For well over a year and across two different presidential administrations, a behind-the-scenes battle played out in Washington, D.C., over the future of Americans' drinking habits.

At least, that's what the combatants believed were the stakes. On one side, anti-alcohol activists and public health busybodies tried to rig the newest edition of the federal government's dietary guidelines by creating a new review panel specifically for the alcohol-centric recommendations, then stuffed that new panel with experts on addiction and mental health rather than, you know, dietitians. On the other side, members of Congress and various elements of the alcohol industry cried "foul" and demanded the government follow a process rooted in science and proper procedure. (If all of that sounds thrilling to you, I have a Reason cover story to recommend.)

In reality, the outcome of that fight probably matters less than anyone on the inside believes. There are many other factors influencing how much individual Americans drink (or whether they drink at all) that are probably more important than a set of guidelines drawn up by federal bureaucrats—and most well-known for being wrong.

Still, this week's announcement of the new federal dietary guidelines offers a chance to call a truce in this conflict. It might also suggest a better way forward for the dietary guidelines as a whole.

The anti-alcohol activists pushed for a major change in the longstanding guideline that says men should consume no more than two drinks per day and women should stop at one. They wanted that recommendation reduced to one drink per day or to fall in line with the new World Health Organization guidelines that say even that much booze should be viewed as harmful.

Those on the other side favored no change to the existing guidelines, which reflect a scientific consensus that moderate drinking is an acceptable health risk (while heavier drinking is, of course, more hazardous).

In some ways, you can think of this as a debate over the purpose of the dietary guidelines themselves. Are they supposed to be a set of rules for avoiding all risk, or a set of, well, guidelines to avoid habits that cross into being dangerously unhealthy?

If you think it's the latter—as I tend to, admittedly—then the federal government actually got this one right.

The new dietary guidelines released this week advise Americans to "consume less alcohol for better health," and also point out that there are some people who "should not drink at all."

You'll notice that's a pretty significant change from the longstanding "two drinks/one drink" rule, and one that seems like it should make the anti-booze crowd happy, as it acknowledges that even moderate drinkers could be healthier by cutting back.

For the record, they aren't actually happy about it. Mike Marshall, CEO of the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance, calls this "a win for Big Alcohol" because the guidelines also did not point out that alcohol has a link to cancer.

Still, politics is about incremental victories, and this is literally a federal guideline that says people should incrementally reduce their drinking. I understand why that won't satisfy people who believe the first sip of alcohol is an unacceptable risk, but it seems like pretty good guidance for the vast majority of us.

In fact, the new alcohol recommendation reflects a basic reality about life that should be embedded in all the federal dietary guidelines.

"In the best-case scenario, I don't think you should drink alcohol," said Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, during Wednesday's press conference. But he also acknowledged that there are a lot of good reasons to tip back a glass once in a while. "Alcohol is a social lubricant that brings people together," he added. "And there's probably nothing healthier than having a good time with friends in a safe way."

Life is full of trade-offs and nuance. Isn't acknowledging that a lot more useful than trying to tell people that one or two drinks are fine, but the next one is dangerous?

The risks that come from drinking vary widely from person to person based on a lot of other factors. The federal dietary guidelines, if we must have such a thing, should reflect that reality.