fda

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...

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.

Here is a fun little article that combines a few of my favorite things:  beer, law, The Washington Post and four-leaf clovers.

The article tends to say that Flying Dog had to skirmish with FDA a wee bit, before getting the go ahead to put the clovers in the beer. From the article, I can’t tell if the issue was clovers in general, or only the lucky ones.

The article also hints at other quirks in the law. It says Flying Dog submitted the beer to FDA for approval, but this seems unlikely. I can see this Maryland brewer submitting a formula to TTB for approval, but not to FDA. Also, I would have expected to see a TTB approval for the label, but I can’t find one, and this must signal that Flying Dog only plans to sell this beer intrastate, in the near term. Mostly, this beer probably signals a good excuse for a St. Patrick’s Day-timed press release.

Even though clover seems pretty common, not so new, and generally recognized as safe (whether in 21 CFR 182.10 or via common sense), this article does serve as a good reminder that brewers can’t just use any article that is lying around the field or the grocery store. Some things need a...