New DGAs and Alcohol

Sharing a post by Kevin C. Klatt, PhD, RD as an excellent, in-depth review of the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). I’m not a paid subscriber and could not directly comment regarding some of the links, but I did want to briefly focus on the alcohol language adding to my note from this morning.

After wading through well over a hundred pages of the guidance, it appears that Dr. Oz’s remarks at the news conference did not align with the actual language of the document (see page 5: cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf).

Multiple reports indicate that he characterized alcohol as a “social lubricant that brings people together,” adding that “nothing is likely healthier than enjoying time with friends in a safe manner,” and that alcohol is acceptable in “small amounts taken very judiciously and usually in a celebratory fashion.”

The guidance itself, however, states:

“Consume less alcohol for better overall health.” People who should completely avoid alcohol include pregnant women and individuals recovering from alcohol use disorder.

So while this may not represent the “complete reversal” widely reported, it does mark a small retreat from last year’s quantitative guidance (hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/…), replacing specific limits with the more ambiguous directive to “consume less.”

For reference, I’m including a couple of links below in case they’re useful for edits or context.

• forbes.com/sites/joshua…( a working link )

• nationalacademies.org/p…(this takes you to the actual NAS report - Chapter 5 most important from my perspective)

• cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf(this the 10-page synopsis)

Additional detail

Few people will dig deeply into the NAS report, but I did want to note that when I read it—many months ago—I found it relatively alcohol-friendly, particularly in how it framed potential bias and study selection. This was most evident in Chapter 5 on cancer. Those concerns were not mine alone; similar critiques were raised by other researchers in the field.

Once again, this underscores that scientific interpretation is just that—interpretation—often shaped by judgment calls and, at times, editorial framing.

For those interested, Stockwell et al. offer a direct critique:

Stockwell T, Priore I, Im PK. The U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Were Economical With the Truth About Alcohol and Health. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2025 Jul;86(4):651-656. doi: 10.15288/jsad.25-00075. Epub 2025 Mar 26. PMID: 40138218. doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2…

The authors argue that the NASEM report:

• placed greater weight on weaker observational studies than on genetic (Mendelian randomization) or randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence;

• failed to adequately account for the “sick quitter” effect and related biases that can make self-reported abstainers appear less healthy than drinkers;

• omitted discussion of comprehensive systematic reviews that addressed abstainer bias more rigorously; and

• excluded the majority of published studies examining alcohol and cancer outcomes.

They also highlight key methodological differences that help explain the markedly different conclusions reached by the NASEM report and the ICCPUD review (for reference: samhsa.gov/substance-us…).

Pretty much my persepctive after reading, but I’ll refrain from saying “the devil is in the details”… or omitted —oops, I just said it.