policy

FDA said Truvia looks okay on December 17, 2008 and TTB approved this wine, with erythritol, a mere two days later. It is difficult to distinguish among erythritol, stevia, Truvia, rebiana and many other new sweeteners hitting the market. Erythritol seems to be a component of Truvia. Fooducate says erythritol is:

a sugar alcohol, a carbohydrate found naturally in various fruits and vegetables. Used in both Purevia and Truvia. It helps them mimic the texture and mouthfeel of table sugar.

Rebiana is:

the trade name for a stevia-derived sweetener developed jointly by the Coca Cola Company and Cargill. According to Cargill, rebiana is “the best tasting part of the stevia leaf.”

Truvia is:

Cargill’s consumer brand of Rebiana-based sweetener packs.

And Stevia is:

a South American Plant from the sunflower family, grown and used by locals for its sweet tasting leaves. Stevia Extracts are 200-300 times sweeter than sugar, but contain no carbohydrates (calories).

Cargill, finally, on its Truvia FAQ explains that erythritol “is a sugar alcohol, a carbohydrate found naturally in several fruits. Erythritol doesn’t lead to tooth decay, is safe for people with diabetes and in reasonable amounts does not lead to gastrointestinal side effects (in other words, no gas or bloating).”

It is likely that all beer, wine and spirits labels will change dramatically in the near future. 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 12 in a series; to see others, click on the “serving facts” tag below. The California Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG) represents about 50% of California’s winegrape growers, by tonnage. CAWG’s 1-page comment said:

1. We oppose mandatory serving and nutrition labeling requirements.
2. The rule would impose major costs and disruptions related to testing of products with “tremendous variability.”
3. TTB should be skeptical about the large number of form-generated comments in support of the rule.

The National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) commented on behalf of the nation’s 2,750 beer distributors. The NBWA’s 3-page...

It is likely that all beer, wine and spirits labels will change dramatically in the near future. 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 11 in a series; to see others, click on the “serving facts” tag below. Shelton Brothers is a specialty beer importer with a focus on small batch, hand-crafted beers from around the world. Shelton’s 13-page comment strayed a bit from time to time and said:

1. Beer accounts for 51% of alcohol beverage sales.
2. TTB has wide authority to require various label statements, but constrained authority to prohibit statements. “TTB does not have the authority to restrict protected speech that does not mislead consumers [and if this rule is finalized] no language relating...