Proposed Alcohol Labeling Rule Changes

Recently, John Steele posted a proposed labeling law change to the forum

Initial thoughts:

  • Too much dual labeling. Given we already use metric exclusively for wine and spirits, we should do so across the board and drop all US customary measures
  • Point out that the math problem listed would be easier in metric
  • Should be in mL or g of alcohol to be consistent with other nutritional information
  • If it's part of the nutritional information, should just be another line and look like the rest
  • Page 13, column 1: "200ml bottle (about 8 fl. oz.)" ..... "12 fl. oz. (355 ml) bottle of beer"
    • More complex than it needs to be. Why are we putting ourselves through this dual labeling mess rather than just moving to metric?
  • In VII-B-1 sometimes they use "about" sometimes they don't. Would be easier on everyone if they just used mL
  • Wine and distilled spirits are subject to metric standards so they're making dual labeling required for everything for consistency regardless of how it's served.
  • There's specific questions asked, they should all be responded to (although the financial question might be impossible unless you're in the industry).
    • Don't just target metrication, answer their questions and request metric as part of those replies (and any other comments you want to give).
    • Doing them a favor makes it more likely they'll listen to our requests.
Here's my summary notes from reading through it.

Responses must be in by Oct 29 2007

I: Introduction

  • see TTB Notice No. 41, 70 FR 22274 (April 29, 2005)
  • seems to be industry driven, TTB was contacted asking for permission to add labeling facts panel
II: Petition for alcohol facts label and ingredient labeling
  • Original petition from CSPI, NCL, 67 other orgs, 8 people
  • Standardized format including
    • Amount in fl oz
    • Calories per serving
    • Standard drinks per container
    • Current definitions of moderate drinking ("Dietary Guidelines for Americans" by Department of Health and Human Services and USDA)
  • Petitioners provided example (we should provide counter example)
    • Note the example has 0.5 oz rather than 0.5 fl oz in "Alcohol per serving"
III: Requests for voluntary serving facts labeling
  • Standard servings in the US:
    • 12 fl oz beer
    • 5 fl oz wine
    • 1.5 fl oz 80 proof (40% Alc/Vol) distilled spirits
    • TTB ruling 2004-1
IV: Notice No 41
  • A precursor to this document posted in 2005
V: TTB's authority to prescribe alcohol beverage labeling and regulations
  • "Federal Alcohol Administration Act" 27 U.S.C. 205(e) and 205(f) are alcoholic regulations
  • Secretary of the Treasury "authority to issue regulations to prevent deception of the consumer, to provide consumer with 'adequate information' as the identity and quality of the product, prohibit false or misleading statements and information on alcohol content of the product
VI: Discussion of comments on notice 41
  • Many consumer groups want alcohol labeling on all alcoholic products. Some industry groups (mostly brewing) oppose this as they see it as extra cost.
  • There's disagreement as to whether it's a good thing to list absolute alcohol per serving
  • CSPI originally proposed the listing of alcohol content as a percentage of alcohol by volume and in US fl oz
    • They changed this position stating they no longer favored labeling with volume of pure alcohol
  • worries about misleading consumers by stating amount of alcohol per serving as serving may change or consumer may drink only part of a serving
    • prefer just alcohol by volume as it requires no images and doesn't fluctuate with the size of the drink
  • exceptions on alcohol labeling for some table wine and malt beverages (beer) would go away
  • Proposed amendment of 24.257(a)(3) of the TTB regulations to require alcohol content in terms of % by volume on all wine labels.
  • TTB proposal suggests allowing it anywhere (including serving facts)
    • conforms with various other nations laws allowing for more imports
  • TTB proposes to remove the requirement of %AlcVol on brand label
  • TTB believes %AlcVol is better than US fl oz
    • CSPI claims they would be confusing to consumers
  • NCL noted providing consumers with this info may make it easier for them to compare the amount of alcohol without doing math
    • TTB doesn't believe it would be misleading to provide US fl oz on product labels but does think it would be confusing without context
    • TTB is not proposing to mandate US fl oz
    • They are however proposing to make it allowable to do so (as long as it's indented below %AlcVol)
    • If they use US fl oz, they need to put it on the serving facts label as this label changes with container size.
      • This would also require putting %AlcVol on the serving facts label so it can be superior to the US fl oz
VI-B (Calorie and Nutrient Labeling):
  • 18,500 respondents but mostly form letters from http://www.knowyourdrink.com
  • Various concerns have been put forward about putting nutrition information on labels and what that might lead consumers to think
    • One comment directed towards leading consumers to think it was normal nutrition.
    • Things like "0% fat" is often directed at health foods but might be used in advertising of alcohol if it were required to be listed.
    • Similar claim made about high protein.
    • A note that the listing of things like protein and fat may contradict the TTB's statements opposing health claims on alcohol.
  • Many of the form letters submitted gave the impression that the writer believed that it was not possible to add nutritional information to alcoholic beverages (it is actually, but not required).
    • TTB believes that they should mandate this information to make it consistent and that consumers wish to see it.
  • TTB doesn't agree with those who think that some of the nutrient content shouldn't be shown unless it meets minimum levels
    • Brewers already include much of the information in question and it hasn't mislead consumers
  • TTB thus intends to require a "Serving Facts" panel
VI-C: Comments on moderate drinking definition
  • Some groups want the US Dietary Guidelines for moderate drinking printed
  • DISCUS and Beer Institute assert that would be a health claim and thus illegal
  • Given the the Dietary Guidelines are significantly longer than the "1 drink for women, 2 drinks for men" that the pro-labeling groups want, the TTB thinks it would be misleading to add this to labels.
    • Specifically, where the guidelines say people shouldn't drink at all but such a label as that suggested would mislead people into thinking it was OK
VI-D: Standard drink and serving size information
  • Many comments received supporting adding definitions of serving sizes to the panel
  • Some assertions about consumers thinking that alcohol in beer is less potent than alcohol in spirits
  • Brewing industry pointed out that many drinks are mixed or served in inconsistent ways and a "standard drink" thus doesn't really exist.
  • Focus study showed most consumers believed a serving size was a recommended portion size rather than a standardized unit of measure
  • TTB believes that there would be confusion between "standard drink" and "serving size", particularly as most drinks don't contain a "standard drink" of alcohol
  • TTB believes serving sizes should be based on customary consumption rather than broad categories such as those in the Dietary Guidelines.
  • TTB is not going to define a standard drink
    • Instead adopt reference amounts based on customary consumption (see section VII)
    • Specifically invite comments on reference amounts
VI-E: Comments on the title of the product panel
  • TTB believes "Serving Facts" is better than "Alcohol Facts"
VI-F: Serving facts graphic
  • Generally agreed that a graphic would be misleading
VI-G: Cost of mandatory labeling
  • Small beverage producers complaining that the labeling would put them at a disadvantage and would be costly
  • 27% of survey respondents said the costs would cause them to cease bottling
  • 29% said they would withdraw from interstate sales
  • Suggestion to exempt production of less than 5,000 gallons
  • Suggestion that small brewers could use their web sites rather than printing new labels
  • Comments suggesting the cost would be offset by the benefit to consumers
  • FDA study shows cost between $1,100 and $2,600 per stock keeping unit (a specific product in a specific size)
  • FDA relabeling cost estimate for a winery producing 320,000 9 liter cases would incur a cost of $0.000677 per bottle
  • Companies change their labels about once every 3 years
    • Thus the TTB plans to put a delay of 3 years into their ruling to allow for the relabeling to be done as part of a normal cycle
  • For bottles 50 mL or smaller, will allow linear fashion Serving Facts information
    • Seeking comments as to whether this should be allowed
  • TB believes that the burden of relabeling will not be significant
    • Approximately $250 per formulation
VII: Proposed Regulatory Changes
  • Parts 4, 5, 7 and 24
  • Require alcohol content and nutrient information in a "Serving Facts" panel
VII-A: Mandatory Alcohol Content
  • Sections 4.32(b)(3), 5.32(b)(11) and 7.71(a)
  • Require percent of alcohol by volume
VII-B: Mandatory serving facts panel
  • Mandatory panel including the following
    • Title "Serving Facts"
    • serving size
    • number of servings per container
    • calories per serving
    • grams per serving of carbohydrates, fat and protein
    • May also bear mandatory alcohol content statement as a percentage of alcohol by volume
    • Voluntarily, may include US fl oz
VII-B-1: Serving size
  • expressed in US fl oz and, in parenthesis, mL
  • Sections 4.111(b), 5.81(b) and 7.91(b) will use serving size reference amounts
  • Following proposed reference amounts:
    • Wine
      • <= 14% Alc/Vol: 5 fl oz (148 mL)
      • > 14% < 24%: 2.5 fl oz (74 mL)
    • Distilled spirits
      • <= 10% Alc/Vol: 12 fl oz (355 mL)
      • > 10% < 18%: 5 fl oz (148 mL)
      • > 18%: 1.5 fl oz (44 mL)
    • Malt
      • <= 10% Alc/Vol: 12 fl oz (355 mL)
      • > 10%: 5 fl oz (148 mL)
VII-B-2: % Alc/Vol
  • Sections 4.111(c), 5.81(c) and 7.91(c)
  • Must show as a percent alcohol by volume
  • Remove requirement to put alcohol content on brand label (Sections 4.32, 5.32, 7.22)
  • Section 24.257(a)(3) amendment to require % Alc/Vol on anything meeting definition of "wine"
VII-B-3: Expression in fl oz
  • 4.111(d), 5.81(d) and 7.91(d) permitting display of US fl oz
VII-B-4 through VII-B-7: Calories, carbohydrates, fat and protein labeling
  • 4.111(e-h), 5.81(e-h) and 7.91(e-h) standard for expressing per serving
VII-C: Format and placement
  • Prefer panel format
  • Allow linear for < 50mL
  • Seeking comments as to whether to allow linear for all sizes
  • Sections 4.113, 5.83, 7.93 permit panel to appear anywhere on the container or advertisement
VII-D: Tolerance levels
  • Sections 4.114, 5.84 and 7.94 codify tolerance levels from TTB 2004-2
VIII: Public Participation
  • Must reference Notice No. 73
  • Include:
    • Name
    • Mailing address
  • Legible and written in a language suitable for public disclosure
  • No receipt given
  • All comments regarded as originals
  • Specifically requesting comment on:
    • serving size reference amounts
    • contents of the Serving Facts panel
    • linear display
    • expected economic impact
  • Submit via:
  • If commenting on behalf of an association, business or other entity
    • Include the entity's name
    • Your name and position
    • Fill in organization if using web form
    • Submit on letterhead if using mail
  • A public hearing may also be requested
  • All submitted comments are public record
  • Comments can be viewed by going to the regulations.gov portal and selecting the docket number
  • Comments also available on paper
Parts 4-7:
  • Prints the proposed ruling after changes.
Posted by
Paul Armstrong
at Sep 03, 2007 08:35 in | Modified by
Paul Armstrong
at Sep 16, 2007 06:21 | 0 Comment(s) | Permalink