Despite a raft of studies concluding that alcohol in moderation can provide health benefits, the federal government is only now slowly and grudgingly accepting the evidence, observers report.

• In 1972, Harvard epidemiologist Carl Seltzer concluded that drinkers were less liable to heart disease than abstainers -- and most of the 50 studies done have confirmed the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption.

• The research indicates that the risk of heart disease for moderate drinkers is 40 to 80 percent the risk faced by abstainers.

• But the National Institutes of Health, which funded the original research, refused to let Seltzer publish a paper about his results -- claiming that an encouragement to drinking "would be scientifically misleading and socially undesirable...."

• Almost 25 years later, government literature began balancing warnings about the dire consequences of alcohol consumption with bland statements such as, "Alcoholic beverages have been used to enhance the enjoyment of meals by many societies throughout human history."

As late as 1990, the government still contended that "drinking has no net health benefit."

When the government's 1996 version of "Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans" vaguely acknowledged the benefits of drinking, anti-alcohol groups such as the Marin Institute began a campaign to have statements about alcohol's benefits reversed when the report is reissued in 2000.

Not surprisingly, the role of alcohol in preventing heart disease is still not widely known, and efforts by manufacturers to increase public awareness have been stymied by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. It bans any therapeutic claims related to alcohol "regardless of their truthfulness."

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has filed suit against the BATF, seeking to have it amend its policies. The Wine Institute is challenging the bureau also.