Last week the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approved wine labels that mention the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption. This is a great advance in bringing medical information to the public--great, that is, if you don't mind waiting half a decade for statements that allude only indirectly to long-established scientific knowledge.
An impressive body of research demonstrates that moderate alcohol consumption reduces the risk of coronary heart disease. When compared with nondrinkers, moderate drinkers--those who have, on average, one or two drinks a day--live longer and have significantly fewer heart attacks. The biological mechanism at work appears to involve alcohol's boosting effect on both clot-dissolving enzymes and high-density lipoprotein ("good" cholesterol).
By 1992 these benefits were so well documented that a New England Journal of Medicine review article characterized moderate consumption as one of nine major methods for reducing heart-attack risk. The overall data showed a 25% to 45% reduction in risk--benefits comparable to those of low-dose aspirin (33%) and a physically active lifestyle (45%). In 1995, the magnitude of the evidence led to a change in the federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which now expressly note the coronary benefits of moderate drinking.
This news didn't stay confined to medical journals and government brochures. Several "60 Minutes" shows acquainted the public with the "French paradox"--the fact that the French, despite a diet higher in fat than that of Americans and a more sedentary lifestyle, had a lower heart attack rate. One major reason, it seemed, was their regular consumption of wine.
But when it came to alcohol beverage labels and advertising, not a word about this was to be seen, thanks to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In a 1993 circular, ATF noted the industry's growing interest in such claims and then promptly squelched it. The agency announced that statements presenting "only a partial picture" of the issue were inherently misleading and therefore illegal. A "balanced" picture, in ATF's view, also had to present alcohol's risks and describe those special groups for whom the risks outweighed the benefits. ATF concluded that such a claim probably wouldn't fit on a normal label.
Over the next few years ATF killed at least a dozen moderate-consumption label and ad proposals, ranging from detailed discussions of the French paradox to short statements about health benefits to simple phrases such as "health giving." The two statements that ATF finally approved, after nearly two years of delay, do not even state that there are benefits. Instead, they advise consumers to consult their doctor or the Dietary Guidelines to learn about the "health effects" of moderate consumption.
You might think that, given all the publicity, everyone already knows of the benefits, ATF's ban notwithstanding. But a 1995 poll that we conducted demonstrated the opposite--most people did not know. And of the 42% who did know about the general issue, most got it wrong and thought that the benefits were limited to wine. The research in fact demonstrates that beer and spirits offer the same benefits.
As modest and overdue as ATF's label approval is, it has already been attacked by critics ranging from the Center for Science in the Public Interest to Sen. Strom Thurmond (R., S.C.). This is complex information, they claim, that is being simplistically condensed and will only give people another reason to drink. But consider how this issue was treated in a Consumer Reports health column several years back. A woman asked how she should balance wine's cardiac benefits against the increased risk of breast cancer. In the space of two sentences, the magazine's medical consultant explained that, for most women, heart disease posed a much greater risk than breast cancer; the cardiac benefits were thus the more important factor.
If Consumer Reports, not a magazine for those who live dangerously, could summarize the issue so succinctly, why shouldn't the industry be able to do the same? ATF itself admits it has no actual evidence that the public would be misled by ads or labels touting the benefits of moderate drinking. In any case, the real debate over trusting the public with the truth was settled by the First Amendment. As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens noted in a 1995 decision overturning a ban on beer label displays of alcohol content, the Constitution is "most skeptical" of laws "that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government believes to be their own good."
ATF has essentially banned anyone from yelling "L'Chaim!" (to life!) in a crowded liquor store. From the standpoint of either free speech or public health, one could not conceive of a more appropriate toast or of a more intemperate regulatory policy.
Sam Kazman is general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which, together with Consumer Alert, is currently challenging ATF's policy in federal court.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.