1st BATCH OF FILES AVAILABLE NOW!

Though slated as “coming soon” in mid-May, it took longer for STAT News to complete its “Deadliest Drug” series on alcohol. Industry influence is the unsurprising alleged culprit for what the STAT authors perceive as a lack of progress on enacting alcohol policies and reducing harm. But just as the outlet’s intro piece played fast and loose with key data points, two later articles that attempt to link industry action with government inaction don’t quite seal the deal, leaving connections between some of these dots up to the reader’s imagination. Playing the Tobacco Card to Paint DC Day-to-Day as Dastardly In the seventh and final of STAT’s deep-dives, authors headline a “frazzled” industry that uses “behind the scenes” influence to get its way, drawing the inevitable comparison to tobacco. “Leveraging tactics that evoke the tobacco industry’s playbook, the industry has inserted itself into health philanthropy, federal science, and all levels of politics and policymaking,” STAT alleges. Yet the outlet also acknowledges that it accomplishes this “the way most other special interests do: by pouring time and copious amounts of money into politics.” Much like other critiques of industry lobbying, these authors describe business as usual in Washington but write about it as unseemly or underhanded.That’s one of many recasts or reframings the article uses to point the finger at industry for a perceived lack of progress. Through STAT’s lens, the somewhat natural embrace of low-carb, low-calorie and low-and-no alcohol offerings are drawn as craven attempts to make alcohol appear healthy. The millions in election-year campaign donations, armies of Capitol Hill lobbyists and connections between industry advocates and political strategists and fundraisers are all presented as somehow nefarious, attempting to explain “how special interests can trickle into public health messaging.”But the use of the word “trickle” hints at how the outlet only ever holds up indirect links. Former government-funded researchers commented that “it’s long been a concern inside health agencies that upsetting the industry could lead to budget cuts.” But it was “never a direct threat,” merely “a sense of caution that permeated official business.”ACS Gala in NYC, Drunk Driving Advocacy Under Fire? To prove their point, authors fixate on the long-running “Wine and Spirits Industry’s Gala,” an annual industry fundraiser for the American Cancer Society in NYC. National ACS leadership hasn’t attended in a decade, at least, and there’s a “firewall” between the events and science teams, the org pointed out. But a former organizer told STAT that he felt “indirect pressure to keep those donors happy” and a researcher-advocate based at Tufts found details of the event “shocking, actually.”A DC event hosted by the Scientific American journal served “specialty yuzu cocktails” to guests “before 5 p.m. on a Wednesday,” STAT explains, noting that the publisher confirmed with speakers that they were okay with it. What precisely is so troubling here? “All manner of health-focused events, from medical conferences to awards dinners and philanthropic fundraisers, feature free-flowing alcohol,” the authors write. But is that a result of “industry influence” or a decision made by event planners in the interest of their guests?Another apparently problematic practice is the partnership with MADD forged by the DISCUS-aligned Responsibility.org. “I just can’t say enough good about the work that they did to help us get that enacted,” MADD’s chief government affairs director said of the org and its help getting the HALT Drunk Driving Act passed in 2021. Yet STAT critiques the org for focusing on drunk driving without discussing links to overall consumption. Authors can’t seem to square the industry’s interest in reducing harm caused by excessive consumption without demonizing all drinking. (That’s particularly ironic given the outlet’s later explicit endorsement of harm reduction strategies; stay tuned.)A Plea to MAHA and the Trump Admin The outlet’s penultimate article, focused on MAHA and White House policy, appears to appeal to the Make America Healthy Again movement, attempting to make alcohol more central to its aims. It leverages the personal histories of both President Trump and Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, as well as the prior Trump Administration’s focus on opioids. “MAHA’s quest to vanquish the root causes of chronic disease has omitted an obvious foe: alcohol,” STAT asserts. It then hands it off to CEO of anti-industry advocate org USAPA, Mike Marshall, who claims that “if you’re truly committed to improving all of these different ills in society, and you’re going to stay blind to alcohol, you’re not really that committed to it.”But not all of MAHA agrees with the article’s basic assertion. “Alcohol isn’t what caused us to be the sickest, fattest, saddest, most infertile population in human history,” former Trump health advisor Katy Talento told the outlet. “Consumption hasn’t really changed as our health has dramatically changed,” she continued.So far, this second Trump Admin has “downplayed alcohol’s risks and actively derailed efforts to understand and prevent drinking-related harms, all while doing favors for the expansive alcohol industry,” STAT claims. That’s one way to put it. But the outlet again fails to connect all of the dots, not always acknowledging how those alcohol-related outcomes were often part of broader actions and more sweeping cuts.For instance, the 50% loss of substance use staff and the closing of the CDC’s alcohol program were among the massive cuts at HHS in the early days of the administration. STAT also shows how research funding coming out of NIAAA this fiscal year is $30 mil behind the average from 2017-2025. But it’s also $55 mil ahead of this time last year and ramped up in recent months, suggesting a catch up period after spending stopped entirely last year.The ICCPUD “Coup” and “Friendly” Tariffs? First in the list of the administration’s “most noteworthy actions on alcohol” is “burying a report that concluded light drinking poses risks,” per STAT. That, of course, is the infamous Alcohol Intake & Health Study conducted by a group of mostly anti-industry researcher-advocates under the banner of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking. And though the authors claim the study was “effectively erased by alcohol industry lobbying,” they were also among the numerous folks to report on its publication just last month. But blocking its use for the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans was “perhaps the biggest coup for the alcohol industry,” in STAT’s view.The outlet offers other incomplete pictures of apparently “friendly” actions by the Trump Admin, including lifting tariffs on Scotch whiskey and pursuing talks to open up India’s whiskey market. But that’s a remarkable mischaracterization as the imposition of tariffs and strained international trade is among the top complaints that industry advocates have with the White House (which were only exacerbated further in the last 24 hours).The outlet also works to connect Trump’s personal finances to alcohol, citing stakes in major public companies, alcohol sales at hotels and gift shops, the winery owned by son Eric, and Anheuser-Busch’s major sponsorship of America 250 celebrations. But is this not also business as usual for this president? The health-focused pub appears to take issue with fairly common advocacy practices because alcohol carries health risks. However, most of its series on the topic focuses not on the industry’s activities in Washington, but on problems with the country’s health systems. Cheers,

STAT News Series Misses Connections in Focus on Industry, Trump Admin

Publishing Info