Exclusive-US to drop guidance to limit alcohol to one or two drinks per day, sources say
(Reuters) -U.S. Dietary Guidelines are expected to eliminate the long-standing recommendation that adults limit alcohol consumption to one or two drinks per day, according to three sources familiar with the matter, in what could be a major win for an industry threatened by heightened scrutiny of alcohol's health effects.
The updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which could be released as early as this month, are expected to include a brief statement encouraging Americans to drink in moderation or limit alcohol intake due to associated health risks, the sources said.
The guidelines are still under development and subject to change, two of the sources and a fourth individual familiar with the process said.
Currently, the recommendations advise limiting drinking to one serving or less per day for women and two or less for men, widely seen as a moderate level.
Similar guidelines exist in countries such as the United Kingdom, which advises limiting drinking to 14 units per week, while Canada, however, has adopted a more cautious stance, warning that health risks begin to increase after just two drinks per week.
Even moderate drinking is linked to some health risks, such as higher risk of breast cancer, though some studies have also found an association with possible health benefits, such as a lower risk of stroke.
The fourth source said that the scientific basis for recommending specific daily limits is limited, and the goal is to ensure the guidelines reflect only the most robust evidence.
The new guidelines, developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are closely watched internationally and influence policies ranging from school lunch programs to medical advice. Neither department responded to requests for comment.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a known teetotaler, has remained largely silent on alcohol but has emphasised a focus on whole foods in the upcoming guidelines.
Some alcohol executives had feared a move towards tighter recommendations on alcohol intake as authorities like the World Health Organization upped their warnings about alcohol's health risks.
Former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said alcohol consumption increases the risk of at least seven types of cancer and called for warning labels on alcoholic drinks.
Major industry players, including Diageo and Anheuser-Busch InBev, have lobbied lawmakers throughout the review process. Senate records show each company spent millions on lobbying efforts related to the guidelines and a range of other issues such as tax and trade in 2024 and 2025. Both companies declined to comment.
The new guidelines are set to move away from suggesting consumers limit alcohol consumption to a specific number of daily servings, according to the three sources, who asked not to be named in order to speak freely.
One person said the new alcohol-related recommendation will probably be limited to a sentence or two. Another said the existing numbers tied to moderate drinking could still appear in a longer appendix.
While industry representatives have lobbied lawmakers on the guidelines or how they should be decided, some officials and researchers advocated for tighter restrictions.
Reports intended to inform the guidelines have meanwhile drawn different conclusions about alcohol's health effects and the science around this.
'UNHELPFUL'
The guidelines, which are reviewed every five years, have advised drinking in moderation and defined that as no more than one drink per day for women and no more than two for men since 1990.
Eva Greenthal, a senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit focused on nutrition, health and food safety, said the more general language expected in the guidelines was "so vague as to be unhelpful".
Under such a change, the message that even moderate drinking can increase risks, especially for breast cancer, would get lost, she continued.
Two studies were produced to inform the development of the guidelines. The first found that moderate drinking was associated with increased risk of some cancers, but a decreased risk of dying from any cause and some cardiovascular problems like stroke.
The evidence for some other health impacts was insufficient to draw conclusions, it found.
The other report conversely found the risk of dying from alcohol use, including increased risk for seven cancers, begins at any or low levels of alcohol use and increases with higher consumption.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
If you live in these states, your health care won't be as big or beautiful
Democratic-leaning states will feel more of the impact of sweeping Medicaid cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to a new analysis by Oxford Economics. The report, authored by lead economist Barbara Denham, says that millions of Americans – regardless of where they live – will lose access to health insurance because of the tighter eligibility rules and new work requirements. Immigrants will be disproportionately affected, with many losing coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and the Children's Health Insurance Program. States such as California and New York – which have both expanded Medicaid and have large immigrant populations – are expected to be hit hardest. Other vulnerable states with large immigrant populations include Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington, D.C. 'Federal funding cuts and the expiration of the Marketplace subsidies will have several economic consequences,' Denham wrote. 'The number of newly uninsured will rise significantly, putting more at risk of worse long-term well-being, which will sap productivity growth' States with the highest percentage of residents enrolled in Medicaid Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them. The new law limits federal matching funds for noncitizens' medical care, shifting the financial burden to state governments and hospitals. That's particularly concerning for states with high percentages of foreign-born residents, many of whom rely on Medicaid. The federal cuts to Medicaid funding come at a time when states are looking to trim their spending, too. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported California has paused enrolling new immigrants in its health coverage program while Illinois has stopped state-funded health benefits for all immigrant adults between 42 to 64. States such as Idaho and Tennessee also enacted legislation limiting immigrant access to state health care benefits. States with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents Since 2012, 40 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid under federal initiatives. But with the expiration of marketplace subsidies and new restrictions on immigrant coverage, a handful of states now face the steepest declines in federal health care funding. Based on Oxford Economics' analysis of Congressional Budget Office and KFF data, more left-leaning states will lose more money per resident as the new law rolls out, but right-leaning Louisiana stands to lose the most ($5,855 per resident) of any state. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Wyoming – states that didn't expand their Medicaid benefits – will see some of the smallest cuts. How much Medicaid funding each state is projected to lose per resident Some states have passed laws to buffer their residents or their budgets against federal cuts. For example: ◾ Their residents: New York, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Dakota require coverage for adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty line. ◾ Their budgets: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia tie Medicaid spending to federal funding levels.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Thousands of Americans Told to Avoid Drive-Thru Lanes
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Thousands of Americans have been told to avoid drive-thru lanes amid concerns over high air pollution levels. The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued air quality alerts in Colorado, Texas, Nevada and Wyoming for Wednesday. The warnings mean ground-level ozone and particulate concentrations are forecast to reach dangerous levels. In some areas, the pollution comes from drifting wildfire smoke. Why It Matters The NWS warned that the general public as well as sensitive groups—children, seniors, and individuals with preexisting respiratory or heart conditions—might experience health effects linked to poor air quality in the affected regions. "Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with lung disease, such as asthma," the NWS said. "Active children and adults, and people with lung disease, such as asthma, should reduce prolonged or heavy outdoor exertion." People wait in a queue at a drive-thru food distribution event in Austin, Texas, in 2021. People wait in a queue at a drive-thru food distribution event in Austin, Texas, in 2021. Mario Cantu/CSM/ZUMA Wire/Cal Sport Media/AP What To Know In Texas, an Ozone Action Day has been issued for the Houston, Galveston and Brazoria area, and the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area on Wednesday. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) said that residents in these areas can reduce ozone pollution by "sharing a ride, walking, riding a bicycle, taking your lunch to work, avoiding drive-thru lanes, conserving energy and keeping your vehicle properly tuned." In Wyoming, an air quality alert for wildfire smoke has been issued until 1 p.m. on Wednesday for portions of the Bighorn Basin, Owl Creek Mountains, Bridger Mountains and Absaroka Mountains. Wildfire smoke across the Bighorn Basin, especially from the Red Canyon Fire, as well as fires in Idaho and Nevada, will continue to spread across the region on Wednesday. In Nevada, an Air Quality Action Day has been forecast for southwest Elko County, including Elko City, for elevated particulate matter. The air pollution is expected to be in the unhealthy for sensitive groups range. Meanwhile in Colorado, an Ozone Action Day Alert has been issued for the Front Range Urban Corridor until 4 p.m. on Wednesday. Hot and stagnant weather will allow ozone levels to reach levels that unhealthy for sensitive groups. "If possible, please help us reduce ozone pollution by limiting driving gas and diesel-powered vehicles until at least 4 p.m.," the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said. What People Are Saying The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality said in a statement: "The Wyoming Department of Health recommends that the elderly, young children, and individuals with respiratory problems avoid excessive physical exertion and minimize outdoor activities during this time. "Wildfire smoke is made up of a variety of pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone, which can cause respiratory health effects. Although these people are most susceptible to health impacts, the Department of Health also advises that everyone should avoid prolonged exposure to poor air quality conditions." Jonathan Grigg, a professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, previously told Newsweek that there are "very clear links" between inhaling particles and earlier death from both respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. He added: "There are vulnerable groups and classically they are children because they've got an extra issue to do with their lungs developing, whereas our lungs are not developing as adults." What Happens Next The air quality warnings are currently set to remain in force until Wednesday afternoon in Wyoming and Colorado, and for the whole day in Texas and Nevada. Regular updates regarding air pollution levels are issued on the NWS website and on the Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow interactive map.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
'Beware' Mousse-Based Sunscreen, FDA Warns
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While some sunscreens may look more appealing than others, the jury is now out on whether certain types do what they say on the bottle. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to "beware" sunscreen products that come in mousse form because they might not be effective. The federal agency has sent warning letters to five companies marketing sunscreen products in mousse-style—including brands Supergoop!, Vacation Inc., Kalani Sunwear, Botao Baby and Tizo Skin—and citing efficacy concerns, regulatory violations and packaging risks. Some companies are already pulling products from their U.S. sites, such as Kalani Sunwear. Woman applying sunscreen on man's face outdoors. Woman applying sunscreen on man's face outdoors. JordiThe FDA's letter to Supergoop!, for example, reads in part: "This letter is to advise you that on May 2nd, 2025 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed your product labeling, including your website, where your 'Supergoop! PLAY SPF 50 BODY MOUSSE' drug product is available for purchase in the United States without a prescription." It said that based on their labeling—e.g. "Broad Spectrum Sunscreen SPF 50" and "Helps prevent sunburn..."—it is intended for use as an over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug product, but no FDA-approved relevant application is in effect for this. On X, the FDA also warned: "Some mousse sunscreen products resemble whipped cream containers and may put consumers at risk if ingested." Beware of sunscreen products in mousse form because they might not be effective. The FDA issued five warning letters to companies marketing sunscreen products in mousse form: — FDA Drug Information (@FDA_Drug_Info) August 12, 2025 In light of this, Newsweek spoke to dermatologist professor Adam Friedman of the George Washington University about what the FDA warning means for Americans' sunscreen routines and how to choose safe and effective protection. "Sunscreens are OTC drugs, which distinguishes them from a moisturizer or a cosmeceutical. It means the regulation, the expectation in terms of efficacy, how well it works and safety is going to be different," Friedman explained. "But also what it relates to is not just the active ingredient, but the formulation—and that's where the whole mess comes in. "As of right now, under the 'monograph'—the umbrella of what is considered a sunscreen—oils, creams, lotions, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, powders, sprays and sticks fall under the category. Mousses and foams do not." Efficacy and safety are then a separate issue. "A mousse or a foam are aerated, and therefore how they interface with the skin when you rub them on may be very different from a cream or a spray or a stick," said Friedman. "We don't know if, based on that formulation, your UV filters—whether mineral or chemical—are going to behave the same way in the approved formulations. We can't guarantee that these mousse formulation sunscreens will actually work, let alone guarantee their safety." While Friedman said it is "concerning" some brands have not followed the correct process he hopes they were "trying to provide more options to hopefully ensure everyone is using a sun protection product". Smiling woman applying sunscreen on her face while looking in mirror in her bathroom. Smiling woman applying sunscreen on her face while looking in mirror in her bathroom. Ridofranz/Getty Images When deciding how to pick out the best sunscreen, Friedman advises going with the path of least risk. "That's going to be the sunscreens that do follow the monograph," he urged. "I tend to also say, go with the larger brand companies, because they have the size, wherewithal and resources to actually study their products. Not just ensure they meet FDA guidelines, but they'll do clinical studies to look at tolerability, cosmesis [preservation of appearance] and even the effect of these sunscreens on other things. "We use sunscreen not just to protect against skin cancer, but also accelerated skin aging and skin discoloration." Friedman said finding one that's right for you is still important. "Take these tried and true brands and do patch testing to see A) does your skin tolerate it and B) does it rub in well so you're not walking around with a white or purple cast. Samples from the dermatology office are so helpful." He recommends wearing at least an SPF 30 or higher each day. "I tend to say 50, not because there's such a huge delta between 30 and 50—and you will never 100 percent block UV radiation—but because these numbers are based on the FDA approach to measuring efficacy," Friedman said. While it's based on a set concentration of two milligrams of sunscreen per centimeter square of skin, most people don't put that much on. "The higher SPFs are good because it takes into account human error," he added. "With how much people are actually applying, a 70 ends up being a 40 and a 50 ends up being 30. "So in an ideal world: SPF, 30, maybe 50, broad spectrum, water resistant to 80 minutes. Then it's about what plays nice on your skin." Friedman himself wears sunscreen all year round, even in winter. "Every day to exposed areas. Do you brush your teeth every day? Sunscreen is the brushing the teeth of the skin. We brush our teeth to protect the integrity and health of our teeth. Applying sunscreen is the exact same thing." He also emphasized sunscreen is just one protection factor that should be used alongside wearing hats, sunglasses, the right clothing, seeking shade during peak hours and being fully aware. This includes knowing that windows won't block out UVA (while this will less likely cause burning, it can increase the risk of accelerated skin aging because it penetrates deeper). Supergoop! told Newsweek: "At Supergoop! we remain committed to innovation in sun care and the highest standards of product efficacy and safety. The recent communication from the FDA regarding our PLAY SPF 50 Body Mousse is focused on product labeling and has nothing to do with its safety, effectiveness, or formula. We are working closely with the FDA to resolve this matter as we continue to uphold the high standards our consumers expect from us." Vacation Inc told Newsweek: "At Vacation Sunscreen, we take regulatory compliance seriously and appreciate the opportunity to address the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recent Warning Letter. We have full confidence in the safety, efficacy, and integrity of our product. We are committed to working collaboratively with the FDA to satisfactorily resolve this matter." Kalani Sunwear told Newsweek:"Kalani Sunwear acknowledges receipt of the FDA letter and has voluntarily paused sales in the U.S. while we review the administrative requirements. Importantly, the letter relates to regulatory classification only—not to the safety or efficacy of our SPF 50 mousse. Our formula is manufactured in Sweden, independently tested to EU standards, and uses advanced UV filters that are not yet approved in the U.S. (the FDA has not approved a new UV filter since 1999). We remain fully compliant with European regulations and stand by the quality and effectiveness of our product." Newsweek has also reached out to Botao Baby, Tizo Skin and the FDA for comment. Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about sunscreen? Let us know via health@
