USDA Is In Cahoots With Dairy Industry. National Institutes Of Health Is In Cahoots With Alcohol Industry.

The US government has become a big, cheap, and effective public relations operation for industry. Right?

First I discover the USDA is partnering with the dairy industry to get Americans to eat more cheese.

Doctors Denounce Government Partnership with Pizza Hut to Push Cheese, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 2 March 2018

The USDA tells Americans to limit saturated fat and sodium in the Dietary Guidelines and then turns around and partners with Pizza Hut to get Americans to eat more cheese—the leading source of saturated fat and sodium in the American diet.

The USDA’s Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) spends millions of taxpayer dollars working with fast-food chains to develop cheesy, high-fat menu items and promote them to the American public.

Now I discover National Institutes of Health (NIH) (specifically, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Let that sink in.) is partnering with the alcohol industry to promote alcohol consumption.

Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking, New York Times, 17 March 2018

The New York times discovered this through documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. So much for transparency.

This is how the government spun it to industry:

“A definitive clinical trial represents a unique opportunity to show that moderate alcohol consumption is safe and lowers risk of common diseases,” said one slide in the scientists’ presentation at The Breakers. “That level of evidence is necessary if alcohol is to be recommended as part of a healthy diet.”

But as I said up top:

Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University School of Public Health who was shown slides from the scientists’ presentation at The Breakers by The Times, said the study “is not public health research — it’s marketing.”

Why does it not count as credible research? Because:

“Volunteers … will be told to have one serving of alcohol a day.”

People do not equate one serving of alcohol with “moderate drinking.” The NIH itself defines “moderate drinking” as 2 drinks a day for men, not one. This study was designed to let alcohol off the hook. Even the length of time benefits the alcohol industry:

“The study will be too short to detect an increase in cancers linked to alcohol consumption, which may take decades to develop.”

I know what you’re thinking … “But moderate drinking has benefits.” Unfortunately, that is also industry spin:

At a cost of $100 million, the new trial aims to resolve a persistent medical conundrum. Though excessive drinking is harmful and problem drinking is on the rise in the United States, many observational studies have found that moderate drinkers outlive abstainers and have less heart disease.

There is no conundrum. Moderate drinkers do not outlive true abstainers:

1. Light-to-moderate drinkers who appear healthy in studies tend to belong to higher socioeconomic classes. They may appear healthy in spite of the alcohol, not because of it.

2. Light-to-moderate drinkers may appear healthier than abstainers (J-curve) but newer studies show that these “abstainers” were not true abstainers, they just stopped drinking after they got sick. When you look at true abstainers, the J-curve goes away and becomes linear.

The article says that this trial is so cost- and labor-intensive that it will probably be the final word on whether moderate drinking is good or bad. I predict they will find it good, because:

Most of the cost of this government trial, however, is being picked up by five of the world’s largest alcoholic beverage makers — Anheuser-Busch InBev, Heineken, Diageo, Pernod Ricard and Carlsberg.

We don’t need this trial. We already know that alcohol is not part of a healthful diet. This is a waste of $100 million and a waste of the lives of people who will die prematurely from drinking.

No Amount of Alcohol Is Safe, Medscape, April 2014

“Responsible drinking” has become a 21st-century mantra for how most people view alcohol consumption. But when it comes to cancer, no amount of alcohol is safe. That is the conclusion of the 2014 World Cancer Report (WCR), issued by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

A causal relationship exists between alcohol consumption and cancers of the mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon-rectum, liver, and female breast; a significant relationship also exists between alcohol consumption and pancreatic cancer.

But surely, light drinking doesn’t cause or contribute to cancer? Apparently, it does.

Cigarettes cause cancer, radiation causes cancer, alcohol causes cancer, processed meat causes cancer. They are all carcinogenic to humans. But:

1. They are dose-dependent.
2. It matters how else you live your life.

So, whether you get cancer from them depends on your total risk profile … the amount of your exposure, whether you exercise, eat a healthful diet, get adequate sleep, possess good healthcare, etc. If you engage in all 4 of the behaviors in Group 1 in the chart below, well then. That’s just an invitation.

By the way, dairy food is also not part of a healthful diet.

7 thoughts on “USDA Is In Cahoots With Dairy Industry. National Institutes Of Health Is In Cahoots With Alcohol Industry.

  1. mboydp

    This is very interesting. Dairy food is also not good for the cows, goats, sheep, etc. or for their offspring who get sold for meat in lieu of getting their mothers’ milk.


  2. Bix Post author

    If someone smoked and they got lung cancer, people might think, “Well, what did they expect?”. Because the tobacco industry doesn’t control the message anymore.

    If someone drank and they they got breast cancer or throat or stomach cancer, people should also think, “Well, what did they expect?”. But they don’t because the alcohol industry still controls the message.


  3. Bix Post author

    Dr. Collins (director of the NIH since 2009, reupped by Trump in 2017*) has decided to investigate the collusion between the NIH and the alcohol industry, as well as the design of the study. He should. It’s a disgrace.

    N.I.H. to Investigate Outreach to Alcohol Companies

    * On July 8, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Collins as Director of the National Institutes of Health and the Senate unanimously confirmed him for the post. He was sworn in by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on August 7, 2009. – Wikipedia


  4. Bix Post author

    The study, paid for largely by the alcohol industry, is sure to find that drinking alcohol in moderation every day is beneficial. I mean, would they come out and say that it’s harmful? Would they reiterate that this study is the last word?

    Compared to women who don’t drink at all, women who have three alcoholic drinks per week have a 15% higher risk of breast cancer. Experts estimate that the risk of breast cancer goes up another 10% for each additional drink women regularly have each day.

    Teen and tween girls aged 9 to 15 who drink three to five drinks a week have three times the risk of developing benign breast lumps. (Certain categories of non-cancerous breast lumps are associated with a higher risk of breast cancer later in life.)


  5. Bix Post author

    Women and girls should know the significant risk that comes with drinking alcohol, any amount, vis-a-vis breast lumps and cancer. That they don’t … there’s an element of sexism in that.


  6. Pingback: Is It Better To Drink A Little Alcohol Than None At All? | Fanatic Cook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s