ng in alcoholic beverages. On June 13, 1980 a final rule was promulgated which required ingredient disclosure on labels of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. This rule had an exception or a way out for alcoholic beverage manufacturers. The manufacturer could elect to make the ingredient label available upon request as long as the label includes the full information of where to obtain the ingredient label. Consumer advocates got ingredient labeling and the industry still had the flexibility to provide a less expensive method of supplying this information. The BATF did require mandatory labeling of FD&C Yellow No. 5 because of the health problems associated with this substance. In preparing for issuing of these new regulations, BATF did considerable research including hiring a private consulting firm to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The BDM Corporation study emphasized that depending on the assumptions that were used the cost of new labels ranged from $12 million to $150 million. In addition, the study reported that adverse effects were not limited to allergic reactions so the health costs that would be saved would be hard to calculate. The study concluded that ingredient labeling would be of no real value to the consumer.
Once again the BATF did not go through with the regulation, on May 4, 1981 the notice was published announcing the intent to rescind the prior regulation. The reasons for this were as follows: (1) increased cost to the consumer and a burden on the industry that was outweighed by the possible benefit, (2) ingredient labeling would not provide significant additional benefits to the consumer. This action resulted in litigation yet again. The Center for Science in the Public Interest and two individual plaintiffs brought suit claiming that the Department of Treasury (the BATF) had violated Federal Alcohol Administration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by rescinding the regulation. The wine industry submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the government’s rescission. The Court in Center for Science in Public Interest v. Dept. of Treasury considered with greater scrutiny the change in policy since this was a rescission of a rule and not rule making. One of the main considerations was whether the reasons given by the BATF for the rescission of the regulation were justified. The rationale which sparks the greatest interest is “ingredient labeling regulations would result in increased costs to consumers and burdens on industry which are not commensurate with the benefits which might flow from the additional label information.” Since the industry was given the option to be exempt from the requirements by putting the address on the label with notice that ingredient information could be obtained from the manufacturer, the court found that this was not convincing. The court also found that the Department of Treasury did not provide reasoned explanations for their decisions. What is more interesting then the court’s decision, however, is the reliance that the BATF placed on cost-benefit analysis in determining the applicability of such regulations from the beginning. The reliance on cost analysis places value on human life. When it comes to health claims and information, the BATF is easily swayed to side with industry when the costs are significant. Although the consumers “won” in this case, the fact that the alcoholic beverage industry has the ear of BATF means that cost will dictate these decisions and the consumers will loose.
Ingredient labeling is still not present on alcoholic beverages; however, there are a few health-related statements that now appear on labels. The BATF operates under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The Act provides the following guidance to the BATF, labels on alcoholic beverages: (1) shall prohibit deception of the consumer in regard to age, manufacturing process, analyses, guarantees, or scientific matters; (2) provide the consumer with adequate information regarding the identity, quality, and alcohol content of the products; (3) provide an accurate sta