Editor's Note:
This story has been updated to include information about Stockley and Hendriks' work in peer-reviewed journals.
A new study suggests a powerful group of scientists is distorting how the public understands alcohol’s health risks.
The study, published July 9 in the peer-reviewed journal Addiction, analyzed nearly 300 critiques by the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research (ISFAR) — a self-described independent group of scientists that evaluates new alcohol studies.
It found ISFAR was far more likely to praise research showing alcohol’s health benefits and to criticize studies highlighting harm — regardless of the quality of the research.
Public health experts say the study is further evidence of how alcohol’s health risks are deliberately downplayed or distorted.
“[Alcohol’s] benefits are exaggerated and the risks are underestimated,” said Tim Stockwell, a senior scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research.
“There’s been a bias towards the idea that, like a panacea, [alcohol will] stop cognitive decline, or there’s ‘evidence’ it will reduce likelihood of getting a common cold or becoming deaf or having a hip fracture — there’s lots of false associations in the literature that people are looking at.”
Mounting evidence
Alcohol-related harms have been rising sharply across Canada.
Between April 2020 and December 2022, alcohol-attributable deaths in Canada rose nearly 18 per cent, and hospitalizations climbed more than eight per cent.
Alcohol is now the leading cause of substance-related harm in every province and territory except the Maritimes, where it trails only tobacco.
And alcohol is now linked to seven types of cancer, and is a major risk factor for heart disease, stroke and mental illness.
“[Alcohol] is a modifiable risk factor,” said Peter Butt, a clinical professor in the University of Saskatchewan’s Department of Family Medicine and a co-author of Canada’s low-risk drinking guidelines.
And yet, many Canadians still see moderate drinking as harmless — or even healthy.
The drinking myth
Some studies have suggested light or moderate drinkers live longer than people who abstain, and that moderate drinking is beneficial to heart health.
But Stockwell says these studies’ methodologies are flawed. The so-called abstainers often include people who quit drinking for health reasons, and were thus already sick.
“A lot of the current abstainers have given up [their drinking] for health reasons, so they’re self-selected to be an unhealthy group,” said Stockwell.
“Conversely, the people who are drinkers, many of them are robust and well enough to carry on drinking, so it’s a very biased comparison.”
When researchers adjust for this error, any protective effects vanish, he says. What remains is a clear link: the more you drink, the higher your risk — even at relatively low levels of consumption.
This scientific shift is what led Canada to overhaul its alcohol guidance in 2023. Today, national guidelines recommend no more than two drinks a week — a sharp contrast to the prior threshold of ten to fifteen drinks.
“It wasn’t an edict,” said Butt. “We didn’t say you shouldn’t drink more than two standard drinks a week.
“We said you should reduce the amount that you drink … [and] any reduction is good.”
Misinformation
Not everyone has welcomed the new guidance.
Public health experts say misinformation and industry influence continue to cloud the conversation around alcohol’s risks — with the scientific group ISFAR playing a central role.
“[ISFAR is] a group that’s industry funded — the scientists deny that they’re industry funded, but clearly they are,” said Butt. “They tend to reference each other’s research, but none of it can be placed in peer-reviewed journals because they’re compromised.
“It’s this tainted, biased research that the industry uses to attack the publicly funded research.”
The Addiction study concluded that ISFAR’s critiques consistently promoted alcohol’s supposed health benefits while downplaying or dismissing harms, regardless of a study’s quality.
“These patterns provide a valuable resource for industry actors to shape public perception, downplay risk and influence policy — using strategies that closely resemble those historically employed by the tobacco industry,” reads the study.
In a statement to Canadian Affairs, ISFAR denied it is influenced by the alcohol industry.
“ISFAR, as an organization, has no ties to the alcohol industry,” said Creina Stockley, ISFAR’s co-director, in a written response to Canadian Affairs. “Some members have conducted work as scientists funded partly or entirely by the industry or have worked for institutions financed by the alcohol sector.”
Stockley worked for more than two decades at the Australian Wine Research Institute and previously held paid consultancies with Alcohol Beverages Australia and Wine in Moderation, groups that represent alcohol manufacturers and sellers.
Now retired, she has received public research funding from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council and has published more than 70 peer-reviewed papers.
ISFAR’s other co-director, Henk Hendriks, has received fees from beer companies Carlsberg and Heineken and the International Alliance for Responsible Drinking — a coalition backed by alcohol behemoths Anheuser‑Busch InBev, Bacardi, Diageo and others. He has published more than 125 peer-reviewed papers.
ISFAR’s board chair, R. Curtis Ellison, a former senior investigator at the Framingham Heart Study and chief of preventive medicine at Boston University, retired in 2021. He previously led a Boston University institute that received unrestricted donations from Diageo, Brown-Forman and the New York Wine & Grape Foundation.
Despite these industry ties, ISFAR says its critiques are not biased.
“All that matters to ISFAR is the merit of the scientific arguments and the scientific integrity of the conclusions,” said Stockley.
Fighting with facts
In response to widespread confusion about alcohol’s health risks, public health researchers are working to make accurate information broadly accessible.
Earlier this year, the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research launched the Know Alcohol app — a mobile tool that helps people understand their personal risk and how it changes with different levels of drinking.
“Tough to change your genes, but when it comes to alcohol, you can reduce the amount,” said Butt, of the University of Saskatchewan.
“And that has an immediate reduction in your risk if there’s a family history of breast or colon or mouth, throat, esophageal cancer and liver cancer.”
Researchers also stress that the goal is not prohibition or moral panic, but transparency and informed choice.
“We’re not trying to say ‘don’t ever drink again,’” said Butt. “[We’re saying] here’s the information — make decisions for yourself.”
Butt believes there are a wide range of benefits to drinking less — and that the conversation should focus on empowerment, not shame.
“It’s not losing your life because you’re reducing alcohol, but rather improving it.”
In this blog, the way it highlights how influential groups can shape perceptions of alcohol’s health risks is truly eye-opening. It’s a crucial reminder to question sources and seek unbiased research.