nking that will impair a person when driving. Another effect that should be considered is the interaction with medication. The article also mentions that even moderate drinking can cause interpersonal problems, birth defects, and long term health effects. The article is important because it refocuses the debate. The long term effects of alcohol may still be severe and alcoholism is a serious disease that many people face. The positive health effects need to be considered in relation to all of the negative health effects.
The research on alcohol consumption points to possible positive health benefits. This information should be understood within the greater context of the total impact of alcohol on the human body. The alcohol beverage industry is attempting to use this limited information to improve the public perception and the consumption of alcohol. Since this information is often times inconclusive or incomplete it is important that the consumer understand the full picture.
C. FDA Should Regulate Wine Labels
In 1999, the BATF approved two additional statements for wine labels. These statements “...encourage you [the consumer] to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine...” and direct consumers to send for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to “...Learn the health effects of wine consumption...” These statements allow the wine industry greater flexibility; however, they do not adequately address the issue. The BATF realizes that these measures are insufficient. The BATF’s limited response and the complexity of the research regarding the health effects of wine indicate that it is necessary to provide greater controls over wine labeling. The BATF does not have the resources or experience to properly regulate health claims regarding alcohol. The industry needs to be able to inform consumers of health effects in an accurate way. The BATF needs to change its policy toward health effects labeling on alcoholic beverages. Since the BATF has historically been influenced by the whim of the industry, the better approach is for Congress to revisit this issue and give control of alcohol beverage labeling to the FDA so that they can properly evaluate the health statements before they appear on the labels.
The BATF’s history has showed that their policies are often influenced by the alcohol beverage industry. As previously discussed, in 1979 and 1981, the BATF attempted to promulgate regulations regarding ingredient labeling for alcohol. The industry lobby was so strong that these regulations were never put into effect. In Center for Science in Public Interest v. Dept of Treasury, the Court commented on how ingredient labeling decisions were made by conducting a cost-benefit analysis. This illustrates the way in which BATF makes decisions. Not necessarily a method that should be endorsed when considering health claims. In 1988, BATF finally approved health-related statements for which they drafted the language to be used and required the exact words to appear on the label. Now that the tide has turned and the labeling of alcohol may increase sales, the industry is lobbying the BATF again. This time they are in favor of labeling. The 1999 labeling regulations were a result of this lobby. Again BATF determined the exact language that could be used on the label without giving the industry any flexibility or options. What is worse is that these statements are meaningless appeasement. They fail to provide the consumer with any information that may assist him or her in making an informed decision. In short, The BATF is too quick to change their mind under the pressure of the industry; and they should no longer be the gatekeeper for the claims on alcohol beverage labels.
In 1999, the BATF announced they would hold a public hearing on the health claims of alcohol to determine the proper use of labeling and advertising health effects. The BATF invited comments on the proposal to permit balanced labels that were properly qualified, detailed, specific, and outlines the categories of persons for whom the positive effects wou