I'm glad you have the time, knowledge, expertise, and experience to thoroughly investigate the safety and long term affects of every product you use on yourself, second hand effects on others, and the environment. Not everyone is so lucky to be blessed with so much time, energy, and knowledge that they themselves can do what thousands of people so full time.
If you are banning vices that cause societal harm, alcohol is far ahead of anything else. DUI victims, destroyed families, physical abuse, homelessness...alcohol is reliably correlated to all of these but since it brings in lots of tax $$$ and educated voters enjoy their Pinot, we look the other way.
Also, alcohol sales and marketing are heavily regulated, along with tobacco.
They're not "Outright banning", they're threatening to if the industry is unable to stop advertising to or otherwise making it appeal children. This is par-for-course for how regulation works: you don't comply and refuse to become compliant, you can't do business.
They're not just destroying an entire industry without working with said industry to mutually reach their goals.
But no, it's got to be the smarmy wine drinkers who read actual physical copies of the New Yorker.
I think this will change if we can elect more repreesentatives that are more intrested in serving 1-2 terms and writing good law than getting re-elected.
That said, the FDA is really, really far down most people's list of agencies that shouldn't exist. ATF and TSA are generally the agencies that most people would prefer to get rid of.
Your complaint is a classic libertarian whine: you want the stuff you think is important regulated (though in practice you don't recognize how much of it already is), but the stuff on the margin is clearly an infringement on the fundamental rights of "free people".