statement of composition

The Buck Bunny didn’t get very far. It stopped not far from this 2006 approval. Maybe the antlers, or the spirits, or Jägermeister got in the way. A contributor in California was concerned about the spirits added to this product, and the overall appearance. He said:

It seems legally interesting because it seems to contradict the TTB labeling code about wines containing distilled spirits and being similar to distilled spirits. Maybe those rules don’t apply to flavored wines. Also, it reminds me of a Jackelope.

Quite possibly, it also reminded Peach Street Distillers of a Jackelope. Peach Street rolled out their Jackelope Gin about a year later. The spirits are probably a minor problem, compared to the other issues noted above. It is common to add spirits to wine. It is less common to mention them, but it is usually required, when those spirits are not derived from the same fruit as the base wine. Here it is grape wine with citrus spirits. If it were grape wine with grape brandy, the spirits would be less likely to show on the label.

Here is Bacardi Torched Cherry Rum with Natural Flavors. It is apparently made with “torched plant aloe.”

The use of aloe as a flavor is curious because it’s not clear how aloe tastes, and various sources say aloe does not taste especially good. This product is one of very few TTB products that seem to contain aloe. Even these find no room for aloe. As of this writing, the other flavors in the line are:

• Dragon Berry
• Limon
• Peach
• Raspberry
• Orange
• Coconut
• Apple
• Melon

Apart from aloe, this label suggests TTB will allow the term “Rum” to appear larger than “with natural flavors.” And yet, on other distilled spirits specialties, such as an identical product made with a vodka base, it is unlikely TTB would allow “Vodka” to appear in a more prominent way compared to the rest of the statement of composition. It is not clear why TTB polices the term “vodka” so rigorously, but not other comparable terms, such as “rum.” Another example of this is, the government clearly allows “cherry rum” (as above) but would probably not allow “cherry vodka.” This example is easier to understand because, as a matter of law and history, rum is only made from cane products, so confusion is unlikely....

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.