Defining alcohol consumption down

OPINION:

With summer vacation drawing to a close, many parents are eager to pop a bottle of bubbly in celebration.

But while new research shows that couples who mirror one another’s drinking habits have happier marriages, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) suggests that the moment a wife pours herself a second glass, she’s wandered into “excessive alcohol consumption” territory.

Though true alcohol abuse is a serious issue, health and safety groups prefer to ignore the root problem and instead are stretching the definition of “at risk” to target moderate alcohol consumption.

Consider traffic fatality reporting. Between 2007 and 2008, you’ll find a precipitous drop in alcohol-related fatalities. You can be forgiven if you errantly attribute the decline to policies like the passage of the national .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) limit several years earlier.

In reality, the “drunken driving” figure previously included a much broader class of individuals: drunk pedestrians, impaired cyclists or tipsy passengers involved in a fatal crash. Before the definitions were adjusted, a sober driver who sped through a red light and killed a family whose driver had a glass of wine at dinner would be counted as being involved in an alcohol-related fatality because one driver had consumed alcohol, even if they weren’t at fault.

Appropriately organizing the data to reflect actual instances of impaired driving revealed that the figure used to advocate for a lower legal limit had been artificially inflated by thousands. Even contemporary data shows that 70 percent of alcohol-involved fatalities are caused by extreme drunk drivers with a BAC at or above .15. But rather than target these dangerous offenders, and thus the majority of alcohol-involved fatalities, the federal government’s alphabet soup of health and safety agencies continue their march against most consumption.

Earlier this year, a researcher funded by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism saw his eighth scholarly paper retracted after his doctored results came to light. The topic of his research? Discovering a link between alcohol consumption, cell death and cancer.

Unsurprisingly, the falsified results were taken as fact by those scrounging for data to support anti-alcohol messaging. Alcohol safety agencies are well aware that suggestions to cut down on your evening Merlot doesn’t get a sympathetic response. As a result, reports have been increasingly more evident in presenting dire health risks posed by alcohol. The Centers for Disease Control has even issued a paternalistic warning that women should be on high alert for injuries, cancer, STDs and even unplanned pregnancy after drinking their eighth glass of wine in a week.

The warning betrays an obvious chasm between the public’s vision of frenzied college keg parties and the CDC’s opinion of what constitutes heavy drinking. Rather than treating alcohol consumption as a sliding scale of risk, governmental safety programs have a habit of using flawed science to draw a hard line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Just think — is a driver blowing a .079 BAC much more competent than one blowing at the current arrest level of .08?

Statistically, driving at .08 BAC carries the same crash risk as driving while on a hands-free cellphone. Yet the penalty for one often involves potential jail time, fines and the installation of an ignition interlock device, while the other isn’t even punishable by law in 36 states.

The benefits of moderate consumption deserve recognition. It’s been proven ad nauseam that a nightly glass of wine can reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A January study revealed that moderate drinkers, in fact, had the lowest cancer risk even when compared to abstainers.

Yet few are willing to combat the powers behind anti-alcohol messaging. The result? Legal limits become based on arbitrary numbers, and states scramble to implement feel-good alcohol safety laws, which actually threaten public safety by increasing highway hazards. Take the push for driving under the influence first-offender ignition interlock mandates (i.e., in-car breathalyzers). On their surface, the law may seem sensible: If a drunk can’t drive, he can’t cause an accident. That is, until you realize in-car breathalyzers require rolling retests, which introduce a guaranteed distraction several times an hour. California’s own Department of Motor Vehicles has confirmed the risk several times over: Ignition interlock installation results in a higher crash rate.

Looking forward, more and more alcohol abstinence programs are only a few technological advancements away from taking root in our everyday lives. One government-sponsored automotive research program is on track to put alcohol sensing technology in every car, much like seat belts. In practice, the predicted technology failure rate could leave drivers stranded if they’ve had a single drink, even if they are nowhere near impairment.

Most Americans realize there is no danger in having a drink after work. It’s overindulgence that causes problems. But when federal bureaucrats get behind the wheel, it’s the American public that gets run over.

• Richard Berman is the president of Berman and Company, a public affairs firm in Washington, D.C.