Before reading about the anti-alcohol industry's shenanigans, please take the time to complete the SVB annual Direct-to-Consumer wine survey, which closes on 3-30.
We still need responses from every region. Your collaboration with us on this decades-old initiative has never been more important than today. Please add your information and thoughts.
Thank you, Rob.
A Risk-Free Society
Yet despite this impossibility, there are organizations actively working toward a version of that utopia—defined, in their case, as a world without alcohol.
Movendi International and the World Health Organization (WHO) have become increasingly aligned in this effort. Their recent collaboration has shifted the WHO's status from an organization monitoring health outcomes to the radicalized version it is today.
The two organizations' shared framework begins with WHO research aggregating more than 200 alcohol-related illnesses, concluding that alcohol contributes to millions of deaths annually. From there, the argument evolves: if alcohol is linked to harm across so many conditions, then it represents a systemic risk that can—and should—be eliminated.
This is the critical shift. The discussion is no longer about managing risk but about taking liberties with its definition, then eliminating it, without regard to the good. The primary messaging tool driving that shift is the now-familiar claim: there is no safe amount of alcohol that can be consumed, and every drop increases cancer risk. Is that even close to true?
The issue is the soundbites. The details never make the press.
We should expect those who care for our health to interpret the data honestly.
The current figure the WHO uses as a measure of risk is 2.6 million deaths annually, and it is tied to 2019 data. WHO’s June 2024 release says “2.6 million deaths per year were attributable to alcohol consumption,” accounting for 4.7% of all deaths. On its face, though there is room for cardiovascular health and obesity, I'd question any statement that attribute 5% of all deaths worldwide to a specific cause.
Digging in a little more, the WHO publicly claims 230 different types of diseases exist where alcohol has a significant role. It is from that created information that they calculate the global disease burden, and how they support the claim that there are 2.6M deaths annually that can be attributed to alcohol.
But, like so many other statements, the WHO contradicts itself and, in this case, explicitly says that the global burden can be quantified for only 31 health conditions, based on the available scientific evidence. So the public record supports a broad diversity-of-harm claim, but WHO itself admits that only a smaller subset is currently quantified in its burden estimates. The issue is the soundbites. The details never make the press.
The Public Involvement of Movendi International
I first raised the reemergence of the neo-prohibition movement in the 2018 State of the Industry Report. That timing coincided with a deepening, more formal alignment between Movendi International and the WHO, highlighted by the launch of the SAFER initiative. That radicalized the WHO's messaging approach.
It’s important to be clear about Movendi’s role. It is not a neutral research body or an unbiased public health organization—it is explicitly anti-alcohol. Its mission is not to regulate alcohol responsibly, but to eliminate it. Any policy position or interpretation of science that it advances should be understood through that lens. Don't expect that a radicalized WHO with Movendi as a research partner will come to the conclusion that alcohol has any benefits for society.
Within that framework, even if science finds health benefits - longer life spans, for example - the idea that alcohol might have a place in society is incompatible with the MHO core beliefs. Evidence suggesting potential benefits—whether longer lifespans, social cohesion, or mental well-being—is dismissed as conflicting with the objective. The scale will never balance because one side of the scale has no weight. As a result, the strategy is not to debate the full body of science, but to reshape the narrative—emphasizing risk to the exclusion of all else. Because alcohol can be abused, the solution for this combined public/private anti-alcohol agency is to legislate away alcohol's use, and the consortium is making progress!
An Old Battle
The policy-making fight came to a head in early 2025 when the outgoing Surgeon General issued guidance urging public health professionals to frame alcohol as a leading modifiable cancer risk. What stood out was not just the message, but its origin—it closely mirrored WHO language and framing, despite the absence of new underlying scientific evidence.
The statements directly contradicted a paper from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine, issued a month prior, that concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish certainty for an association of moderate alcohol consumption with various cancers. That report concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish a clear causal link between moderate alcohol consumption and various cancers. It also found, with moderate certainty, that moderate drinkers experience lower all-cause mortality compared to abstainers.
Despite this, the simpler, more absolute message prevailed. No safe amount.
And that underscores the broader point: this is no longer just a scientific discussion—it is a communications strategy. One organization, in particular, has been highly effective at advancing its position, even when that requires narrowing or reshaping the narrative to fit its goals. There are those in the alcohol beverage industry working on solutions, but success will be defined by collaboration.
