ourt 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 statement regarding blended spirits regarding the use of neutral spirits; (4) prohibit statements that disparage competitor’s products or that are false, misleading, obscene or indecent; (5) shall prohibit deception by endorsement or trade name. Congress has since added regulations that specifically address health concerns. The first two warnings that were required to appear on the labels of alcoholic beverages were a result of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act in 1988. Congress decided that the public should be adequately warned about the hazards of alcohol consumption. To avoid creating confusion, Congress decided the language of the warnings.
GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.
In 1993, BATF considered health claims on labels yet again, but this time the positive health effects of alcohol consumption was the issue. BATF addressed this in the first edition of the ATF Compliance Matters. At that time, BATF recognized there was scientific research showing a possible relationship between moderate alcohol consumption and decreased risk of heart disease. The Department of Health and Human Services advised BATF that the benefits did not outweigh the health risks and such information should be carefully considered in any policy on health effects labeling. The BATF announced that it would be in consultation with the FDA to determine the best approach for evaluating the health claims. The BATF intended to utilize the scientific and public health expertise of the Food and Drug Administration. Currently, the health claims on food are approved under the authority of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which will be discussed in further detail in the following section. In recognition that the FAAA’s mandate is only to prevent misleading statements on the labeling of alcoholic