Here (above) is the COLA for Pernod Absinthe, at long last. It was extremely difficult to find, in TTB records, and a lot of absinthe enthusiasts have been looking for the COLA for upwards of a year. For example, Alan Moss’ Real Absinthe Blog does a great job tracking all the US-approved absinthes, but he too was not finding the approval. As of today his blog says “Pernod Aux Extraits de l’Absinthe: announced … for July 2008 launch. … Where is the label approval?”
We think it’s fairly interesting that the Pernod label, for some reason, lists CERTIFIED COLORS AND FD&C YELLOW #5 in big text on the front label. But the comparable La Fee absinthe shows “caramel color & certified colors FD&C Blue #1 & FD&C Yellow #5” in much smaller text, on the back label.
Search Results for: ttb
Plenty of COLAs
We like to think of the COLA database as a microcosm for the US economy. This got us wondering whether the economic meltdown has tamped down the number of labels submitted to and approved by TTB.
In blue, above, is the S&P 500 Index from late 2004 through February 23, 2009. It shows the meltdown, from roughly the beginning of 2008 through February 23, 2009; a drop of 712 points or about 48%.
In red are the number of TTB labels approved, during the December through January (2 month) period each year. We picked this 2-month time period because it best allows a comparison to the ugly last month of 2008 and first month of 2009. The red line shows no falloff in the number of labels approved each period, with 14,151 labels approved during the most recently completed two month period (and 11,041 approved during the comparable period from 12/1/2004-1/31/2005). It’s nice to see a graph that’s not headed south, and this should bode well for variety at the store, and many interesting labels to showcase here in the near future.
Shape Up America Comment; Top 4 Things to Know
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 9 in a series; to see others, click on the “serving facts” tag below.
Shape Up America! is a non-profit founded by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D.; its purpose is to promote a better diet. The group’s comment said:
- TTB’s proposal leaves out critical data such as serving size, alcohol in grams, definition of “standard drink,” and a moderation message. Without this, the proposal will fail as a public health tool.
- The information is important to combat the obesity epidemic and to reduce alcohol-related mortality “which is the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the U.S.” This is long overdue.
- Consumers want and need the information. There is no discussion of the associated costs.
- A “census-balanced” poll of 503 consumers showed that 90% believe the Serving Facts panel should be mandatory. Americans want “complete information about what is in beer, wine and distilled spirits.”
For Dr. Koop’s related video, see this.
Sucralose and Ace K
The back label says CONTAINS SUCRALOSE AND ACESULFAME POTASSIUM. The front label says PREMIUM MALT BEVERAGE WITH NATURAL FLAVORS AND ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS.
We think this is noteworthy due to the unabashed use of artificial sweeteners. Perhaps this marks a trend toward a much wider use of artificial sweeteners, in beverages so commonly sweetened with sugar over so many centuries. It is partly a liberalization, on the part of FDA and TTB, allowing a wider variety of sugar substitutes. It may also be due to forward-thinking companies getting way out in front of the eventual need to disclose calories and carbohydrates.
IFIC says sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar, derived from sugar and:
can be used in place of sugar to eliminate or reduce calories in a wide variety of products. … Sucralose was discovered in 1976. … In 1998, [FDA] approved the use of sucralose in 15 food and beverage categories — the broadest initial approval ever given to a food additive.
Acesulfame Potassium, according to Wiki, is:
a calorie-free artificial sweetener, also known as Acesulfame K or Ace K (K being the symbol for potassium), and marketed under the trade names Sunett and Sweet One. … It was discovered accidentally in 1967 by German chemist Karl Clauss at Hoechst AG (now Nutrinova). [It] is 180-200 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar), as sweet as aspartame, about half as sweet as saccharin, and one-quarter as sweet as sucralose. … Acesulfame K is often blended with other sweeteners (usually sucralose or aspartame). These blends are reputed to give a more sugar-like taste whereby each sweetener masks the other’s aftertaste, and/or exhibits a synergistic effect by which the blend is sweeter than its components.
This same label is also noteworthy because it has a famous spirits name (on beer), it has an abbreviated serving facts panel, and it has a moderation message.
Tahitian Treat; Beer and Rum Punch from Tahiti
It’s a tiny island, 5,000 miles away from the US (near the pointer). But it’s the source of at least two alcohol beverage products bound for the US market. Hinano Beer (above) is made in Tahiti, French Polynesia and it is imported by mighty Anheuser-Busch. A-B produces and imports a shockingly huge number of alcoholic beverage products — well beyond Bud and Michelob, and this is but one example of the many others.
Another Tahitian product is Manuia Tahiti, Passion Punch. The label suggest it is made with a rum base, but TTB’s qualifications suggest that the base is actually distilled from cane and pineapple. The database shows only a few other alcohol beverage products made in Tahiti, and this makes sense because the island is only 28 miles wide.
Wine Institute Comment; Top 7 Things to Know
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 8 in a series; to see others, click on the “serving facts” tag below.
Wine Institute is the trade association of over 1,000 California wineries and affiliated businesses. Wine Institute’s 34-page comment said:
- Serving facts should not be required. 20 years after putting similar information on food labels, at a cost of about $2 billion, Americans are more obese than ever.
- Some comments link the US Dietary Guidelines with a “standard drink.” This is inappropriate because the term has never appeared in any edition of the Guidelines.
- The 18,000 or so form-generated comments, in response to the advance notice, should carry little weight. They lack credibily and sincerity.
- TTB should maintain the allowance for some wines to refer to “table wine” rather than requiring a more precise alcohol by volume statement “across the board.” The more flexible rule saves wineries money by allowing them to print labels well in advance.
- The 5 ounce serving size for wine should apply to wines up to 16%, rather than 14%.
- TTB should allow “typical values” rather than lot-by-lot analytical values; there is very little gap. Testing every type could cost a medium-sized winery $125,000 per year. This would impose a severe and much higher burden on the wine industry, compared to beer and spirits, because wine is “inherently variable in composition.” Lot-by-lot testing would also lead to substantial delays, as winemakers attempt to twist the blend to conform to the label.
- A three year phase in is helpful but by no means removes the costs. The serving facts panel is likely to require larger labels (about 40% larger). Larger labels could add 0.5 to 1 cent per bottle in label costs alone. A linear format would help and should be allowed.
