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