legally interesting/controversial

This Sparks label may well be the label that ignited a big controversy, coming to a boil eight years later. As near as we can tell, it is the first or one of the very first label approvals showing the direct addition of caffeine. Since then, TTB has approved hundreds or thousands of labels with a similar caffeine-alcohol combination as per this list, as explained by TTB here. Beginning about two years ago, CSPI began vigorously challenging caffeine-alcohol combination, and then the states and the FTC jumped in. In November of 2009 FDA said the drinks probably should not be allowed. Caffeinated Sparks is gone, but the controversy burns on. Holty’s Cyclone is a much earlier approval, and contains at least two sources of caffeine — but it does not have the directly-added caffeine that makes the 2001 Sparks approval noteworthy. Holty’s is beer with added ginseng, guarana and kola nut. It is quite amazing that Holty’s has an image of a doctor examining the beer and seeming to approve, along with a reference to Dr. Holty. It is also surprising that the product lacks anything resembling a modern statement of composition. The terms are all over the place, from lager to herbs to the stimulants.

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,...

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.