, particularly when there are so many reasons not to—for example, the evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol reduces all-cause mortality. This question of WHY really interests me. Some have suggested that the Surgeon General knows the coming Dietary Guidelines will not be harsh enough on alcohol, so he wanted to weigh in to influence them. I'm not so sure. A good old-fashioned FOIA request is really in order.
I think you've got the right tack, Dave, pointing out that it's always been about the level of risk, not a binary outcome of imbibing=cancer and not-imbibing=no-cancer. The health authorities have advised appropriately in the past, that the more you drink, the greater your risk. I don't see any value in the change in messaging.
Excellent post, and I agree---neither of us would have the time to list all the factors that increase the risk of cancer or other diseases. What the government is losing sight of here (and not for the first time, as we know) is the concept of individual choice. If you believe alcohol is dangerous, don't drink it. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. We could go on and on, but it always seems to come down to people telling other people how to live (yep, I'm becoming a libertarian in my old age).
Excellent discussion. Merits of the studies aside, regarding the “WHY” the SG issued the Advisory, let’s add “Why NOW” - as in, why not a preventable cancer advisory during the first week on the job instead of the last?
Could party donations from the alcohol sector play a hand in timing, if not the advisory’s positioning? Maybe he wanted to issue this in Week 1 vs Week 208, but that would roil many political races. I have no idea about party affiliations and fundraising from these lobbyists, but it’s interesting to consider two scenarios. An early advisory during a democratic administration and congressional majority would likely be met with “hey dude can’t you just keep your mouth shut we’ve got the ball!” The late advisory heading into a republican administration and majority is saying “ok you guys deal with this one we are outta here”.
Ironic that President Trump has a wine label and does not drink. Or is it?
My dad was a political science professor. He would have loved batting this issue around from all sides. Perfect topic for a glass of Cabernet and a cigar.
Great post Dave! If you haven’t already heard it. Derek Thompson’s Plain English podcast from last Friday (1/17) was one of the most insightful conversations about the conflicting reports on alcohol consumption over the last few weeks.
Also see his article in The Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/moderate-drinking-warning-labels-cancer/681322/?gift=o6MjJQpusU9ebnFuymVdsD7vJ9S6Vd2LMCE-zROPKQs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Great post Dave! Too much of anything is bad. I personally think if wine was actually causing cancer, that it's not the wine itself, but the chemicals used to kill the pests in the vineyards. (Thank you Monsanto). But, the S.G. message is out now, and I don't think we'll win the war on that information. But I think this battle needs to be reframed as whole topic of, what is being sprayed on and chemically added to our food & drink supply. This year I'm trying to switch my wine consumption to organic, if I can. I know there are plenty of wineries that are using organic practices without the label, so that might be a fun topic of exploration as well. The young consumer prohibition is a hot topic and will be on a panel at the DTC Wine conference in Monterrey next week. Are you going? I'll be there! BTW - Congratulations on this new writing phase! I'm looking forward to your future posts!
So these statistics present a best-case scenario that a lifetime of total abstention, versus a lifetime of daily moderate wine drinking, decreases my chance of getting cancer by 3%, from 13% to 10%., not taking into account any possible offsetting cardiovascular benefits. That's not nothing, a fact we should acknowledge, but it's also very far from pack-a-day smoker territory, a reality that the hysterical media attention seems to be ignoring.
So if I drink a glass of wine a day I may extend my lifespan to 100 but may also die 2 weeks earlier than 100 due to a cancer caused by the glass of wine I drink a day maybe kinda sort possibly!
The problem is that no one is told the difference between relative and absolute risk and the sad reality that many do not understand percentages.The headline scary relative risks are always highlighted and the absolute ( actual) risk is always well hidden in the data and requires Science degree level to analyse the reports and make a fully informed choice.
Dave
All fine points, and increasingly the point I perfunctorily made in my post a couple of weeks ago. As you note the report says "increased cancer risk starts with the first drink." From my POV, it is the same as nonsensically writing this truism: "Boarding an airplane risks increasing chance of crashing and dying." or (probably) obviously "increased cancer risk starts with your first grilled steak'" Bottom line, don't believe anything fanatics and fundamentalist thinkers say.
Joel - I totally agree. But I think there's a trap here, which I may try to unravel in a future post. If we shrug off these statements as circular truisms, or as "nothing new," we risk getting sandbagged by an argument that gets locked into the public perception as truth, not truism.
I really appreciate this insight and take on the messaging. It reminds me of the book “How to Lie with Statistics.” Like another commenter, I think the “why” is a pretty important question. Is there any link to the rise of legalizing weed and some of the new health studies on that? Something political? Someone in charge has an issue with alcohol in general?
While I think Prohibition may be a bit strong of a word (it’s not like it’s being made illegal), it sure leans strongly into shaming.
One thing that hasn't been reported on is WHY the Surgeon General decided to release this Advisory, particularly when there are so many reasons not to—for example, the evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol reduces all-cause mortality. This question of WHY really interests me. Some have suggested that the Surgeon General knows the coming Dietary Guidelines will not be harsh enough on alcohol, so he wanted to weigh in to influence them. I'm not so sure. A good old-fashioned FOIA request is really in order.
I think you've got the right tack, Dave, pointing out that it's always been about the level of risk, not a binary outcome of imbibing=cancer and not-imbibing=no-cancer. The health authorities have advised appropriately in the past, that the more you drink, the greater your risk. I don't see any value in the change in messaging.
Excellent post, and I agree---neither of us would have the time to list all the factors that increase the risk of cancer or other diseases. What the government is losing sight of here (and not for the first time, as we know) is the concept of individual choice. If you believe alcohol is dangerous, don't drink it. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. We could go on and on, but it always seems to come down to people telling other people how to live (yep, I'm becoming a libertarian in my old age).