Center for Consumer Freedom

Last week the federal government issued new guidelines permitting wine labels that tout the drink's well-documented health benefits. But such labels would have to be accompanied by so many disclaimers and health warnings that few if any vintners will take advantage. One commentator noted: "Since fitting all that on a wine label is impractical, this requirement has the same effect as a flat prohibition."

That's CSPI interpretation as well. In a celebratory press release, the anti-alcohol zealots said: "We believe the regulations effectively shut the door to industry efforts to promote the healthfulness of drinking." In a surprising bit of candor, CSPI also laments that "a blanket ban on all health claims and health-related statements would have been preferable."

What does CSPI have to say about the growing body of evidence linking moderate alcohol consumption to longer life? Only that you're too stupid to understand it.

Testifying before Congress in 2000, CSPI's George Hacker argued that labels indicating alcohol's healthfulness would "undoubtedly confuse and mislead consumers." Think you're smart enough to understand basic health information? Think again, says CSPI. According to Hacker's testimony, "even the most educated consumer would likely be bewildered" by the same sort of basic health information already available in hundreds of newspapers, dozens of magazines, and countless television broadcasts.