Wednesday, July 6, 2011

WineAmerica Signs Joint Industry Comment on FDA Menu Labeling

July 5, 2011




Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

Re:  Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments (Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172, and RIN 0910-AG57) (76 Fed. Reg. 19192 (April 6, 2011))

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of the undersigned trade associations representing virtually all alcohol beverage producers, including brewers, distillers, vintners, and importers, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to share our views regarding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposal to implement the menu labeling provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Affordable Care Act).  


We support FDA’s proposal to exclude alcohol beverages from the Agency’s menu labeling rules.  The rationale underpinning FDA’s decision will best serve the intent of Congress to provide consumers with nationally uniform and readily available information about the caloric content of food served at chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments covered by the menu labeling requirements.

FDA’s position is well taken because:

(1)       the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau of the Department of Treasury (TTB) is the primary regulatory authority on the labeling of alcohol beverages pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) (27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.)[1];
 
(2)       TTB has a “Serving Facts” rulemaking underway that is intended to establish a clear and consistent manner for determining and expressing nutrient values for alcohol beverages; and 


(3)   establishment of an FDA menu labeling requirement for alcohol beverages while a TTB rulemaking on alcohol beverage container labeling is underway could result in inconsistent information between alcohol beverage container labels and menu caloric information, creating uncertainty and confusion.

The course of action set forth in FDA’s proposal, particularly FDA’s recognition of TTB’s expertise in alcohol beverage labeling, preserves the historical bifurcation of jurisdiction between two fellow federal agencies, and helps support the goals of the Act to provide consistent and accurate information for consumers.

I.                   TTB/FDA Alcohol Beverages Regulatory Framework

As FDA recognized in its proposed rule, the primary federal regulatory Agency overseeing alcohol beverage labeling is TTB.  In exercising its broad and longstanding regulatory authority, TTB is very familiar with the entire range of alcohol beverage products, as well as the day-to-day practices of producers and importers across the beer, wine and spirits categories.  The Bureau regulates virtually every aspect of alcohol beverage products and the industry members who produce and/or import these products.  Within the broader food industry, alcohol beverage importers and domestic manufacturers are the only entities required to undergo an investigation prior to commencement of operations.  TTB requires completion of employment and financial questionnaires by key personnel and investors, as well as detailed information on the location and operation of each business. 

 

TTB’s regulatory authority over labeling and formulation of alcohol beverages includes statutory pre-approval processes and testing designed for consumer protection and tax classification purposes.  Each year, over 100,000 alcohol beverage label and container designs are pre-approved by TTB to ensure that “packaging, marking, branding, and labeling and size and fill of container” will not deceive consumers and that statements and other information on each product are not likely to mislead consumers.[2]  Label approval must be received by a U.S. importer before a product is imported into the United States or introduced into interstate commerce by a domestic producer.[3]

TTB and the FDA operate under a longstanding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has been updated various times since the 1940s.  The most recent version reiterates TTB’s statutory authority and the scope of existing TTB regulations and states that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (TTB’s predecessor agency), “will be responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of regulations with respect to the labeling of distilled spirits, wine, and malt beverages pursuant to the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.”[4]  The bifurcation of jurisdiction between TTB and FDA has well served the consuming public and the respective goals of each Agency. 
Congress has expressly encouraged TTB and FDA to work together in implementation of two recently enacted statutes governing areas where FDA and TTB jurisdiction overlap, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004[5] and the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010.[6]  Cooperation in rulemaking between TTB and FDA is beneficial because it helps minimize uncertainty and confusion in the marketplace for consumers, industry and the federal agencies.  Coordination between TTB and FDA in rulemaking is also not unusual.  Two recent examples of TTB coordination of rulemaking with FDA include:

a)      Major Food Allergen Labeling for Wines, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages, mandatory labeling standards for major food allergens used in the production of alcohol beverages subject to the labeling requirements of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act contained in the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004.[7]

b)      Disclosure of Cochineal Extract and Carmine in the Labeling of Wines, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages, revisions to TTB regulations to require the disclosure of the presence of cochineal extract and carmine on the labels of any alcohol beverage product (addressed separately in a final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration).[8]

As recognized by FDA, given detailed prior Acts of Congress and the history of alcohol beverage policy in the United States, TTB has a clear, multifaceted and ongoing administrative and regulatory mission with respect to labeling and public disclosure of information about alcohol beverages.  The discharge of this mission has served well the retail customers of our industry and our consumers who choose to drink alcohol beverage products. 

We respectfully submit that the goals of the Affordable Care Act will best be effectuated by the continuation of the long history of cooperation and coordination between TTB and FDA. 

II.                Interim Steps for Menu Labeling of Alcohol Beverages

TTB has invested several years of careful effort, analysis and Agency resources in the “Serving Facts” rulemaking, and it has done so within the broader context of other labeling challenges, some of which are unique to alcohol beverages and to TTB’s statutory authority.  Likewise, industry members participated in the administrative activity including, but not limited to the following: 

a)  Caloric and Carbohydrate Representations in the Labeling and Advertising of Wine, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages, Agency guidance on making truthful and specific statements about calorie and carbohydrate content in the labeling and advertising of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages, addressing false or
misleading claims or representations about calorie or carbohydrate content in the labeling and advertising, and prohibiting statements that imply that the consumption of low carbohydrate alcohol beverages is a part of a specific weight reduction plan.[9]

b)  Labeling and Advertising of Wines, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages, a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding “Serving Facts,” which would amend current alcohol content disclosure requirements and, for the first time, require nutrient information (calories, fat, carbohydrates, and protein) on all alcohol beverage labels.[10]

c)  Labeling and Advertising of Wines, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit public comment on general approaches to disclosure of nutrient information and alcohol content.[11]

Just as FDA experienced considerable challenges grappling with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) labeling mandates, TTB has studied various methodologies and approaches to calculating caloric and nutrient content in a manner that is workable for thousands of alcohol beverage brands sold in the United States.  No final rule has been published at this time; therefore, no certainty exists about the manner in which nutrition values for alcohol beverage labeling and advertising will be determined and communicated to millions of consumers.  For long-term consistency and to avoid potential conflict, the TTB “Serving Facts” rulemaking should be completed before the FDA takes further action.

FDA correctly pointed out in the NPRM that a menu labeling requirement for alcohol beverages at this point creates uncertainty for both regulators and industry.  The absence of Congressional hearings prior to enactment of the menu labeling law prevented both agencies and industry representatives from advocating a straightforward means to address potential conflicts between specific alcohol beverage labeling requirements and labeling requirements that are generally enforced by the FDA for other food and beverage products, such as NLEA.

Simply put, the current alcohol beverage regulatory framework does not establish a clear and consistent manner for determining or expressing nutrition values for alcohol beverages.  That situation should change in the foreseeable future as TTB completes the pending “Serving Facts” rulemaking. 

            Conclusion

Again, the undersigned organizations appreciate FDA’s recognition of the dilemma posed for alcohol beverage products and for proposing a common-sense approach that will ultimately serve the public interest, as well as efficiency and economy in government by avoiding inconsistent calorie and nutrition information on TTB-approved product labels and FDA-sanctioned menu labeling.  In excluding alcohol beverages from the menu labeling rule at this
early stage in the process, FDA implicitly recognizes the schedule for administrative action in the Affordable Care Act cannot be perfectly coordinated with ongoing administrative actions, such as TTB’s pending “Serving Facts” rulemaking.

In sum, it is incumbent on TTB and FDA to continue working collaboratively in the future.  Our associations and the industry members we represent stand ready to cooperate in those important efforts.

Sincerely,


                        
   Mr. Joseph S. McClain                       Mr. Charlie Papazian                        Ms. Lynne J. Omlie
   Beer Institute                                       Brewers Association                        Distilled Spirits Council




                      
   Mr. William T. Earle                            Ms. Victoria I. McDowell                Mr. Cary M. Greene
   National Association of                       Presidents’ Forum                            WineAmerica
   Beverage Importers
                                                           
                                                               Mr. Wendell C.M. Lee
                                                               Wine Institute


[1] We acknowledge that FDA exclusively regulates the labeling of alcohol beverages that are not under TTB's jurisdiction, including beers 
that do not meet the definition of a “malt beverage” under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) (27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) 
and wine beverages containing less than 7 percent alcohol by volume. See, e.g., FDA, “Guidance for Industry: Labeling of Certain Beers 
Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration; Draft Guidance.”  August 2009.
[2] 27 U.S.C. 205(e).
[3] 27 CFR Parts 4, 5 & 7.
[4] Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, § III(A), November 20,1987.
[5] P.L. 108-282, August 2, 2004.
[6] P.L. 111-353, January 4, 2011.
[7] 71 F.R. 42329, July 26, 2006.
[8] 75 F.R. 67669, November 3, 2010.
[9] TTB Ruling 2004–1, April 7, 2004.
[10] 72 F.R. 41860, July 31, 2007.
[11] 70 F.R. 22275, April 29, 2005.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

WineAmerica Disappointed in the Times Failure to Check Their Facts

By Cary M. Greene

This past weekend, the New York Times published an article Congress's Man of the Vines, Including His Own on one our industries biggest advocates, Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA).  The portrait of Congressman Thompson painted by the Times was wholly unfair.  As a representative of wineries in nearly every state, WineAmerica knows as well as anyone that Congressman Thompson’s efforts on behalf of American wine and grape growers are simply an acknowledgement of the potential of a dynamic and growing rural industry.

The reality is that wineries are at the core of a rural economic renaissance that has continued unabated for more than three decades.  The numbers speak for themselves.  In 1975, there were fewer than 600 wineries.  Today, there are more than 7,500 and number continues to rise even in face of a challenging economy.

American winemaking is a farm-based business that is dynamic, profitable and productive.  It has allowed thousands of family farms throughout the United States to hire new employees, create billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic benefit to their local communities, and introduce millions of Americans to the beautiful landscapes and agricultural potential of their own backyards.  These thousands of mom and pop businesses are a vital source of rural jobs and economic activity and are at the heart of agritourism and the “buy local” movement.

It only makes sense to try to enable policies that continue to allow a young and dynamic industry to reach its potential.  Congressman Thompson’s support should be applauded, not questioned.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

TTB Clarifies the American Grape Variety Rules for use on Wine Labels

The TTB has issued a lengthy update to clarify the rules for American grape varieties on wine labels.  The following is taken from the TTB website and can be found here:

If you have any questions please contact Michael Kaiser at: mkaiser@wineamerica.org.

TTB Introduces New COLA Form for Label Approval

The Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau have released an updated version of the Certificate of Label Approval Form (TTB F 5100.31).  The new form now requests a listing of any grape varietals that are displayed on the label.  Additionally, all pre-COLA evaluations should now be noted in the data field marked “Formulas”.  The TTB news release says the following about the form update:

We are updating COLAs Online to incorporate these changes. When we update the electronic system, applicants will not see an immediate change to the data collection portion of the electronic application and should not change the manner in which they apply, but their approvals will contain the new data fields. An additional update to COLAs Online is expected to take place in December 2011, and at that time the system will be updated to request grape varietal information as item 10 of the electronic application. From now until the expected December 2011 update, item 10 will remain blank on all electronically filed COLA approvals with nothing more required from COLA applicants.

The new paper version of the COLA form is not impacted by the data collection issue identified above for the electronic applications. Therefore, paper applicants are expected to complete all relevant items on the COLA application form, including item 10 for grape varietal information displayed on their wine labels. We will be able to capture this information in our database during the data entry process.

The new form is available online through the TTB’s website (and on the WineAmerica website).  The TTB will accept paper applications on the older forms until December 30, 2011.  For more information please contact Michael Kaiser at mkaiser@wineamerica.org

Monday, June 20, 2011

Mandatory E-Verify Legislation Introduced in Both Chambers

By Jennifer Montgomery

Last week was a very busy one for the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) as mandatory E-Verify legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate.

The House bill, HR 2164 (the Legal Workforce Act), was introduced last Wednesday in a House Judiciary Committee hearing by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) amid significant concerns of the Agriculture community. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a similar version in the Senate a day later.

These bills would require all employers to use E-Verify, an internet based federal system that compares US Department and Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to information contained on an employee’s I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form, without including a fix for the broken H-2A temporary and seasonal alien agriculture worker program. The current H-2A program is unworkable and unable to meet the labor intensive needs of US agriculture. Therefore, passage of either of the bills without a meaningful solution to the agriculture labor problem is more than kicking the can down the road, it will be disastrous.

The enforcement-only approach, with stepped up raids and I-9 audits, cannot solve the problem. It is the hope of WineAmerica, as part of ACIR, that Congress will reconsider this tactic to curb illegal immigration and provide agriculture with a means to employ a stable, legal workforce.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

TTB Update

By Michael Kaiser

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is still facing major delays in the review of Certificate of Label Approvals.  As it stands now, it is taking 30 days for an online submission and 60 days for a paper submission.  If you are going to be submitting a wine label for approval please allow for adequate time for review. 

One question that comes up a lot with wine labels is trademarking.  The TTB does not regulate trademarks.  Their only concern is the accuracy of the wine label and if it is compliant with the laws and regulations.  To clarify this further, the TTB has issued a statement of clarification about trademarking:

Does my TTB certificate of label approval mean I have trademark protection?

TTB’s authority to issue certificates of label approval (COLAs) for alcohol beverage products does not include trademark protection, as is stated in the instructions for TTB Form 5100.31, Application for and Certification/Exemption of Label/Bottle Approval.  While TTB may be aware of an established trademark when acting on an application for a COLA, that awareness is important only for carrying out the labeling authority under the deception and misleading standards imposed by the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and not for purposes of Federal law applicable to trademarks.  Therefore, TTB approval of a COLA neither automatically confers trademark protection, nor indicates that a particular mark may be used in violation of applicable intellectual property law.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides for trademark registrations and guides United States domestic and international intellectual property policies.  The USPTO Web site address is www.uspto.gov/.  You may find the USPTO’s list of frequently asked questions on the subject of trademarks particularly helpful:  www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp.  The USPTO also has a Web site on trademark protection specifically designed for small business owners at www.uspto.gov/smallbusiness/.

If you have any questions about this please contact me at mkaiser@wineamerica.org.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

WineAmerica Supports New Jersey Bill Allowing Direct Shipping

May 26, 2011

Chairman John A. Girgenti
Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
Committee Room 10, 3rd Floor
State House Annex
125 W State St
Trenton, NJ 08608-1101

Dear Chairman Girgenti and Members of the Committee:

WineAmerica, the National Association of American Wineries, on behalf of our member wineries in New Jersey and across the nation, encourages you to support S2782, a bill that would permit New Jersey and out-of-state wineries to self-distribute their products, operate satellite tasting outlets, and ship wine directly to New Jersey consumers. WineAmerica is the only national winery trade association.

We support this bill because it secures local winery privileges threatened by the recent Third Circuit decision in Freeman v. Corzine, 629 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 2010). S2782 offers continuing support to the New Jersey wine industry’s progress, growth and prosperity.

New Jersey’s dynamic wine industry is a critical component of the state’s agricultural potential and heritage, and contributes to the preservation of rural landscapes that could otherwise be turned over to developers. In crafting its winery laws, New Jersey has rightly tried to keep these agricultural spaces vital and flourishing. S2782 supports this legitimate local purpose and promotes a traditional agricultural form—winemaking—
that reliably makes family farming more economically feasible. Small, dynamic businesses, like those of our members, that are creating jobs should be provided every opportunity to sell their goods in open markets. Wineries are keeping small farms viable and, through agri-tourism, are building a new model for farm development. The wine industry helps keep the “Garden” in the “Garden State.”

Many New Jersey wineries are unable, or find it difficult, to reach consumers in the state, since smaller brands are not likely to find distribution through traditional three-tier channels. Satellite tasting outlets and self-distribution enable wineries to capture lost sales that often result from consumers’ inability to find their favorite New Jersey wines on local store shelves. Similarly, direct-to-consumer shipping has proven a vital channel for customers to find the wines they want, while still allowing for safe and effective regulation.

In a recent comprehensive report examining direct shipping laws in the states where shipping is allowed, the Maryland Comptroller’s Office, the state agency that regulates alcohol in Maryland, concluded that: (1) state regulation of direct-to-consumer shipping is effective; (2) the safety protocols written into state direct shipping laws prevent deliveries to minors; and (3) recordkeeping and reporting requirements give states the tools for effective tax collection on wine shipments. See Peter Franchot, Comptroller of Maryland, Direct Wine Shipment Report (2010), available at http://www.comp.state.md.us/DWS_Complete.pdf.

WineAmerica fully supports S2782, albeit with measured trepidation for its direct shipping capacity caps. See Family Winemakers of Cal. v. Jenkins, 592 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010); but see Black Star Farms LLC v. Oliver, 600 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2010). Wineries add both to the character and the strength of New Jersey’s agricultural industry, tourism and family farm development. New Jersey wineries should be afforded the opportunity to operate efficiently and profitably and New Jersey’s citizens should be allowed the benefit of free access to the wines of their choice. We believe that S2782 promotes these aims, and respectfully request that you support this important bill.

Sincerely,
Cary M. Greene
General Council