Last month, I discussed the negative impacts that a nutritional label mandate would have on small producers of alcohol beverages, such as craft brewers. Another side of this issue is the negative impact that prohibiting nutritional labels has caused small and large alcohol beverage producers—as well as health-conscious consumers of adult beverages.

I sat down with the executive Vice President of Diageo, one of the world’s largest producers of adult beverages (its brands include Guinness, Smirnoff, Jose Cuervo, and many others) to discuss how voluntary labeling could help both consumers and producers of alcohol, big and small.

In 2004, the National Consumers League called on the Federal Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) to reform alcohol label requirements so that consumers of adult beverages can make better nutritional decisions (it wasn’t the only group calling for change). At that same time, Diageo began its lengthy battle with the TTB to be able to attach to its products labels that included information on calories, carbohydrates, and alcohol content. The agency rejected Diageo’s request.

Now, seven years later, the TTB has not changed its rules, and consumer groups have asked again that it issue a final rule. However, in 2007 the TTB did issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend its regulations to require a statement of alcohol content on all alcohol beverage products as well as a “serving facts” panel on alcohol beverage labels that would include a disclosure of calories, carbohydrates, fat, and protein. According to TTB spokesman Tom Hogue, the issue is a complicated one and federal officials aren’t likely to issue a final rule anytime soon.

While Diageo and other alcohol beverage manufacturers strongly support the idea of allowing nutritional data to appear on bottles, they currently support doing so on a voluntary basis. “Let the market place decide. If companies don’t think their consumers want labels then don’t have labels, but don’t prevent us from telling our consumers what’s in our products,” said Diageo Executive Vice President Guy Smith.

(more…)

If drinking makes us healthier and wealthier, why is America’s liquor policy so screwy?

Jimmy Carter legalized home brewing in 1978, and that newfound freedom fueled the craft beer movement that continues to lavish beer lovers with endless choices. But in many ways, laws that govern whiskey, gin, and other distilled spirits are stuck in the 1920s.

Federal agents still raid distilleries much like they did during Prohibition, and making any amount of moonshine at home is not only illegal, it’s a felony that can carry up to five years in prison. The result is a market dominated by a few big names, where would-be craftsmen are forced to hide their work.

And yet, despite the danger, America is in the midst of “moonshine renaissance,” in which a new wave of hipster hobbyists has joined with old-time ’shiners to flout the law and do what they love to do.

(more…)

Last month, Phil Kerpen wrote an insightful piece here at BigGovernment.com about “The Stimulus Bill’s Hidden Attack on What We Eat, Drink, and Smoke.” In it, he detailed yet another absurd (and angering) use of so-called “stimulus” funds to help lobby for restrictions and higher taxes on the nanny state’s favorite targets: unhealthy foods, sweetened beverages, tobacco, and other disfavored products that your friendly bureaucrat doesn’t think you ought to enjoy. Digging through the Health and Human Services Department’s stimulus website raises some serious questions about the $650 million in taxpayer money being spent on this program, called “Communities Putting Prevention to Work” (CPPW).

Several grant descriptions suggest that this funding may be in violation of guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control, through which the CPPW program is administered. The CDC’s lobbying restriction guideline states in part that, “no part of CDC appropriated funds, shall be used…to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress or any State or local legislature.” And yet, that’s exactly what several of the grantees plan to use the money for.

For example, Jefferson County, Alabama plans to spend $7 million on a “tobacco use prevention and cessation initiative [that] will promote changes in policies to reduce smoking opportunities and reduce access to tobacco products.” Pretty straightforward, that. They plan to lobby for more smoking bans and restricting access to legal tobacco products.

New York City, for its part, plans to spend $15.5 million “work[ing] to set policies and create environments that reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and overly salted foods.” One New York legislator is already trying to “create an environment” where restaurants are prohibited by law from using SALT in their food. Yes, salt, the substance without which virtually every food on Earth would be inedible.

Perhaps my favorite, our nation’s capital is spending $4.9 million on a program called “LiveWell DC,” which will “explore limiting tobacco access through zoning/license restrictions, restrict point-of-purchase advertising of tobacco products, support the elimination of price discounts, and provide social support through quitline and other cessation services.” Quite the laundry list there.

(more…)