The Craft Beverage Modernization Act has been big, good and not so confusing news for U.S.-produced alcohol beverages for about a year already. But when it comes to imported products, there has been lots of confusion, anxiety, and waiting. A lot of this, however, is coming into focus in recent weeks. Last month Customs released this document, to explain how the reduced tax rates will apply to imports. It, and some of the related documents, were not easy to follow. There is lots of talk about various spreadsheets and certifications, but they were not so easy to find, until very recently.

The CBMA spreadsheet is here. The Controlled Group spreadsheet is here. The CBMA Certification is here. FAQs and other, related documents are here.

I am thinking about this topic because American Shipper published a good and clear article about all this on November 2, 2018. The entire article is here, and a few excerpts are below.

In guidance released on Oct. 16, CBP announced the availability of three documents — the Craft Beverage Modernization Act (CBMA) spreadsheet, controlled group spreadsheet and assignment certification — required for importers to claim reduced tax rates for beer, wine and distilled spirits imported during 2018 and 2019, as set forth in the CBMA provisions...

Politics is everywhere lately, and TTB labels are no exception. When I was out in Kentucky last week, somebody showed me the Impeach label. This prompted me to look around for other noteworthy Trump-related labels — pro and con. I was surprised to find not very many MAGA-related labels. I was also surprised to find the rather acerbic label at the right above.

I have a feeling the drafters of the FAA Act never imagined that, several generations later, federal employees would be rendering a thumbs up or down, on labels that ring out with such partisan fervor.

Toward the bottom of this post is about the strongest Pro-Trump label we’ve seen recently.  And there are lots of Deplorables labels. For more labels of this type, see this post about Trumpy Libations.

A few weeks ago Virginia Lawyers Weekly recognized our busy, growing beer law practice. The August 13th article, by Matthew Chaney, covered the rise of Virginia brewing in general, and featured our beer law practice.

The article noted:

“A big change happened in 2012 when Virginia changed their rules to allow brewery tasting rooms to serve full pours of beer for on-premise consumption,” said Daniel J. Christopherson, an attorney at Lehrman Beverage Law in Fairfax County. “That was when the floodgates opened to the point where new breweries seemed to be opening every week.”

Christopherson is just one of six attorneys working in beer law at the Northern Virginia-based firm founded by Robert C. Lehrman. Without listing clients, he said their firm represents about 25 Virginia breweries.

Lehrman, who’s been working in the industry since 1988, and at his own firm since 2001, said that he thinks the biggest difference, besides the law, is that people followed the example of successful craft beer companies like Sam Adams and Sierra Nevada.

Apart from the potential for conflicts between brewers and distributors, all three attorneys agreed that Virginia’s laws are favorable to brewing, which could also be a factor in the recent renaissance.

“Virginia is a very conducive, hospitable place for food businesses and beverage businesses,” Lehrman said. “I strongly recommend companies situate...

In 10 years and 579 posts we’ve covered so many things approved by TTB. Today, and in the near future, we will mix it up and try to cover “basic” things not approved by TTB.

First up, the Non-GMO butterfly seal, as above. LabelVision shows precisely zero label approvals, with this seal. This is the sort of thing LabelVision would pick up right away, because it’s great and essential software. I am thinking about this, this morning, due to a provocative article in today’s Wall Street Journal. As to the butterfly seal flying all around just about any food store you may enter:

The “Non-GMO Project” butterfly label emblazons more than 55,000 organic and nonorganic products on supermarket shelves today—many of which have no GMO counterpart or couldn’t possibly contain GMOs. The clear purpose of these labels, as one peer-reviewed academic study found, is to “stigmatize food produced with conventional processes even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm, or even that it is compositionally any different.” The labels and anti-genetic-engineering propaganda are effective. Another recent study found nearly half of consumers avoid GMO-labeled foods.

The article weirdly calls for a lot more and stricter regulation, coming from the free market side of the debate. The article is by Dr....

Summer is upon us, which means it’s time for crisp beers, sparkling wines, and the newest member of the “refreshing” alcohol beverage family – hard seltzer. By now you’re likely aware of hard seltzer, but despite its growing popularity, consumers are still relatively limited to a few national brands and a handful of regional brands. High consumer demand and room for competition make entering the hard seltzer market an appealing proposition. If you are considering launching a line of hard seltzers, keep reading, as this article lays out some important regulatory considerations to keep in mind.

The majority of hard seltzer is produced from either a brewed-malt (“clear malt”) or brewed-sugar (where 100% of the fermentables are derived from non-malt sugar) base, with carbonated water and added flavor. Under Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) regulations, both malt- and sugar-based hard seltzers are considered “beer,” but only malt-based hard seltzers are also considered “malt beverages.” This means that federal beer rules (27 CFR Part 25) apply to both malt- and sugar-based hard seltzers, but federal malt beverage labeling and advertising rules (27 CFR Part 7) apply only to malt-based hard seltzers.

The upshot of all this is that producing a hard seltzer with either type of base requires a Brewer’s Notice, and – if you’re...