A recent issue of the TTB Newsletter had some good information about Flavor Ingredient Data Sheets — often referred to as FIDSs. FIDSs can be very important, and so it is good to have this information readily available.

The FAQ explains that a FIDS is typically needed when “you’re using a compounded flavor that was purchased from a flavor manufacturer. … For this purpose, a compounded flavor includes any flavor, cloudifier, or blender that consists of multiple ingredients that are combined to produce a particular taste characteristic.” The same FAQ provides a blank, fillable FIDS form.

The FAQ emphasizes that you should get the FIDS from your flavor supplier; it is not a document that can or should normally be prepared by the producer of the end beverage. The FIDS form first burst onto the scene 20 or more years ago, and has not changed very much in the intervening years. It covers the basics like, is the flavor approved, safe, natural, and does it contain any colors or other ingredients with labeling or safety implications. In an attempt to go a bit beyond where TTB’s document already goes, here are a few common examples of where a FIDS is and is not indicated.

• Cherry Liqueur (made with Natural Cherry Flavor)
  • Get a...

In the past, for a long time, TTB would say no warnings are allowed, but for those mandated by Congress:  “According to the Surgeon General…” (as to getting pregnant, driving and whatnot).

Slowly but surely, however, this principle is colliding with the pent-up penchant for warnings throughout society. The pregnant lady came calling about 10 years ago. Bacardi’s 151 warning goes way back. There is even this spoof of the whole fondness for warnings.

In the latest iteration, these Prop. 65 warnings are starting to pop up. Off toward the upper right the approved label says:

CA PROP 65 WARNING:  SOME MATERIALS USED IN THE COLORED DECORATIONS ON THIS CONTAINER CONTAIN CADMIUM, A CHEMICAL KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS OR REPRODUCTIVE HARM.

The label approval for this beer, along with a qualification about this extra warning, is here. It seems like labels of this sort started to pop up around 2012, and so far there at least 50 such approvals (referring to Prop. 65 and things like cadmium). Here is a second, albeit Stupid, example.

TTB approved this label July 18, 2017. There are very few other TTB labels that mention CANNABIS and SATIVA. Perhaps this product has hemp seeds, along the lines of this 2014 label approval. Then again, perhaps the Lithuanian product merely tastes like hemp or cannabis, as a literal reading of the label would suggest.

Though I see a few signs of cannabis and hemp, in recent approvals, I am not seeing any that mention CBD (aka, cannabidiol). CBD is one of many cannabinoids in cannabis; it is usually viewed as not intoxicating, though it may have various other impacts on brain function. This April 20, 2017 article does a good job of explaining about the barriers to seeing CBD in an alcohol beverage product, or on the label.

Although Dad and Dudes (“D&D,” the Colorado brewer) probably wanted to market something along the lines shown in the photo above, the actual federal approval is quite a bit less adventurous, as in the label image here.

The text near the green arrow, on a related approval, tends to show that D&D grudgingly banished the “additive(s)”.

The article says D&D:

will be fighting the federal government over a beer brewed with non-psychoactive CBD. …

Last...

This deftly navigates the differences between FDA and TTB rules. If it had a little more alcohol, or a different type of alcohol, at least these 5 noted things probably would not fly.

1. So far as we know, TTB does not allow electrolyte references on alcohol beverage labels.
2. Nor does TTB allow vitamin references.
3. From time to time in the past TTB has frowned upon prominent refresh claims on the grounds that they may imply therapeutic value.
4. As of this writing it does not appear that TTB is ok with GMO claims.
5. Finally, I would bet money against TTB allowing this term (nutritious).

All these claims are possible, and not suicidal, because the product is wine based, and under 7% alc./vol., such that FDA has full control over the labeling, while TTB retains control of the taxation and formula. The front label mentions that it’s a wine specialty, as here.

If this were 7% or more, TTB would probably require something a lot more descriptive than “Wine Specialty,” and would not allow this 12 ounce size, and would also require ABV to be spelled out. The product is Coco Cocktail, and there is no TTB label approval to which to point.

LabelVision shows about 71 Rock & Rye products approved over the last 17 years. These three really stand out, as bold designs.

The first is Mister Katz’s, from NY Distilling, of Brooklyn.  The second is Hochstadter’s Slow & Low, from Jacquin, of Philadelphia. The third is from Driftless Glen, of Wisconsin.

TTB prefers Rock & Ryes made precisely this way as per 27 CFR 5.22:

(3) “Rock and rye”, “rock and bourbon”, “rock and brandy”, “rock and rum” are liqueurs, bottled at not less than 48° proof, in which, in the case of rock and rye and rock and bourbon, not less than 51 percent, on a proof gallon basis, of the distilled spirits used are, respectively, rye or bourbon whisky, straight rye or straight bourbon whisky, or whisky distilled from a rye or bourbon mash, and, in the case of rock and brandy and rock and rum, the distilled spirits used are all grape brandy or rum, respectively; containing rock candy or sugar syrup, with or without the addition of fruit, fruit juices, or other natural flavoring materials, and possessing, respectively, a predominant characteristic rye, bourbon, brandy, or rum flavor derived from the distilled spirits used. Wine, if used, must be within the 21⁄2 percent limitation provided in §5.23...