Controversy in a cup. This little shooter raises a lot of TTB issues. First of all, it’s a gel-shot and those can be controversial from time to time. Next, it is technically a wine but it has added spirits — in the form of citrus neutral spirits (vodka, for all intents and purposes) and flavors. But wait, there’s more. It contains caffeine. It contains taurine. And … it contains added vitamins, in the form of Vitamin B6 and B12 (pyridoxine and cyanocobalamin). Not too surprisingly, this 2006 gem of an approval is also “surrendered” (see about halfway down the form). As of this writing, TTB does not allow vitamins to be directly added to beer, wine or spirits. Until recent months, TTB allowed vitamins to be added so long as their was no direct reference to the vitamins on the label or in advertising. TTB is at the early stages of developing regulations related to alcohol beverages containing vitamins, minerals and caffeine.
Continue Reading Leave a Commentlegally interesting/controversial
TTB Not OK with Vitamin Wine
Tags: caffeine/secondary effects, ingredients, legally interesting/controversial, non-liquid, nutrition, policy
Over Regulated Ale, Part 1
I saw this label a few days ago and it screamed out to say there was drama lurking under the surface. Indeed there was. Kevin Bloom, brewer at Manchester Brewing, explained:
The original label was for St. Paula’s Liquid Wisdom, which shows the Renaissance painting “The Conversion of Paula by Saint Jerome.” However, TTB insisted that we were making a medical claim of physical effect, i.e., if you drank our beer you’d become wise. We countered that no reasonable person believed that drinking beer would make them wise (although, I suppose, if you drank enough you would probably learn the wisdom of avoiding such conduct henceforth). TTB said “they had to consider all the people” by which I would guess they mean idiots. Now, it’s hard to argue that there aren’t a lot of idiots about, but we like to think they drink Other People’s Beer.
Anyway, we appealed the decision. While the appeal was pending, we submitted Over Regulated Ale as a substitute. TTB had no objection to the Over Regulated label. We continue to dialogue with TTB about St. Paula’s and look forward to having approval soon.
Is TTB being too tough? Is Kevin being a baby? He only has to comply with TTB, EPA, FDA, IRS, SEC, FTC,...
Continue Reading Leave a CommentTags: legally interesting/controversial, policy, political, rejections, speech
Nude Beer
One might assume that beer + naked women is a nearly unstoppable combination. But it did not work out that way for Coast Range Brewing. It looks like the Gilroy, California purveyor of Nude Beer is long gone. Their last COLA was in 2006 and their last Nude Beer approval was in 2004. There is no sign of the company at the web address above. In all, the company got about 23 approvals for Nude Beer before fading away. Coast Range provides a clear lesson that it takes a lot more than unclothed women to sell beer. In case it’s not obvious from the above image, the idea is that you buy the beer and then peel off part of the label to reveal a woman with little if any clothing. A slightly blurred example is at the end of this sentence but don’t click it if you don’t want to see nudity. This kind of stickering is a good option for companies that want to show something more than the government and retailers might otherwise allow. We wanted to capture it before it fades into ancient history. This also shows that the system has a lot of checks and balances, such as the market, and the government doesn’t need to carry the entire...
Continue Reading Leave a CommentTags: container, functional, legally interesting/controversial, policy, risqué, sexual
97 Ounces of … Obscenity(?)
It’s been a long time since any single wine label got as much press as the one above. We don’t want to rehash the Cycles Gladiator story yet one more time; it is well told here for example. Instead, we are curious about the lines dividing art, free speech and obscenity. TTB is regularly called upon to judge these matters. Today, it’s your turn to judge. Please take a peek (if you dare) and report your opinion in the poll below. A quick view of all four labels is here (this is the fastest and easiest view, for the poll). [polldaddy poll=”2111484″] Another view, showing the full label approval for each product, is below.
- A. Cycles Gladiator Red Wine
- B. Toogood Foreplay Red Wine
- C. Mendielle Vertu Merlot
- D. Naughty Nancy’s Nut Brown Ale
Go ahead and vote in the poll or comment or both.
Continue Reading Leave a CommentTags: legally interesting/controversial, media buzz, policy, risqué, sexual
Nanny State Beer
Last month, we highlighted three beers with alcohol contents above 18%. For the most part, these beers created little controversy, despite stuffing a six-pack’s worth of alcohol into a single bottle. Enter Scotland’s BrewDog, a craft brewer that drew the ire of industry watchdogs in the United Kingdom with their Tokyo* oak aged stout. Alcohol Focus Scotland called the 18.2% alc./vol. beer “irresponsible,” and a member of the Scottish Parliament even submitted a motion condemning the brewery. BrewDog responded to these UK critics with Nanny State, a 1.1% alc./vol. “mild imperial ale.” The label has this to say:
At BrewDog we appreciate your inability to know your limits – especially when it comes to alcohol – which is why we’ve created Nanny State. This idiosyncratic little beer is a gentle smack in the right direction. Please note: BrewDog recommends that you only drink this beer whilst wearing the necessary personal protective equipment and in a premises that has passed a full health and safety risk assessment for optimum enjoyment.
The name, absurdly low alcohol content and label combine to create a witty riff on alcohol beverage policy. And it may well be a great public relations move for a small brewer — taking a well-publicized swipe at critics with a marketable...
Continue Reading Leave a CommentTags: legally interesting/controversial, media buzz, policy, political, speech, writing/witty/funny
Forty Proof Beer
Once upon a time, the federal government prohibited the disclosure of alcohol content on malt beverage labels. The rationale was to protect public health by discouraging brewers from competing in “strength wars,” to sell more product. It took years of persistence by Coors Brewing Company and a ruling from the Supreme Court in 1995 to persuade TTB (then ATF) to allow the practice. Did the strength wars ever materialize, once the rules changed? Among the major brewers, not really. In fact, we noted that there is war of a different kind — increasingly lighter beers (in alcohol and caloric content) from Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors. But the craft beer movement appears to have its own strength war. “Extreme beers” — beers with intense flavors and alcohol contents at three, four or even five times the amounts in a typical American lager — help small brewers stand out in an increasingly crowded marketplace. And yes, they have many more calories too. Boston Beer Company offers one of the strongest beers available for sale in the United States, with their Utopias, at 24% alc./vol. and a whopping 732 calories per 12 ounce serving (as per Skilnik). Dogfish Head Craft Brewery’s 2002 release of World Wide Stout is listed at 23.04% alc./vol. and has approximately 666 calories per 12...
Continue Reading Leave a CommentTags: business strategy, legally interesting/controversial, policy, processing