What the hell, AHA? Moderate drinking? In this economy?

How the American Heart Association issued a scientific statement with none of the science, all of the doubt, and a harmful contribution to public discourse

In June 2025, the American Heart Association (AHA) released a scientific statement on alcohol use and cardiovascular disease. From the thumbnail, it reads like an effort to clarify evidence and provide informed clinical guidance. In reality, it’s a methodological mess and dangerous contribution to an already confused public dialogue.

Despite acknowledging modern, more rigorous approaches like Mendelian randomization (MR) and trial emulation, the statement downplays those findings in favor of outdated, conflicting observational studies. While it includes just enough hedging to sound to sound legitimate, the net effect is to resurrect a thoroughly debunked narrative that moderate drinking is good for your heart.

This is not a neutral evidence summary, it’s more of a strategic ambiguity grenade thrown into a muddled conversation by a trusted medical authority.

Methodologically Rigorous? Nah, Just Residual Confounding

The bulk of the statement relies on observational data prone to confounding by lifestyle, socioeconomic status, and selection bias. Instead of centering newer methods that address those issues, the authors rehash decades-old studies with vague categorizations and inconsistent reference groups. They note these limitations then sidestep them (???).

In contrast, a 2022 JAMA Open Network study (Biddinger et al.) used nonlinear MR to demonstrate that all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, with light drinkers experiencing small increases and heavier drinkers facing exponential harm. The so-called cardioprotective effects of moderate drinking disappeared after adjusting for coinciding healthy lifestyle behaviors. The conclusion? “No amount of alcohol is safe for cardiovascular health.”

Conflict of Interest + Scientific Integrity

One of the authors of the scientific statement is Dr. Kenneth Mukamal, previously the PI of the NIH’s $100 million MACH trial, a study so compromised by alcohol industry involvement enrollment was suspended and ultimately shut down. Internal NIH review revealed ethical misconduct between investigators and (sponsoring) alcohol companies, biased study framing, and efforts to steer funding to Mukamal’s team. The MACH trial was halted for a reason. His inclusion here should raise alarms.

The Real Harm - Is It Clickbait?

To be clear, this isn’t just an academic spat. Most people and audiences will not read the 15-page document or its methodological footnotes. They’ll see headlines or quotes like "1 to 2 drinks a day may reduce coronary artery disease risk." That’s the soundbite and exactly what the alcohol industry wants.

The statement admits that the evidence is uncertain. But instead of calling for precaution, it flirts with benefit. Instead of urging clarity, it settles for confusion. And instead of leading, the AHA has followed a well-worn path of public health equivocation, one that has cost lives before.

Bottom Line

There is overwhelming and well-documented evidence of alcohol’s harm. It’s a leading driver of chronic disease, injury, and death. It’s a known carcinogen.

No other substance or consumer product is met with as much institutional indifference.

The AHA should have stood up for scientific rigor. However, it published an article that reads more like a white paper for doubt.

The public deserves better. So does the literature.