Trump cuts CDC program on alcohol-related harms, prevention

The closure of the Alcohol Program in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by the Trump administration has left a significant gap in efforts to prevent excessive drinking and the associated health problems. This small office, with a staff of just three people, focused on producing data on alcohol-related deaths and harms, as well as developing policies to reduce them. Its closure has had a direct impact on at least 11 states that relied on the program for funding, data assistance, and guidance.

The Alcohol Program was allocated $6 million for its work, which was distributed to state health departments to hire alcohol epidemiologists, conduct studies on excessive alcohol use, and implement strategies to reduce associated harms. Without the CDC team to support these initiatives, states are uncertain if they will receive their final round of funding in the fall. In states like Idaho and North Carolina, where the program funded research and initiatives to address alcohol-related harms, the loss of funding could mean the shutdown of critical programs.

Unlike other divisions within the CDC, the Alcohol Program focused primarily on prevention efforts rather than scientific studies. The team worked on documenting patterns of drinking, understanding health problems resulting from excessive alcohol use, and implementing prevention strategies at the population level. Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 178,000 deaths annually in the U.S. and is linked to numerous chronic diseases and cancers. The work of the CDC alcohol team was instrumental in providing data and resources to address these public health concerns.

The closure of the Alcohol Program has left a void in public health efforts to combat excessive drinking and its consequences. Without the support and resources provided by the CDC team, state health departments lack the specialized knowledge and funding needed to address this significant public health issue. Public health advocates and researchers across the country are concerned about the long-term impact of losing this critical program and the potential increase in alcohol-related harms as a result.

In states like Nebraska, where organizations like Project Extra Mile rely on CDC research and evidence-based tactics to address alcohol-related harms, the closure of the Alcohol Program is a significant blow. The collaborative efforts and resources provided by the CDC team were essential in supporting local initiatives to reduce high-risk drinking and prevent alcohol-related health problems. The loss of this program highlights the importance of continued investment in public health efforts to address excessive drinking and its impact on communities across the country. As Project Extra Mile faces unprecedented uncertainty in its efforts to improve public health and safety in Nebraska, the organization is grappling with significant challenges. With a 30-year history of advocating for alcohol control measures, leaders like Wagner are now navigating uncharted territory without CDC grant funding.

The impact of these cuts is particularly concerning as other states, such as New Mexico, are actively working to combat high rates of alcohol-attributable deaths. With a CDC-funded epidemiologist focused on alcohol-related issues, New Mexico is taking proactive steps to address longstanding problems.

In Nebraska, the absence of state alcohol epidemiologists and researchers poses a threat to the passage of crucial laws aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm. Measures like increasing alcohol prices, limiting sales hours, and controlling outlet density have been shown to mitigate alcohol-related issues. Without the support of experts in the field, the effectiveness of these policies may be compromised.

Despite the clear need for action, alcohol remains a contentious issue with powerful industry lobbying efforts. This tension is not limited to individual states but extends to the federal level, where conflicting reports on the health effects of alcohol are complicating the development of dietary guidelines.

As Jernigan aptly points out, alcohol is a recurring blind spot in public health discourse. The current challenges faced by Project Extra Mile highlight the ongoing struggle to prioritize alcohol control measures and address the significant impact of excessive drinking on society.

In the face of uncertainty, it is more important than ever for advocates and policymakers to come together to address the complex issues surrounding alcohol consumption. By supporting evidence-based policies and fostering collaboration between stakeholders, we can work towards a safer and healthier future for all.