In Defense of Common Sense: Reframing the Alcohol Conversation

The increasingly absolutist tone in anti-alcohol messaging from public health institutions in both Canada and the U.S. is a turnoff and just misleading

Public health guidance should help people make informed decisions — not guilt them into fear. But lately, that balance feels off.

In recent years, we’ve seen an intensifying campaign against alcohol use coming from some government-funded institutions in both Canada and the U.S. Reports from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSA) and the U.S. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) are now asserting that no amount of alcohol is safe — even going so far as to suggest lifetime cancer risk starts with a single drink.

This absolutist messaging runs counter to how most Canadians experience wine — in moderation, in community, and often as part of meals. It also risks undermining trust in public health institutions by overstating conclusions based on flawed or inconclusive evidence.

That’s why I highly recommend reading Karen Graham’s excellent deep-dive on WineDrops titled: Wine Consumption, Anti-Alcohol Messaging, and Government Responses. It’s a clear-eyed review of how the science is being interpreted — and in some cases, distorted — to fit a predetermined narrative.

Here are a few key points she surfaces:

🔍 Flawed methodology and selective analysis:

Reports like the ICCPUD summary rely heavily on a study by Zhao et al. which uses mixed-effects models inappropriate for the kind of dose-response meta-analysis they attempted. As physician and vintner Dr. Laura Catena notes, a more robust statistical approach would have revealed protective effects of moderate drinking — particularly against coronary heart disease. But those findings were downplayed or omitted.

🧠 Cherry-picking of studies and exclusion of contrary evidence:

Only 16 studies (out of more than 6,000 reviewed) were deemed suitable for modeling by the CCSA, and just three had enough cancer data to justify stricter guidelines. Positive findings — such as reduced risk of ischemic heart disease, certain cancers, or Type 2 diabetes — were excluded or dismissed, despite being published in top journals like The Lancet, Circulation, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

📉 Lack of control for confounding factors:

Most of the data comes from observational studies where participants self-report their drinking. But the reports fail to control for key lifestyle factors like smoking, exercise, diet, and income — all of which significantly influence cancer or cardiovascular risk. As Dr. Harry Rakowski pointed out in a National Post op-ed, this amounts to confirmation bias: if you only measure alcohol’s harm, that’s all you’ll find.

📣 Overstated risk messaging:

Karen highlights how statistics were presented in ways that may mislead the public. For example, the CCSA report claims that just 3.5 drinks per week doubles your risk of laryngeal cancer — yet laryngeal cancer is diagnosed in fewer than 0.02% of Canadians, and is far more strongly linked to smoking.

🍷 Suppression of nuance around moderate drinking:

Medical experts like Dr. Catena and UCSF cardiologist Dr. Greg Marcus argue that we’re at a point of equipoise — where the health risks and benefits of light to moderate drinking are roughly equal. Moderate wine consumption, especially as part of the Mediterranean Diet, has been shown to reduce risks of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and even some cancers in people over 40.

Karen’s post isn’t a defence of excessive drinking — far from it. She rightly acknowledges the dangers of alcohol misuse and supports accurate, evidence-based education. But what she opposes (and what I also question) is the spread of fear-based messaging that ignores both the cultural role and the lived reality of how wine is consumed by most adults.

As she writes, there are signs that younger consumers, particularly so-called “Zillennials,” are more thoughtful and discerning about their choices. They’re not simply reacting to risk messaging; they’re weighing lifestyle benefits, social connection, and personal wellness. In other words, they’re engaging in exactly the kind of risk-benefit analysis we should encourage.

So yes, the wine sector is in a period of painful rebalancing. But consumers—and the science—are more complex than some recent headlines suggest. It’s time to speak up for moderation, for evidence, and for a smarter public health conversation.

Cheers to nuance!

***

Karen Graham is a good friend of BCWineLover and a fellow member of our ‘wine roundtable.’ She has over two decades in the Canadian wine industry in market and business development; public policy advocacy; and commentary “blended” with over a decade in senior advisory roles related to public policy development and advocacy in British Columbia (as principal of KMG Strategy), including policy analysis and development; strategic communications; government and stakeholder relations; and strategic planning. Read her commentary at WineDrops.ca.