Robert C. Lehrman



Bob Skilnik does a good job covering the serving facts issue, as to alcohol beverages, and we must admit we got this idea from his recent post here. The above video shows former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop extolling the need for adding serving facts information to beer, wine and spirits labels without further ado. We wanted to highlight this video because it seems quite effective, whether you agree or disagree. That is, we think it is effective especially when compared to many of the written comments submitted to TTB over the past few years. We have summarized many of the written comments on this blog; some are quite persuasive and a great many are, shall we say, lame. We find it particularly lame to assert, for example, everybody knows that beer has no fat, so it’s a waste to force beer companies to declare it. The same could be said about alcohol content. Everybody knows beer is about 3-5% alcohol by volume. Except when it isn’t. Maybe it happens to be 13.4% alc./vol. or 21% alc./vol. or 2.16% alc./vol. Where is the harm in telling consumers, simply and directly, that Guinness Stout has no fat, just like a low carb beer or a sugared-up flavored malt beverage?
Yes; it will be expensive and cumbersome to add serving facts information to hundreds of thousands of alcohol beverage products, but it’s too easy to say nobody cares, or consumers already know. In a few days, we plan to summarize Dr. Koop’s written comment on the same topic.
The second reason we wanted to highlight this particular video clip is that it seems to have only 232 views in YouTube as of this writing. Again, whether you agree or disagree, we thought it’s a good issue that should have more viewings.

It is likely that all beer, wine and spirits labels will change dramatically in the near future. TTB has been working on new rules since CSPI and other groups submitted a petition in 2003. The new rules would require a “Serving Facts” panel on every container. This panel would include a lot more information, such as the typical serving size, number of servings per container, calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat. Because this is a big, controversial change, TTB has received more than 18,000 public comments during the past few years. There are far too many comments for most people to review, and so we will highlight and summarize the most noteworthy comments here. The most recent proposal and comments are here. This is comment 6 in a series; to see others, click on the “serving facts” tag below.
Bluemont’s General Counsel, Kevin Rupy, explains:

1. Bluemont Vineyard is a small farm winery in Bluemont, Virginia. It was organized by two groups of brothers during the past few years.
2. Bluemont opposes the rule as a costly, unnecessary burden on small wineries. The burden is so heavy it could “undermine the viability of small, farm wineries.”
3. TTB claims the costs are not excessive, but Bluemont can’t identify a single small winery that agrees.
4. The rule is “fantastic news for companies such as Diageo” because per-unit costs are much lower for companies with extremely high volumes. Diageo is a $3 billion a year company with more than 22,000 employees in 80 countries.
5. TTB has more than 18,500 comments and claims this is “numerically significant” but it’s really a minuscule 0.02% of US wine consumers.
6. Most of the comments stem from Diageo’s “Know Your Drink” campaign. It is an “astro turf campaign” orchestrated by a leading PR agency.
7. Such “point and click,” web-based PR campaigns should not form the basis for major public policy decisions.
8. CSPI’s consumer survey, showing wide support for the rule, fails to ask whether consumers are willing to pick up the increased costs that will result from the rule. It is an unfunded mandate.
9. Because the rule will have a big impact on small business, the law requires TTB to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. TTB should balance the major costs against the small benefits.