The Intricacies of Wine Ingredient Labelling: Tradition, Regulation, and Consumer Demand
The absence of ingredient and nutrition labels on wine bottles has been a topic of considerable debate for years, especially as health and wellness trends gain momentum. As the European Union prepares to mandate ingredient and nutrition labelling for wine starting in December 2023, the United States remains hesitant. This hesitancy is deeply rooted in tradition, regulatory complexities, and varying consumer demands.
A Historical Perspective on Alcoholic Beverage Regulation
Historically, wine, beer, and spirits have been regulated differently from other food and beverage products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees most food and beverages, requiring comprehensive labelling, including ingredients, nutrition facts, and allergen information. However, alcoholic beverages fall under the jurisdiction of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which does not mandate such detailed labelling. This regulatory separation dates back to the post-Prohibition era when the government established the TTB to oversee the regulation of now-legal alcoholic beverages.
The Case for Mandatory Labelling
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and other advocacy groups have long argued for mandatory ingredient and nutrition labelling on alcoholic beverages. They highlight the public health implications of alcohol consumption, including its contribution to obesity, liver disease, cardiovascular issues, and alcohol-related accidents. Moreover, alcoholic beverages contain various ingredients and additives that consumers may need or want to avoid for health, safety, religious, or other reasons. This is particularly true for the millions of Americans with food allergies, for whom labelling can be a life-or-death matter.
In 2003, CSPI and a coalition of organizations petitioned the TTB to implement mandatory labelling for alcoholic beverages. However, the TTB has yet to act decisively, opting instead for a voluntary system. This voluntary approach allows companies to include nutrition and allergen information if they choose but does not require it. CSPI’s analysis of this voluntary system found low uptake among top wine and beer companies, underscoring the need for mandatory labelling.
Legal Battles and Regulatory Inertia
The TTB’s inaction led CSPI, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Consumers League to sue the Treasury Department, arguing that the TTB violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not responding to the petition within a reasonable time frame. In November 2022, the TTB agreed to issue proposed rules requiring standardised alcohol content, nutrient, ingredient, and allergen labelling on all alcoholic products under its jurisdiction. However, these rules have yet to be published, leading to further advocacy efforts and public listening sessions.
The Complexity of Dual Regulation
One of the complexities of alcohol labelling is the distinction between products regulated by the TTB and those regulated by the FDA. For instance, a Truly Hard Seltzer, which falls under FDA regulation, must list calories, ingredients, and other nutritional information. In contrast, a Samuel Adams Boston Lager, regulated by the TTB, does not require such labelling, despite having the same alcohol by volume.
The Rise of Misleading Marketing Practices
The lack of mandatory labelling is not the only concern related to alcohol marketing. The rise of hard seltzers, hard sodas, and specialty malt beverages has seen non-alcoholic beverage brands venture into the alcoholic market. Brands like Mountain Dew, SunnyD, and Simply have introduced alcoholic versions of their products, often with packaging similar to their non-alcoholic counterparts. This similarity in packaging can be misleading, potentially attracting underage drinkers or confusing consumers.
Some states have taken action to address these marketing practices, but further intervention by the TTB, FDA, or Federal Trade Commission could help by highlighting misleading marketing practices and deterring alcohol manufacturers from targeting youth.
Addressing Misleading Nutrition Claims
Misleading nutrition claims are another issue. For example, Vizzy Hard Seltzer advertised itself as the “first hard seltzer made with antioxidant vitamin C from acerola superfruit,” implying it was a healthful source of vitamin C. However, consumers should not rely on alcoholic beverages for their vitamin intake. CSPI and the Consumer Federation of America urged the FDA to take enforcement action against Vizzy’s manufacturer, Molson Coors Beverage Company. This public concern culminated in a class action lawsuit in California, leading Molson Coors to settle and agree to stop using deceptive labels on Vizzy.
The Power of Consumer Advocacy
These cases demonstrate the power of consumer advocacy in addressing deceptive marketing practices. Public concern and legal action can spur positive changes, encouraging transparency and honesty in alcohol labelling and marketing.
The Future of Alcohol Labelling
The push for ingredient and nutrition labelling on wine and other alcoholic beverages is part of a broader movement towards transparency and consumer rights. As health and wellness trends continue to influence consumer behaviour, the demand for clear, accurate information about what we consume is likely to grow. The upcoming TTB public comment forum will provide an opportunity for consumers and industry stakeholders to voice their opinions and shape the future of alcohol labelling in the U.S.
While the tradition and regulatory complexities surrounding alcohol labelling present challenges, the benefits of transparency, consumer safety, and informed choices make a compelling case for change. The ongoing advocacy efforts and public discussions will play a crucial role in determining whether the U.S. will follow the E.U.’s lead in mandating ingredient and nutrition labelling for wine and other alcoholic beverages.
Be the first to comment