Federal Contractors Responsible for ‘Biased’ Alcohol Study Should Be Punished, Oversight Committee Says

Federal contractors who were part of a Biden administration scheme to recommend that Americans reduce their drinking are now being called out by the House Oversight Committee for violating the terms of that contract.

Rep. James Comer (R–Ky.), the committee’s chairman, says that members of a scientific panel did not have permission to release part of a “flawed” and “biased” study that was meant to lay the groundwork for stricter dietary guidelines for alcohol. In a letter sent last week, Comer asked the Department of Health and Human Services to consider “disciplinary, contractual, or legal action” against the contractors responsible for the study.

As Reason reported last year, that study was ordered by the Biden administration in advance of the planned rewrite of the dietary guidelines, which are revised and updated every five years. Unlike in previous cycles, however, the Biden administration took the unusual step of asking the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD) to review the guidelines for alcohol.

Of course, the dietary guidelines have nothing to do with underage drinking, since the recommended amount of alcohol consumption for Americans under age 21 is zero.

In reality, the ICCPUD study was a clever way to allow anti-alcohol activists to influence the dietary guidelines. The scientific panel convened to produce the report included figures like Tim Naimi, who previously pushed for stricter alcohol guidelines in Canada and elsewhere. The panel included experts in mental health, epidemiology, and anesthesiology—but no dietitians or nutritionists.

In January, the House Oversight Committee released a report confirming Reason‘s reporting. “The evidence points to the…study group having a predetermined goal—to publish a biased study” showing that “no amount of alcohol consumption is safe,” the committee concluded.

The Trump administration discarded the unfinished ICCPUD study, which was never factored into the 2025 dietary guidelines.

Nevertheless, a draft version of the ICCPUD report was published in the BMJ Open journal in November 2025. It’s that version of the report that Comer is now calling on the HHS to scrutinize.

In the letter to the HHS, Comer notes that the contract for the ICCPUD study included a provision stating that “all information and materials including data developed under this contract are the property of the government and shall be delivered as part of the deliverables under the contract. No information developed under this contract shall be released by the contractor without written permission of the government.”

This may seem like it’s all quite deep in the weeds—but the Biden administration’s failed attempt to embed this flawed research into dietary guidelines provides a useful glimpse into how public health expertise can be colored by motivated activists. It’s not necessary for the HHS or Congress to take legal action against the contractors involved here, but they certainly ought to be kept away from any position to influence federal or state policy in the future.