OPINION:
If you had Googled the term “binge drinking” around New Year’s Eve, hundreds of stories would have popped up with titles like “How Not to Blow it on New Year’s Eve” and “Seven Ways to Minimize a Hangover.” That’s because no holiday conjures images of hard-partying binge drinking quite like the last day of the year.
But not everyone thinks about binge drinking the same way.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), it’s not just the folks consuming bottles of Champagne or doing keg stands over the holidays who are causing problems. Having a glass or two of wine (depending on your gender) most evenings is considered “excessive drinking.” And the agency claims that behavior is costing our economy billions every year.
If the line between “moderate” and “excessive” drinking seems a bit thin to you, you’re not alone. The CDC’s view on excessive alcohol consumption stands in direct contrast to another federal agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Every two years, the USDA publishes a new edition of its “Dietary Guidelines,” advising Americans about what is healthy to eat and drink, and how much one ought to consume. In recent editions, the USDA advises “moderate alcohol consumption” of one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
The USDA bases its recommendations on the large volume of research showing moderate drinking can have health benefits. Studies published in the last year have linked low levels of alcohol consumption by some populations to lower heart disease risks, better control of diabetes, improved memory, and fewer instances of certain cancers.
The CDC considers drinking “excessive” if a woman consumes more than eight drinks per week or a man consumes more than 15. So while one drink per day is healthy, a woman who indulges in a second glass of wine some nights finds herself suddenly in the CDC’s “excessive” drinking category.
Government agencies contradicting one another isn’t a new phenomenon. And the CDC’s extremely conservative definition of binge drinking might not be so disconcerting if it weren’t being used by anti-alcohol activist groups to justify the elimination of alcohol advertising and raising alcohol taxes.
As research released earlier this year from the University of Texas at Austin reiterates, advertising has little effect on how much people drink. Instead, advertising affects which brands or categories of alcoholic beverages consumers choose. In other words, an ad might affect whether you choose to drink Dewar’s or Johnnie Walker, but not whether you decide to have a drink.
And studies show that higher taxes don’t target those who are alcohol dependent; instead, they are regressive and hit moderate social drinkers squarely in the wallet.
Those who are addicted to alcohol — the ones who should be the focus of these large government agencies’ policies — are the least sensitive to price increases. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that alcohol tax increases did not affect the 5 percent of consumers who are the heaviest drinkers. Instead, higher prices encourage abusive drinkers to switch to cheaper brands.
In other words, government agencies and anti-alcohol activists pursue policies that would disproportionately affect regular social drinkers having a couple of beers at a barbecue, a couple of glasses of wine at dinner, or indulging a bit on New Year’s Eve. This is a waste of resources at best and detrimental to American well-being at worst. Such groups should focus their attention on the small slice of the population who are problem drinkers and actually need help.
In past years I testified about alcohol abusers who drive. They were the most at risk of dying in a crash. Today the statistics tell the same story. In 2014, 79 percent of drunken-driving deaths were the drunk drivers themselves or their adult passengers, who presumably knew the driver was wasted. While I appealed for helping these people with their suicidal behaviors, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving were more interested in attacking any drinking instead of helping those with an acknowledged addiction. It’s past time we shift policies so that the solutions are matched to the problem.
Alcohol abuse is a serious problem. But defining the problem down so that Americans who drink moderately and even healthily are just sips away from being categorized as problem drinkers is grossly misguided. As we begin 2016, the CDC should make a New Year’s resolution to steer resources to helping those with alcohol addictions get the treatment they need, not branding you a binge drinker for ordering that second drink.
• Richard Berman is president of Berman and Co., a Washington public affairs firm.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.