Nothing highlights the nannies’ paternalistic attitude more than the debate over whether to allow manufacturers to refer to the health
benefits of their product on the label.

Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms approved (and has since suspended) the use of labels on wine bottles which state:

“To learn more about the health effects of wine consumption, send for the federal government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion,” followed by the Center’s Washington, DC address.

Another label was even more brazen:

“The proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption.”

Apparently, the gall of these vintners suggesting that wine drinkers could learn more about the health effects of moderate wine
consumption (from their doctor, no less) was just too much for some people. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) called the labels “inherently
misleading.” Surgeon General David Satcher also weighed in, saying these labels would encourage irresponsible drinking.

But it was the grand-nannies of them all – the Center for Science in the Public Interest – whose spin reached new rpm levels. According to
George Hacker, director of CSPI’s Alcohol Policies Project, the command center of modern-day Prohibition:

“Just suggesting that there are potential health benefits in consuming small amounts of alcohol may help heavy drinkers rationalize their unhealthy consumption and justify their dependency.”

It sounds like someone needs to relax and enjoy life a little more. Some wine perhaps?