1st BATCH OF FILES AVAILABLE NOW!

Is this the last gasp of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking? This week, a key House subcommittee endorsed an appropriations bill that would fully strip the interagency group known as ICCPUD of its funding. It follows earlier cuts to funding and employment at the Dept of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin (SAMHSA, which managed ICCPUD). Confusion abounds, with little clarity around existing and future research grants. At the same time legislators pushed for further cuts, a growing group of health professionals took aim at HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr and his Make America Healthy Again agenda. Joining the fray, the US Alcohol Policy Alliance and aligned researchers tapped by ICCPUD to generate a report on alcohol & health released earlier this year turned to Vox to not just bemoan the cuts but claim that the Trump Admin "silenced" their "groundbreaking report" at the industry's behest.Vox Amplifies Researcher-Advocate Voices Last month, members of the Trump Admin confirmed that it had no plans to publish the final version of the Alcohol Intake & Health report funded or organized by ICCPUD, three of the six authors told Vox. The group made "minor revisions" to the draft published in January and submitted it to higher-ups in March. The findings didn't change, just some of the ways they were explained, these authors said.And even though Vox links to the draft report and repeats its assertions that negative health impacts begin at low levels of alcohol consumption, the outlet still insists the report has been "buried." It will not be included in ICCPUD's annual national report to Congress, as authors hoped, per Vox. But it was "provided to HHS and USDA for consideration during the development" of the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, precisely as they intended, an HHS spokesperson confirmed.Aside from the three researchers who contributed to the ICCPUD report and a couple unnamed government spokespeople, Vox features just one other voice: that of Mike Marshall, CEO of advocacy group the US Alcohol Policy Alliance. Though Vox said Marshall "was not involved with the study," USAPA has close ties to the ICCPUD panelists and former board chair of the organization Alicia Sparks manages much of the work ICCPUD does through third-party grant recipient Synergy Enterprises. Vox offers the shared views of these advocates and researchers unquestioned, presenting aspects of the ICCPUD research &mdash; like its unique use of "original modeling" &mdash; as uncontroversial strengths.Various voices inside and outside the industry called ICCPUD's methodologies and opaque statistical models into question, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest, recall. But not Vox. Instead, it echoes the claims of USAPA, the ICCPUD panelists and others that the competing report from the National Academies (NASEM) is "controversial" and tainted by industry influence. Vox also blames industry advocacy for the Trump Admin shelving the final draft and implies that NASEM's "industry-preferred messaging" will be to blame if the next DGA removes "a specific recommended limit on alcohol consumption," as Reuters wrote in June. The removal of the one or two drink per day recommendation would be far from universally supported by industry members, by the way. And couldn't it also be framed as a win by advocates who argue that there is "no safe level" of alcohol consumption?House Proposal Calls for $7-Bil Cut to HHS, "Defunding" ICCPUD Congress continued its ongoing critiques of ICCPUD and the Alcohol Intake & Health study this week. The House's appropriation subcommittee in charge of budget for HHS as well as the Depts of Labor and Education released its proposal for the 2026 fiscal year on Tuesday, which includes "defunding" ICCPUD. Painting the proposal as one of the ways the bill "safeguards American taxpayer dollars," the bill summary critiques the way "the Biden Administration improperly used [ICCPUD] to carry out activities related to adult alcohol consumption."In all, the bill and the press release announcing it leans heavily on Trump-aligned rhetoric, frequently repeating how it "supports" the president's goals. That includes the proposal to "eliminate out-of-touch progressive policies and end the weaponization of government by eliminating or reducing more than 100 programs," like ICCPUD. HHS faces over half of the $13.7 billion that this proposal intends to cut from the budget: a 6% trim totalling $7 billion. The subcommittee passed the bill on Tuesday night, but there's a long way to go and not much time to do it. Budgets from both houses must be reconciled and passed by the full Congress ahead of a September 30 deadline, a tall order to be sure.HHS, SAMHSA Already Hamstrung, Researchers and Advocates Remind The proposal deepens cuts in staffing and halts to funding initiated earlier this year. Plus, federal funding for substance use prevention had already been cut by over a third since 2010, explained public policy consultant for the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Sue Thau, during the Center for Alcohol Policy's annual conference last week. Ahead of the release of the above House proposal, she was encouraged by Senate versions that didn't cut as deeply, saying that "the Hill has actually heard us." But her org and the community prevention and treatment organizers it represents were all bracing for impact, including the possibility that key grants will be reduced, merged or cut altogether.Community orgs and state agencies have already been dealing with quite a bit of confusion, including "proposed changes to the structure" of HHS that would essentially upend SAMHSA altogether. The agency "in one form or another" has administered grants to state agencies for over three decades, providing "some reliability, predictability," detailed the executive director of the National Assn of State Alcohol and Drug Agency Directors, Robert Morrison. In the last six months, his members struggled to figure out "what now, when and where" to go for answers to questions about current and future funding."From the perspective of alcohol research more generally," there's "nothing that's even close" to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), "not just in the US, but anywhere in the world," explained Bill Kerr of the Alcohol Research Group at CAP. "Even a 10% cut in funding dramatically reduces the number of grants," he said. But some proposals suggest slashes by up to 40% and it's "hard to even imagine what that's going to look like." His work at ARG (where he works with one of the authors of the ICCPUD report, Priscilla Martinez), comes from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). But its staff was cut by 25% early this year, including Bill's longtime project advisor, and only 5 or 6 of NIAAA's 20 centers are currently receiving funding. Remaining staff are "working through all the challenges this year" while dealing with "uncertainty about next year" since "they don't know if they're going to exist after October first," when the fiscal year begins.ARG is currently functioning without funding, Bill shared. Previously approved grants have been canceled, "particularly studies focused on particular populations," he said. Applying for new grants for different studies remains difficult because "the new priorities are not clear yet," aside from the "pretty vague" intent to focus on "chronic disease."In recent years, Bill has become a go-to expert witness for state regulators (and distributor orgs assisting them in) defending against federal lawsuits claiming that three-tier laws are unconstitutional. At least a few federal judges have cited Bill's testimony as the kind of "concrete evidence" needed to show that state laws are not mere protectionism and actually support public health and safety. "Legislatures and also courts really want to see recent studies on their own states," he reminded last week. That's "already almost impossible" since you "can really only do research" on policies when they change, but is "even more impossible if there isn't ongoing funding." If states are hungry for information, but federal funds aren't available, will more states seek to establish funds of their own, the way some do for tobacco or cannabis research?ICCPUD Ironies Abound If these are the final days of ICCPUD, they're filled with ironies. Often lost in all drama of the last 18 months, ICCPUD was established by the STOP Act, which wouldn't have passed without support from certain corners of the industry, as CADCA's Sue reminded last week. Further, much of ICCPUD's funding went to grants for local orgs and a national media campaign to prevent underage drinking, or the kind of educational work that it's easier for industry to get behind, especially compared to tax hikes or marketing restrictions. That's why some view the intrusion of folks linked to anti-alcohol advocates at USAPA and the shift in focus to adult drinking as a "hijacking." If STOP Act and ICCPUD funding goes away, that intrusion and change in focus will be to blame.This week, House Rep Tom Cole described the appropriations proposal as a way of eliminating "progressive overreach" and investing in "programs that deliver real results for the American people." Yet, by one crucial metric, ICCPUD did deliver real results: underage drinking has plummeted since the STOP Act's enactment in 2006 and continues to fall to historic lows. And instead of crowing about those strides, the loudest alcohol-focused public health advocates leveraged connections at ICCPUD to fry a bigger fish: the Dietary Guidelines. Now both that fish and major research funding could be flopping away.Cheers,

House Seeks to Deepen Cuts to Health Funding, Defund ICCPUD; Researchers Call Foul

Publishing Info