policy

It is likely that all beer, wine and spirits labels will change dramatically in the near future. TTB Administrator John Manfreda confirmed this in a recent speech. TTB has been working on new rules since CSPI and other groups submitted a petition in 2003. The new rules would require a “Serving Facts” panel on every container. This panel would include a lot more information, such as the typical serving size, number of servings per container, calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat. Because this is a big, controversial change, TTB has received more than 18,000 public comments during the past few years. There are far too many comments for most people to review, and so we will highlight and summarize the most noteworthy comments here. The most recent proposal and comments are here. This is comment 21 in a series; to see others, click on the “serving facts” tag below. Michael Taylor (on behalf of Diageo) submitted a 4 page comment. It said:

1. Diageo hired Mr. Taylor in 2005 and he’s currently a research professor at George Washington University. From 1991-1994 he was FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy and was actively involved in setting the comparable rules for foods more generally.
2. I am disappointed that TTB will not require reference to a “standard drink.”
...

TTB does not usually allow vintage-, varietal- or appellation-type claims on distilled spirits labels. The rationale is that these concepts tend to be more appropriate for wine. But here are a couple of notable exceptions. Roth Vodka displays “California” in much the manner of an appellation. This vodka also happens to be distilled from grapes, and has something close to a vintage date on the front label. The latter apparently went too far, and TTB directed Roth to remove the date. In some ways, the Primo Vodka label goes a bit further. It mentions a specific grape type, along with the source of those grapes. One side tends to argue that these claims are truthful and verifiable. TTB tends to argue that characteristics such as vintage, varietal and appellation are subtle to begin with; distillation (let alone distillation to the point of neutrality) tends to obliterate such characteristics; and it’s misleading to suggest otherwise. Do consumers need this protection?

Dear Flying Dog, Please tell me about your battle. It sounds interesting. Sincerely, bevlog

The Road Dog Porter label mentions shit not less than five times. Who would have expected the Founders were fighting for a beer company’s right to say this, and who ever thought a beer company would go so far to claim it. The label says:

We spent four long years in court fighting for our first amendment right to display the phrase “Good Beer, No Shit” on every bottle of Road Dog. In honor of sticking it to the man…

Fermentarium has part of the story:

The real heart of the issue is … You can’t put something indecent on the label.  Unfortunately it is some guy in the government who gets to decide what’s considered obscene.  He might be cool or he might be the most uptight person in the world.  There is no way for the brewer to know.  You might consider something obscene, but others may find the label acceptable.  For example, is profanity considered obscene? In 2001, the State of Colorado said yes it is.  Flying Dog Brewery’s Road Dog Ale label was rejected because the label said “good beer… no shit”.  The ACLU and Flying Dog Brewery sued stating the...