Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying something is ok in moderation always defines moderation relative to the harm. This study puts moderation very low ~1-2 glasses of wine a month. Studies focused on different forms of harm have different thresholds, but you get all forms of harm not just what a specific study looks at. Saying I accept the harm for this benefit is fine, but pretending it does not exist is irrational.
Do you have the study? Not some newspaper articles. It feels very unlikely to me that they were able to prove harm from 3 glasses a month, I'd like to read that. [edit] In the article cited in NPR, https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2818... , which makes the claim "zero consumption minimises risk", you can see that ischemic heart disease & diabetes risks actually go down for 1 glass a day, while…
“Every category of drinking was associated with an increased risk of cancer.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268874745_Alcohol_c...
PS: The study included what it called light drinking as a cancer risk. I am less generous with terminology.