Auto logout in seconds.
Continue LogoutJust one alcoholic drink a day resulted in an increased risk of premature death from an illness or injury directly related to alcohol, according to a government-funded study recently published independently after one of the officials involved in the study accused the Trump administration of "sidelining" the research.
For the study, researchers analyzed U.S. health data and assessed relationships between average alcohol consumption and the risk of disease or death from causes directly attributed to drinking.
They found the overall increased risk of premature death from an illness or injury attributable to alcohol was 1 in 1,000 at one drink per day, but those odds increased to 1 in 25 for those who had two drinks per day, a level previously considered safe for men.
The study also found that women who had one drink per day were more likely to die of liver cancer than women who didn't drink at all. In addition, both men and women saw an increased risk of dying from liver cirrhosis and oral and esophageal cancers at just one drink per day, according to the study. Risks continued to climb with higher levels of consumption.
Consuming more than one alcoholic drink per occasion was also associated with progressively higher risks of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and injury.
However, the study found that one drink per day was associated with a lower risk of diabetes for women and a lower risk of stroke for both men and women, though occasional heavy drinking nullified the positive effects against stroke risk.
Timothy Naimi, an author on the study and director of the University of Victoria's Canadian institute for Substance Use Research, said the findings are "in line with the latest science that basically shows less is better when it comes to health."
The new study was originally commissioned by the Biden administration through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) alongside another study conducted by a panel from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to inform an update to U.S. dietary guidelines.
The NASEM report suggested that moderate drinking — defined as up to two drinks per day for men and one for women — was healthier than not drinking at all, though it noted that moderate drinking was linked to a higher risk of breast cancer.
Critics of the NASEM study noted that the report looked at overall death rates of moderate drinkers, including deaths not directly related to alcohol, and that people who drink in moderation often have other healthy lifestyle factors that contribute to their longevity. In addition, the moderate drinking group included many people who consumed fewer than two drinks per day.
Ned Calonge, an epidemiologist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and leader of the NASEM study, said he stood by the results.
"Alcohol research is complex and I am not surprised by different methods producing different results," he said, adding that modeling studies like the other alcohol study which use data to estimate lifetime risk of disease and deaths caused by alcohol also come with potential biases.
However, Calonge added, "I don't believe anyone should start drinking for health reasons."
New U.S. dietary guidelines were published by the Trump administration in January and advised consuming "less alcohol for better overall health" but did not offer concrete guidance on what "less" means.
In an editorial accompanying the new study, Robert Vincent, a former SAMHSA official who was involved in the study and who was laid off last year as part of a government reduction in force, accused the Trump administration of "sidelining" the research, saying that he believed he was fired because the report produced evidence "at odds with commercial interests."
"It was going to cost the alcohol industry money," Vincent said. "They didn't like going from two [alcoholic drinks] to one for men, and they didn't like the mention of cancer."
After a draft report of the study was released last year, the House oversight committee criticized it, calling it "fraught with bias" and accusing the study authors of having predetermined conclusions based on their past research and affiliations.
Vincent said in an interview with the Associated Press that the study authors were thoroughly vetted for conflicts and the findings were scientifically sound. He added that while he was part of the Trump administration, he was "asked to kill the study" but didn't.
HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture "reviewed the study alongside the broader body of available scientific evidence and followed the established process for developing the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans," said Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS. "The Guidelines are informed by the totality of the scientific record, not any single report or analysis."
(Ungar/Swenson, Associated Press, 6/9; Rabin, New York Times, 6/9; Cueto, STAT, 6/9)
Create your free account to access 1 resource, including the latest research and webinars.
You have 1 free members-only resource remaining this month.
1 free members-only resources remaining
1 free members-only resources remaining
You've reached your limit of free insights
Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.
You've reached your limit of free insights
Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.
This content is available through your Curated Research partnership with Advisory Board. Click on ‘view this resource’ to read the full piece
Email ask@advisory.com to learn more
Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.
This is for members only. Learn more.
Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.