and deceptive advertising and not in protecting the health of the food consumer. Since the mission of these two agencies is vastly different it is important not too place too much emphasis on the benefits of the FTC approach. The FTC does provide greater access to the consumer, but since it does not thoroughly evaluate all claims made by food manufacturers it may be providing this information at too great a cost. There are studies that indicate that the FTC approach does strike the right balance. For example, FTC Bureau of Economics Staff Report conducted a study examining fat and cholesterol consumption from 1977 to 1990. The study found that the relaxation of restrictions that allowed more diet-health claims on food added competitive pressure to food markets and led to reduced consumption of foods high in fat and cholesterol. The evidence refuted the deceptive/confusion hypothesis that suggested the increased information to the consumer would lead to further deception in the marketplace and damage the consumer’s diet. The FTC provides another approach to regulate health claims on wine, but because the focus is on defrauding the consumer and not on the safety of the product this may not be the best approach to adopt.
After the passage of the NLEA health claims were permitted on food labels. Although at first the FDA was over conservative with the approval process of health claims, the current approach indicates that the FDA has adopted a more moderate attitude. After Pearson v. Shalala , the FDA was forced to recognize the benefit of providing information to the consumer and the right of food manufacturer’s to disseminate information connecting diet and health benefits. Since the FDA must now attempt to achieve the least restrictive method for protecting the public against false health claims, it is possible to label foods with beneficial health claims and disclaimers. Some may argue that this approach still does not provide the necessary flexibility to get adequate information to the consumer; these critics fail to recognize that the FDA has a strong governmental interest in protecting the health of the public. The FTC approach allows too much freedom to food manufacturers and does not adequately protect the public. The current FDA approach is more effective. This approach should be expanded to incorporate wine and alcoholic beverages. The FDA has the experience and the scientific means to evaluate the health claims of wine that other agencies do not have. Before the FDA’s control over wine labels can be further explored it is necessary to understand why health claims on wine labels are now an important concern. This can be done by evaluating the current research on the health effects of wine and other alcoholic beverages.
C. Current Research: The Health Effects of Wine
The internet is full of information on the health benefits of wine and other alcoholic beverages. Some of the information represents scholarly research that has been done by scientists and experts in the field. Other information is disseminated by alcohol producers and other interest groups. What one can take away from almost all of these sources is that there is a U-shaped or J-shaped curve that represents the effects of alcohol consumption. In other words, moderate or light consumption of alcohol may be beneficial while heavier consumption can have extreme negative health consequences. Over the last ten years there has been significant research done on the positive health benefits of wine consumption. This research has changed the position of the alcoholic beverage industry on health effects on labels. Now that there may be a way for the industry to use health effects statements on labels to increase sales the ATF is being asked to reconsider the issue. It is important to examine the research that has been done in order to analyze the possibility of health effects statements on labels of wine and other alcoholic beverages.
In 1992, the Normative Aging Study reported on the U-shaped curve of alcohol consumption and mortality. This prospective study exa