Because drinking too much alcohol can lead to numerous health issues, George Koob, the Director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, told The Daily Mail (a real credible source, 🙄💩) that the United States Department of Agriculture could revise its alcohol advice to match Canada’s. But according to the Stupid SOB, Peter Doocy, at Fox ‘News,’ President Biden is coming after our beer and wants to limit Americans to two beers per week. Move over gas stoves and ceiling fans; it’s now all about the beer!
Watch the exchange below:
“Let me tell you what I’m not going to get involved in, in that question right there,” she said. “I have no idea, I’ve not seen the data. I cannot speak to this. I will leave it to the experts.”
US guidelines defines one drink as containing 0.6 per cent fluid ounces of alcohol, which equals one beer, one glass of wine or one shot. Current U.S. guidelines are under review but may not be updated and released until 2025.
Koob also told TheDailyMail.com that though certain kinds of alcohol in moderation can be beneficial, this is largely due to overall diet associated with the drinks.
“Most of the benefits people attribute to alcohol, we feel they really have more to do with what someone’s eating rather than what they’re drinking,” he said. “So it really has to do with the Mediterranean diet, socio-economic status, that makes you able to afford that kind of diet and make your own fresh food and so forth.”
In a statement to The National Desk (TND), Distilled Spirits Council Vice President of Science and Health Amanda Berger, Ph.D. called the possibility “extremely alarming and inappropriate.”
“Dr. Koob’s comments calling for a drastic change to the federal recommendations on alcohol before the review of alcohol research has even begun undermines the scientific rigor and objectivity of the entire Dietary Guidelines process,” Berger told TND. “It is extremely alarming and inappropriate for a federal official to predetermine the outcome of the Dietary Guidelines and suggest changing decades of precedent without the benefit of the scientific review to support such a sweeping move.”
