The Other Reason Trump Hasn’t Fired Scott Pruitt: His Evangelical Christian Ties

HuffPost

The Other Reason Trump Hasn’t Fired Scott Pruitt: His Evangelical Christian Ties

Alexander C. Kaufman, HuffPost          April 28, 2018

Taking the stage at the glitzy Mayflower Hotel in Washington last November, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt casually quoted the New Testament as he recited his pitch for reimagining the role of the country’s top environmental regulator.

“We as a country have been blessed with tremendous natural resources,” he told the audience gathered for an American Principles Project Foundation gala, according to previously unpublished audio HuffPost obtained. “And to whom much is given, much is required.”

The reference to Luke 12:48 was likely not lost on the crowd gathered that Wednesday night for the conservative religious think tank’s fourth annual Red White and Blue Gala. The event’s brochure, a copy of which HuffPost reviewed, listed the group’s programs on “bioethics and life” and “religious freedom,” and advertised a downloadable white paper responding to the way in which “politics as usual has failed Christian conservatives.”

Rebekah Mercer, the billionaire GOP megadonor and financier of anti-abortion groups, Christian colleges and climate change denial think tanks, bankrolled the confab, according to the brochure.

Brent Bozell, founder of the right-wing Media Research Center, opened the program as the master of ceremonies before Pruitt gave his roughly four-minute speech in acceptance of an award for “human dignity leadership.” The Rev. Thomas Joseph White, a professor at the Catholic Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception, followed him with an invocation.

This was Pruitt’s hometown crowd. Until 2017, he had served on the board of trustees at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, an institution that called for “a wife is to submit herself graciously” to her husband and formally opposed “all forms of sexual immorality, including … homosexuality.” The bio on Pruitt’s now-defunct official Twitter account as Oklahoma’s attorney general reads: “Husband, Father, Christ Follower.” He been attending Bible studies with Vice President Mike Pence and other Cabinet secretaries since shortly after taking office at the EPA last year.

While Pruitt’s penchant for rolling back environmental regulations and bolstering the fossil fuel industry is widely touted as the reason President Donald Trump has refused to fire the EPA chief amid a four-week whirlwind of ethical and spending scandals, that largely overlooks Pruitt’s other asset: His reputation as a zealous crusader for conservative Christian politics.

For a president dogged by accusations of adultery and sexual impropriety, that sort of reputation has currency. The ostentatiously devout Pruitt gives Trump cred among evangelical Christian power players at a time when five Republican lawmakers and 170 Democrats in Congress are calling for his resignation. On Thursday, the EPA head testified before two House hearings for a total of six hours, during which Republicans leaped to his defense, arguing the administrator was the victim of “Washington politics,” “innuendo and McCarthyism,” and “a shameful attempt to denigrate the work that’s being done at the EPA.”

Neither the White House nor the EPA returned requests for comment.

“Pruitt is clearly part of the Christian right wing of the Republican Party, and it’s possible that these elite Christian right networks are protecting him, or they’ve sent some kind of message that this is our guy,” said Lydia Bean, author of The Politics of Evangelical Identity. “He’s opposed abortion and worked as an attorney for religious liberty cases, so he checks the right boxes for Christian right evangelicals.”

White evangelicals overwhelmingly support Trump’s job performance, at 61 percent in a December Pew survey, compared to just 32 percent of voters overall. Still, that marks a significant decline from the 78 percent approval in February 2017. Among nonwhite evangelicals, his approval rating plummets, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis.

Pruitt has played an outsize role in courting leaders on the evangelical right. In September, Trump hosted a dinner with “grassroots leaders,” including evangelical heavyweights such as Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance, Faith & Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed and Tim Goeglein, a vice president at Focus on the Family. In a photo posted to the White House website, Pruitt appears at the table opposite Trump, the only Cabinet secretary in attendance, though his name is not listed in the caption.

As Pruitt’s scandals mount, Christian groups have rallied to defend him. On April 6, the Conservative Action Project published an open letter calling for Pruitt’s “continued tenure at the EPA” and thanking him “for the significant actions he has taken to implement President Trump’s deregulatory agenda.” The list of 186 signatories included Christians for a Sustainable Economy Executive Director David Kullberg, Christian educator Lisa Calvert and Faith Wins President Chad Connelly. Some of the religiously affiliated signatories, such as Anne Schlafly Cori, chair of the “pro-family” Eagle Forum, have a history of backing climate change denial efforts, according to research compiled by the nonpartisan Climate Investigations Center.

White evangelical Christians, more than 80 percent of whom supported Trump in 2016, are the least likely of any religious group in the U.S. to understand the science behind climate change, according to 2015 data from the Pew Research Center. Just 28 percent of white evangelicals believed the planet is warming primarily due to human activity, compared to 41 percent of white mainline Protestants and 56 percent of black Protestants. About 37 percent of white evangelicals don’t believe the climate is changing at all.

In 2005, the National Association of Evangelicals was on the cusp of affirming climate science in a new national platform called “For the Health of a Nation.” But, after passing the board unanimously, the proposal tanked in a rank-and-file vote that followed a massive donation spree by oil, gas and coal-linked groups. Since then, the same dark-money donors ― including Mercer ― who sponsor the network of think tanks that provide contrarian (and readily debunked) research contesting the consensus on climate change have also funded conservative Christian groups. The fossil fuel industry made climate change denial, as Splinter’s Brendan O’Connor described it last year, “the word of God.”

Pruitt hasn’t been shy about proselytizing that view. Last October, Pruitt invoked God’s warning to pagans in the book of Joshua to “choose this day whom you will serve” in a speech announcing a new policy barring scientists who receive EPA research funding from serving on the agency’s advisory boards.

In a February interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pruitt said, “The biblical worldview with respect to these issues is that we have a responsibility to manage and cultivate, harvest the natural resources that we’ve been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind.”

In March, Politico published tapes from more than decade ago in which Pruitt disputes evolution: “There aren’t sufficient scientific facts to establish the theory of evolution, and it deals with the origins of man, which is more from a philosophical standpoint than a scientific standpoint.”

The statements have rankled EPA workers.

“It’s terrifying,” said one EPA employee who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “The impression we are left with is that his faith has led him to counterfactual beliefs.”

The staffer, who identifies as queer, said Pruitt’s past affiliations with groups that take hard-line stances on gender and sexuality “are painful to confront.”

“Knowing that the man I work for every day not only disrespects the agency’s mission but also believes that I, as a pansexual woman, and many other EPA employees … are ‘perversions’ in his belief system, is a heavy weight I feel each day at work,” she said.

Though Pruitt’s reputation for piety may help protect him for now, Bean cautioned that it may not filter down to ordinary evangelical voters.

“He’s not an individual with a mass following, not a household name for the evangelical rank and file,” she said. “I do not think Scott Pruitt has a national brand as an evangelical leader that, by itself, would stop Trump from firing him.”

Pruitt’s legacy could alienate him from moderate evangelicals. Ronald Sider, a professor at the Palmer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania, called Pruitt’s lead role in pushing Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accord one of the administration’s “really big, longer-term negative policies,” and said the administrator’s failure to take climate change seriously will define his tenure for years to come.

“It’s really immoral and tragic,” Sider said. “Unless that can be turned around fairly soon, our grandchildren will pay for it.”

President Know-Nothing Just Stumbled Into a Good Idea About the Electoral College

Esquire

President Know-Nothing Just Stumbled Into a Good Idea About the Electoral College

Trump suggests scrapping an undemocratic institution to which he owes everything.

By Jack Holmes     April 27, 2018

Getty Images

The president knows nothing about much of anything, and cares less. He is President Fox News Grandpa, the low-information voter we elected to make some of the most complex, nuanced decisions facing any human being in the history of the world. Donald Trump has no area of expertise and very little in the way of intellectual curiosity, but he does have a bottomless faith in the power of his own gut instinct. Sometimes, this has disastrous consequences. Sometimes, it is seriously hilarious.

Take Thursday, for example. As part of an overall freak show on Fox & Friends, Donald J. Trump announced he wanted to abandon the Electoral College and use the popular vote to elect United States presidents:

Of course, Trump is president solely because of the Electoral College, an anti-democratic anachronism that has outstayed its welcome by at least a half-century. He lost the popular vote—which he wants to switch to—by nearly 3 million. Then again, he claims 3 million people voted illegally in California alone. There is zero evidence of that, but plenty of evidence it’s a deranged lie borne of crippling insecurity that he is not a truly legitimate president.

Trump has also long sustained himself, as he did speaking to the Friends of Fox, on the belief he could and would have won the popular vote if he hadn’t spent so much time winning the Electoral College:

trump tweet: Campaigning to win the Electoral College is much more difficult & sophisticated than the popular vote. Hillary focused on the wrong states!

trump tweet: I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote – but would campaign differently

Of course, even when you dive into the details of his Electoral College win, the numbers aren’t exactly pretty. Trump won the three key states in 2016—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—by a combined 77,000 votes, a razor-thin margin. But thanks to the ludicrous Electoral College system, he received all of their 46 combined electoral votes.

This is why the system is so undemocratic, along with the fact that it makes some citizens’ votes count for more than others. Because only a small group of “swing states” are up for grabs, the residents of other states are largely ignored and have little impact on the outcome. If it were a popular vote, the vote of a Texan or a Californian would be just as valuable as an Ohioan—and turnout might even be higher as a result.

Getty Images

To a lesser extent, the votes of those that live in more sparsely populated states count for more than those of others. A state’s electoral vote count is its number of senators and congressmen combined. Since all states get two senators regardless of population, this means citizens of densely populated states have at least slightly less electoral power than those of sparsely populated ones.

Montana has just over a million residents and two senators. California has 39.5 million residents…and two senators. That means each Montanan receives far more representation by percentage in the Senate—and by extension, the Electoral College. That was actually an explicit goal for the Founders: representatives of rural and less-populated states, mostly in the southern colonies, were wary of being dominated by densely populated states, most of which were in the north. The compromise was to have a House of Representatives tied closely to population, but equality among states in the Senate.

All this is to say that, contrary to Trump’s shtick, the Electoral College is not some game devised to make it easier for Democrats to win elections. In fact, it’s closer to the opposite: In the five presidential elections since 2000, Republican candidates won the popular vote just once—but won the presidency three times. If Trump wants to blow that up out of some very on-brand combination of ignorance and hubris, American democracy stands to benefit. A broken clock, twice a day, et cetera.

Trump Admin Begins Process to Open Pristine Arctic Refuge for Drilling

EcoWatch

Trump Admin Begins Process to Open Pristine Arctic Refuge for Drilling

Lorraine Chow    April 20, 2018

Polar Bear sow and two cubs in the Arctic Refuge’s 1002 area targeted for oil drilling. Wikimedia Commons

The Interior Department has launched the process of holding lease sales for oil and gas drilling in the 1.6-million-acre coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Despite decades of fierce resistance from Democrats and conservation groups, pro-drilling Republicans were able to realize their goal of opening the refuge after quietly including the measure in last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

A notice published Friday in the Federal Register starts the 60-day public scoping period to assist in the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the leasing program.

The sale targets the 1002 area on the Prudhoe Bay in Northern Alaska, which has an estimated 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude. The area is described by the Sierra Club as “the biological heart” of the Arctic Refuge—home to polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other species—as well as vital lands and wildlife for the subsistence way of life of the Gwich’in Nation.

Environmental groups condemned the plan, calling it “shameful” that it would be published just before the eighth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

“The Trump administration’s reckless dash to expedite drilling and destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will only hasten a trip to the courthouse,” Jamie Rappaport Clark, president of Defenders of Wildlife, said in a statement. “We will not stand by and watch them desecrate this fragile landscape.”

In a statement, Assistant Interior Secretary Joe Balash called the drilling plan “an important facet for meeting our nation’s energy demands and achieving energy dominance.”

“This scoping process begins the first step in developing a responsible path forward. I look forward to personally visiting the communities most affected by this process and hearing their concerns,” Balash added.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has long fought to open the refuge, said in a joint statement with other Alaskan lawmakers that drilling would “help ensure the energy and economic security of our nation.”

In February, President Trump spoke about his indifference on the matter until an oil industry friend told him that past presidents, including conservative icon Ronald Reagan, couldn’t get drilling done. He then directed lawmakers to put the provision in the tax bill.

“I never appreciated ANWR so much,” Trump said during a speech at a Republican retreat in West Virginia. “A friend of mine called up who is in that world and in that business. He said, ‘Is it true that you’re thinking about ANWR?’ I said ‘Yeah, I think we’re going to get it but you know …’ He said, ‘Are you kidding? That’s the biggest thing by itself. Ronald Reagan and every president has wanted to get ANWR approved.’ And after that I said ‘Oh, make sure that is in the bill. It was amazing how that had an impact.”

He made similar remarks a month later at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner.

The purpose of the public scoping process is to assist the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in identifying relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental impact statement and guide its development. It may also inform post-lease activities, including seismic and drilling exploration, development, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the coastal plain.

The bureau has invited the public to provide comments on scoping issues and will hold public scoping meetings in Anchorage, Arctic Village, Fairbanks, Kaktovik and Utqiaġvik at times and locations to be announced in local media, newspapers and on the BLM website.

Comments will be accepted through June 19, 2018, and can be sent by any of the following methods:

Website: www.blm.gov/alaska/coastal-plain-eis
Email: blm_ak_coastalplain_EIS@blm.gov
Mail: Attn: Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program EIS
222 West 7th Avenue, Stop #13
Anchorage, Alaska 99513

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Interior Moves to Sell Oil Leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Measuring the Loss of American Wildlife if the Arctic National

NRDC: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – Protecting Life on the

Trump Calls Alaska’s Wildlife Refuge, Where Hundreds of

Live! Teachers in Colorado are taking to the streets today!

April 27, 2018

Teachers in Colorado are taking to the streets today! #Solidarity

Denver Teacher Walk Out

We're in Denver, Colorado where thousands of teachers walk out of class, rallying over low pay and funding.Tens of thousands of teachers are expected to stage walk outs across two states. https://abcn.ws/2JxNbrM

Posted by ABC News on Friday, April 27, 2018

ABC News is live now — in Denver, Colorado.Follow

We’re in Denver, Colorado where thousands of teachers walk out of class, rallying over low pay and funding.

Tens of thousands of teachers are expected to stage walk outs across two states. https://abcn.ws/2JxNbrM

My Review of David Holmgren’s ‘RetroSuburbia’

Trump began the day with an insane interview on Fox & Friends!

Late Night with Seth Meyers

April 26, 2018

Trump began the day with an insane interview on Fox & Friends, and it only got worse from there. Seth takes A Closer Look.

Bahahaha their faces say it all! https://m.facebook.com/story.php…

Trump Goes on Fox & Friends and Freaks Out About Michael Cohen: A Closer Look

Trump began the day with an insane interview on Fox & Friends, and it only got worse from there. Seth takes A Closer Look.

Posted by Late Night with Seth Meyers on Thursday, April 26, 2018

What “IF” Earth spun twice as fast?

What.If added a new episode on  Facebook Watch.
April 26, 2018

12-hour days, 730 days a year. Could you cope with that?

What If Earth Spun Twice as Fast

12-hour days, 730 days a year. Could you cope with that?

Posted by What.If on Thursday, April 26, 2018

To Prevent My Cancer From Returning, I Was Advised to Eat More Beans. No One Ever Mentioned Booze.

Mother Jones

To Prevent My Cancer From Returning, I Was Advised to Eat More Beans. No One Ever Mentioned Booze.

“One of the reasons that doctors don’t like to talk about it is that doctors like to drink.”

Mother Jones      April 20, 2018

Mother Jones; Getty Images

Alcohol can cause cancer. That’s the takeaway from Mother Jones senior reporter Stephanie Mencimer’s blockbuster piece that weaves together her own breast cancer diagnosis and the disturbing history of the alcohol industry downplaying the carcinogenic effects of drinking. For Bite podcast, host Kiera Butler caught up with Stephanie to talk about drinking during her teen years in Utah, how the liquor industry courts women, and why doctors still aren’t warning patients about the dangers of booze.

Mother Jones: How did you discover the link between drinking and cancer?

Stephanie Mencimer: I was diagnosed with lobular invasive carcinoma in April last year, and it came as a bit of a shock. I don’t think anyone gets cancer and thinks, “Yeah, I saw that coming.” Being a journalist, I thought, “Well, I wonder why this is happening to me.” It wasn’t because I was angry or bitter or anything, but I was just curious to know where I fit in the bigger picture. What are the risk factors for this disease that I now have? I started just Googling, of course, and I looked at all the risk factors. I went down the list, and the biggest risk factor was age. The average age of a breast cancer diagnosis is 62.

There are more than 100 studies over several decades that all come to the same conclusion that alcohol contributes to breast cancer.

That was a lot older than I was at the time. I didn’t think that was my risk factor. Taking hormone replacement therapy after menopause was also a big one, and I hadn’t hit menopause yet and had never taken those drugs. As I went through the list, there were a couple other things in there, like how early you start your period as a kid and how late you got to menopause and all that stuff. Then there was this one that really stuck out, and it was alcohol consumption.

I had no idea that alcohol was something that contributed to breast cancer. I was interested to know why I didn’t know. It wasn’t so much that I thought, “Oh, this has to be it. This is what caused my cancer.” I just wanted to know why I never found out about it until I got cancer and how is that possible. That’s what set me on the course of this research.

MJ: I think it’s really important to point out that the story that you wrote is not a health trends story. We’re so used to hearing, “Coffee is good for you. Now it’s bad for you. Eggs are bad for you. Now they’re good for you.” This is actually a case where there’s this really robust body of research over years and years that shows unequivocal results. What does the science say about the correlation between drinking and cancer right now?

SM: As you said, the science is really clear. There are more than 100 studies over [several decades] that all come to the same conclusion that alcohol contributes to breast cancer. It’s the most common cancer among women except for [skin] cancer. Alcohol contributes to about 15 percent of those [cases]. In real numbers, that’s quite a few, about 35,000 cases in a year.

There is a pretty clear biological mechanism for why alcohol is carcinogenic. It really does some pretty serious damage to the DNA in your cells, especially in places like your mouth where it can work with enzymes there to really mess up the cells and the DNA in your mouth and your esophagus. Then for breast cancer, there is a double whammy. Alcohol raises estrogen levels in the body, and estrogen weirdly enough is kind of carcinogenic. It causes the cells in your breast tissue to reproduce or replicate faster. That creates more opportunities for tumors to develop.

MJ: Your particular history of drinking got you thinking even more about this.

It was like, “Let’s mix a bunch of awful stuff from our parents’ liquor cabinets, whatever we can get ahold of, and pour it in, call it a Slurpee, and drink it with a straw.”

SM: I had my first beer when I was 13. Which is kind of weird because I grew up in Utah where people are known for not drinking. But I wasn’t Mormon, and the culture around being a non-Mormon in Utah involved lots of alcohol. The person who gave me my first beer was actually my dad. We were out pheasant hunting. I remember it really vividly, getting in the car, and it was cold outside. He was like, “Here, have a Mickey’s Big Mouth.” That was kind of the attitude that people had toward alcohol around me from a pretty young age. I can’t say that I continued to drink a lot of beer at 13, but by the time I was 15, in high school, we were drinking a lot.

Maybe everybody’s like that, but I think that we were trying as this non-Mormon group of kids to not be like the missionaries in Utah. We really pounded stuff, and it wasn’t really like the kind of social drinking that you do when you’re older. It was like, “Let’s mix a bunch of awful stuff from our parents’ liquor cabinets, whatever we can get a hold of, and pour it in, call it a Slurpee, and drink it with a straw.” That set off my years of drinking. I don’t know if I ever drank quite as much as I did when I was in high school when I was an adult. I thought about that when I got cancer and discovered that alcohol was a carcinogen and thought, “Wow, I’ve been exposed to this substance for a really long time.”

MJ: It sounds like from your piece that for women and breast cancer, that early drinking period is particularly important and particularly detrimental.

SM: Breast tissue doesn’t fully mature until a woman gets pregnant. You have a lot of cells that reproduce pretty quickly and robustly for those years, however long it is. If you never get pregnant, that in itself is a risk for breast cancer. There’s some evidence that suggests that it’s because those breast cells never mature fully, and it makes them really vulnerable to carcinogens.

Researchers had data from women who were exposed to radiation from the nuclear bomb in Nagasaki. Women who had been under the age of 20 who were exposed to radiation had way more breast cancer than women who were over 40. The researchers deduced that this was a vulnerable time for breast tissue for women. If you start drinking when you’re quite young before you’ve had children and doing a lot of it, actually, it can cause benign breast disease first, which I don’t think people really realize. Anyone who’s ever had to deal with a mammogram that involves dense breast tissue, well, alcohol can make that happen. Even though you don’t have cancer, it can still make it harder for mammograms to do their job to pick up on the tumors. It works in a whole bunch of insidious ways for younger women that I think is really powerful.

MJ: The most disturbing piece of this is that you found that the alcohol industry is actually working hard to downplay this science. Can you tell me a little more about that?

Instead of talking about the risks that come along with alcohol, they have really pushed hard to market alcohol as a health product.

SM: Instead of talking about the risks that come along with alcohol, they have really pushed hard to market alcohol as a health product, which is kind of ironic. It’s a really audacious marketing strategy to take something that kills almost 90,000 people a year, and that includes cancer but like also car crashes and accidents and things like that, to take that and say, “Hey, this is actually something you should drink every day because it’s good for you, and it might protect you from heart disease or from dementia.”

MJ: And they’ve actually tried really hard to get women into drinking more.

SM: Per capita alcohol consumption in the United States peaked in about 1981 or 1982. The industry then really got hammered because there were a lot of drunk driving tests that came along with that. Public health people pushed back and passed a bunch of laws to enforce underage drinking laws, to raise the legal drinking limit to 21. There was a lot of fetal alcohol syndrome work back then in the ’80s, and it was pretty effective so that by the mid-’90s, per capita alcohol consumption in the US had really plummeted. I think by like ’97, you can see it’s a real dip. People really just weren’t drinking as much at that point.

There’s just more of a culture of drinking, I think, for men than there was for women. The industry looked at all that and was like, “Wow, here’s a growth market.”

The industry was trying to figure out what to do about it, because they were losing money. They’re not selling as many products, and so I think that what happened is they looked at the data. Historically, women have always drunk a lot less than men. We metabolize it differently. It affects us more. There’s just more of a culture of drinking, I think, for men than there was for women. The industry looked at all that and was like, “Wow, here’s a growth market.” They set about to really push drinking on women. They came up with products for them, special types of like alcopops, sweetened malt beverages. Because women, I guess historically, don’t like the taste of beer. They created these things they marketed to young women.

It was quite a concerted effort to get women to drink more like men, and it worked. Today, [teen] girls are more likely to drink than the boys are, and that’s true of college students, too.

MJ: You have this whole part of your story where you talk about when you were diagnosed, you were sent to go meet with a nutritionist who was going to give you this anti-cancer diet.

SM: That was one of the more depressing moments of my cancer treatment, when I learned all the things that I was supposed to do to keep it from coming back. This very nice nutritionist gave me a list of things that I should do and not do; I needed a spreadsheet to really keep track of it all. I was supposed to eat cruciferous vegetables four to five times a week. I was supposed to have tofu or some sort of natural soy three times a week. She wanted me to eat 30 grams of fiber a day, which is almost impossible to do even if you’re eating a lot of lettuce because it’s a really high number, so she said, “Beans, you have to eat all these beans in order to hit that target.”

After an hour of this conversation about all the ways I should modify my diet to fight cancer, not once did she ever bring up alcohol. I talked to an oncology researcher who said, “That’s really funny because there’s a lot more data about why you shouldn’t drink alcohol than there is about eating tofu or broccoli as part of your anti-cancer diet.”

MJ: How do we compare in the United States to other countries when it comes to how much people know about this connection between alcohol and cancer?

SM: Other countries are actually doing quite a bit more than we are. One of the most interesting things I’ve found was that when the tobacco wars were really heating up, there was money that went into campaigns to do counter-advertising to combat the tobacco industry’s marketing, especially toward young people. There were ads about smoking, like the Marlboro man coughing and dying of cancer and those sorts of things, and ads that showed what smoking really did to people to make it look less sexy to counter what the tobacco industry was doing.

In England, and also in Australia, some of the cancer groups there have started doing the same thing around alcohol. They’ve run some ads where there’s a great one where they have a guy drinking a beer, and in the bottom of the glass is a tumor. It shows him sipping away at this glass, and the narrator goes on about why alcohol causes cancer, and then the guy swallows the tumor. His little kids are running around in the background.

Here in the United States, cancer groups actually join up with the alcohol industry to raise money. I found a whole bunch of places, like at Georgetown Hospital here in D.C. They have a wine and women fundraiser for their Lombardi Cancer Center. Breast cancer especially—a lot of the charities raise money through craft brew events or wine events. That’s not happening so much overseas. Other countries are doing things that will help prevent cancer by reducing alcohol consumption, like really basic stuff like raising taxes on booze, which in the United States, not only have we not raised alcohol taxes in a really long time—in the tax bill this year, they just slashed them even further. Our alcohol taxes now are lower than they were in the 1950s.

Our alcohol taxes now are lower than they were in the 1950s.

MJ: What does the science say about men’s drinking and their cancer risk?

SM: Men don’t get off the hook on this one. Alcohol for men causes more than 50 percent of all mouth and lip and throat and esophageal cancer. It causes 16 percent of all colon cancer in men, and that’s the big one because there are a lot of colon cancers. Men don’t get breast cancer like women do, and because it’s hormone related, it’s not really such an issue for them, but it’s still a problem. Esophageal cancer isn’t that common, but it’s pretty astonishing that 50 to 55 percent of all those cancers are caused by drinking. I really don’t think people appreciate that, and it’s especially true for men.

MJ: One thing that as I talk about your piece with my friends and my colleagues, we can’t shake this chilling feeling that for many of us, the damage has already been done. For me, for example, I’m 38. I had my baby right before I turned 36, at which point I had been drinking alcohol since college. Even if I quit drinking right now, would it even have any effect on my cancer risk?

SM: There is good news on that front. It’s like smoking. If you quit, your risk starts to go down. There hasn’t been as much research on this, and I imagine this would be some place that people are going to start digging into now that it’s so clear that alcohol causes cancer. Your risk will definitely go down. If you figure that things like breast cancer don’t start to show up in people a lot of times till you’re 70 years old, that gives you another 30-some years of drinking that could still give you cancer.

I don’t think that anyone is really recommending prohibition or don’t drink at all, but the government recommendations and sober scientists, they’ll say, “If you don’t drink, don’t start, but if you do drink, you should stick to the guidelines,” which say that if you have only one drink a day or less, that you’re probably going to be fine. I think that we don’t all just live to prevent cancer. I don’t want to be a total killjoy. One drink a day probably isn’t going to make your life that much shorter, but don’t have seven drinks on Saturday. I think that if people stayed within that guideline, they’d be in pretty good shape. They’d certainly be better off than they are now.

MJ: Right. One of your sources was somebody who talks to college kids about the risks of binge drinking, and she observed that she would talk to these kids, and then she would see them going out that same night and getting wasted. It seems we need to change how we’re talking to our kids about it from a much earlier age.

One of the reasons that doctors don’t like to talk about it is that doctors like to drink. There are quite a few wine companies that are owned by doctors.

SM: I think a big part of that is going to be up to the medical profession because in my experience, even going through cancer treatment—and I see my oncologist every three months—they just never talk about alcohol. Part of that is because the industry has really targeted doctors with the message that alcohol can reduce heart attacks. They distribute studies to doctors to make sure they see all that stuff about red wine, but the doctors really haven’t gotten the message that alcohol is carcinogenic.

Especially for young women, it’s such a big deal. I think that the American Society of Oncologists is trying to remedy this problem because they did a study about how few people really understand the risk of alcohol and cancer. They put out a paper saying, “Here’s all the evidence. Here’s why we need to talk to our patients about this.” They also said that one of the reasons that doctors don’t like to talk about it is that doctors like to drink. There are quite a few wine companies that are owned by doctors.

People will listen to their doctors, even if you’re a teenager or a college student. If your doctor says, “Look, this is going to give you breast cancer if you don’t cut way back,” I think that people are not stupid. They will take that into consideration and make some changes.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn’t fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jonesplease join us with a tax-deductible donation so we can keep on doing the type of journalism that 2018 demands.