A parallel, opaque review process has been started by a secretive, six-person panel. This panel operates deep within the Department of Health and Human Services, receiving little public scrutiny.

In Wisconsin, tavern owners are proud to open their doors to just about everyone, without judgement of what their customers choose to drink.

But right now, in Washington, DC, a few little-known anti-alcohol activists are about to have a big impact on the beer you drink – unless something is done, and soon.

Every five years, the U.S. government reviews the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. For a decade or more, the guidelines have said it’s OK to have one beer (or cocktail or glass of wine) per day if you’re a woman, and two if you’re a man. Those decisions were made based on a scientific review.

But in 2023, the World Health Organization declared that “no safe level” of alcohol exists, and now the anti-alcohol activists in this country are coming for everyone’s beer.

And this time around, the dietary guidelines process appears to be heading in an alcohol-free direction, thanks in large part to zero-tolerance temperance groups that object to all drinking – even in moderation.

Federal agency reviewing dietary guidelines, including alcohol

In Washington, in addition to the normal review of the dietary guidelines process, a parallel, opaque review process has been started by a secretive, six-person panel. This panel operates deep within the Department of Health and Human Services, receiving little scrutiny from the public. 

It may seem far-fetched, but the truth is that behind closed doors, this six-person body will help decide whether the government should tell you that no amount of alcohol is safe to consume.

A hunt shouldn’t cause rancor. Wisconsin has stable and growing sandhill crane population.

Is this a fair and balanced approach? Can we trust these six people to determine what science that’s out there is sound, and judge it by a preponderance of the evidence as they’re supposed to?

The Wall Street Journal isn’t so sure. According to their reporting, half of the panel have already made up their minds, having authored reports that say any amount of alcohol is harmful. Can they be trusted to take an honest look at the evidence?

There is plenty of evidence that people who drink in moderation live as long or longer than people who do not. Telling people not to drink at all could well cause them to just disregard all advice regarding drinking.

This could be the start of alcohol scold culture, Prohibition 2.0

It might also lead us further down the road to a “scold” culture – to a Prohibition 2.0. If you’re attending the Wisconsin State Fair, celebrating Oktoberfest, tailgating at Camp Randall or having a beer after a long day at work, we just don’t need Washington telling us we shouldn’t have any alcohol at all.

Toasting Prohibition’s end: Turns out this ‘failure’ led to longer life spans

One person who we know understands the importance of this issue is U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. We’re grateful to her for her work to bring light to this issue, and if you see her, we encourage you to thank her. We hope she can use her position to tell the White House to stop this rogue panel from conducting its stealth Prohibition campaign.

The process of reviewing the guidelines should be open and transparent. It should be free of the influence of those with an agenda or a conflict of interest. And it should be decided as the law requires – by a preponderance of sound scientific evidence – not by the whims of anti-alcohol groups.

Keith Kern is the President of the Tavern League of Wisconsin

CNN
 — 

The Metropolitan Police Department said it arrested a Texas woman who traveled to Washington, DC, for allegedly making threats against former President Donald Trump and carrying a gun without a license.

Police were first alerted to woman Friday afternoon by the US Secret Service, according to a police report obtained by CNN.

Officers found the woman and her Honda Accord in a residential area in northeastern DC, according to the report and a police news release.

Police said they charged 41-year-old Christina Montoya of San Antonio, Texas, with carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and making threats against a former president. Montoya was in custody Friday night, according to the news release.

The police report indicates the threats against Trump started on July 20. Police did not provide any specifics about the alleged threats.

CNN was not immediately able to identify an attorney for Montoya.

Officers recovered a silver Smith and Wesson M&P Shield pistol, a magazine and a gun lock, according to the police report.

Political violence has been at the forefront of the national discourse in recent weeks after an assassination attempt was made against the former president at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13.

Visit WTOP’s Election 2024 page for our comprehensive coverage. Listen live to 103.5 FM for the latest. Sign up for WTOP’s Election Desk newsletter for headlines and analysis from now until Inauguration Day.

The District of Columbia’s Board of Elections has decided that voters should choose whether they want to institute ranked choice voting and open primary elections to independent voters.

On Friday, the board went along with the recommendations of its executive director, Monica Evans, and approved Initiative 83, also known as the “Ranked Choice Voting and Open the Primary Elections to Independent Voters Act of 2024,” which would place the item on the November general election ballot.

BOE senior policy adviser Alice Miller, speaking on behalf of Evans, said more than 35,000 eligible signatures were received on petitions to put the issues on the ballot, far more than the 5% minimum of registered voters.

Under ranked choice voting, rather than the current process of casting a single vote, a voter can choose their favorite candidate, then rank back up choices second, third, fourth and fifth.

The measure would also allow independent voters to cast a ballot in a primary election. Currently, only registered Democrats and Republicans are allowed to vote in each of their party’s primaries.

In a statement, Lisa D.T. Rice, with the group Make All Votes Count DC — which advocated for ranked choice voting — thanked the Board of Elections for validating tens of thousands of D.C. voters’ signatures.

“These and many more D.C. voters have told us how Initiative 83 would finally give independents a vote in the primary, as well as allow all D.C. voters to use ranked choice voting to hold politicians accountable to a majority of voters,” said Rice.

BOE Chairman Gary Thompson said the agency doesn’t take a position on either issue.

“Take the issue to the voters. At the end of the day, it’s an initiative about how voters should vote,” Thompson said. “And who should decide how voters should vote, (but) the voters.”

Thompson said each side has “excellent and reasonable arguments” to take to the voters, whether they prefer to change voting procedures.

“Educate them,” Thompson said. “People have heard about this, but I think our voters have a long way to go before November to really hear out both sides.”

Thompson said he looks forward to hearing both sides of the argument on whether to implement ranked choice voting and allow independents to vote in primaries.

He said he too remains undecided “like probably a lot of people in D.C.”

The act will take effect after a 30-day period of Congressional review under the Home Rule Act, which allows the District government to pass local laws.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

© 2024 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.