estrictive way to protect the consumer is extremely applicable to the labeling of wine.
The FDA has experience in creating standards for evidence in support of health claims. This experience can be adapted for use in the alcoholic beverage industry. In light of the recent developments regarding the health benefits of alcoholic beverages and more specifically wine it is necessary to reevaluate the labeling of these products. Labeling restrictions should be relaxed to better inform the consumer of the possible benefits. In doing so it is necessary to protect the consumer against false or misleading information. The FDA has the experience to do so and the NLEA illustrates that this agency is able to strike a balance between paternalism and consumer information.
The FAAA mandates that the BATF prevent any misleading information to appear on alcoholic beverage labels. The current state of the law extends way beyond that mandate, and disallows essentially all health-related information. The policy behind alcohol beverage labeling is more consistent with the FDA’s mission to protect the consumer. Protection of the consumer should be afforded in a meaningful way that does not overreach the freedom of the manufacturer or the consumer. It is necessary to develop a workable standard that allows health claims to be evaluated for their legitimacy. Those claims that are supported by scientific evidence and will not mislead the consumer should be allowed to appear on the label. The FDA is better equipped to evaluate the scientific evidence and to determine if the claim is appropriate. The standard used by the NLEA is an appropriate solution for health claims on wine and other alcoholic beverage labels. The FDA can determine the least restrictive method to inform the consumer and protect them from harm.
 Brown-Furman Distillers Corp. v. Matthews, 435 F. Supp. 5 (D.C.Ky. 1977).
 Id. at 7.
 Id . at 9.
 Id. at 7.
 21 U.S.C.A. §321(f).
 Id. at 8.
 435 F.Supp. 5 (W.D. Ky. 1976).
 Id. at 5, note 1.
 Id. at 10.
 Id. at 10.
 Id. at 9.
 Id. at 13.
 Peter Barton Hutt and Richard A. Merrill, FOOD AND DRUG LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS , 2nd Ed. 79 (1991).
 Center for Science in Public Interest v. Dept. of Treasury, 573 F. Supp. 1168, 1170 (D.C.D.C. 1983).
 Id. at 1171.
 Id .
 Id . at 1172.
 Id .
 Id .
 Center for Science in Public Interest v. Dept. of Treasury, 573 F. Supp. 1168 (D.C.D.C. 1983).
 Id .
 Id . at 1176 (quoting 46 Fed. Reg. 55094 (1981)).
 27 U.S.C.A. §205.
 27 U.S.C.A. §213 et.seq.
 ATF Compliance Matters, Industry Circular: Health Claims in the Labeling and Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages, <http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/alcotob_pub/comp931.htm> 93-1 (1993).
 Id. at *7
 Id. at *8.
 Id. at *9.
 Treasury News Treasury Announces Actions Concerning Labeling of Alcoholic Beverages, Feb. 5, 1999 RR –2937.
 US v. Robert Mondavi Corporation, (D.C.D.C. 1998)
 Steven B. Steinborn, Kyra A. Todd, The End of Paternalism: A New Approach to Food Labeling , 54 Food & Drug L. J. 401, 404 (1999).
 Enforcement Policy Statement on Food Advertising , <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-food.hitm> 108 118 138 158 188 218 228 238 248 258 278 288 348 358 368 378 38 398 408 438 448 458 468 488 508 518 528 598 608 618 628 638 658 668 688 718 768 778 788 798 88 98 (May 1994).
 Id .
 Ilene Ringel Heller, Functional Foods: Regulatory and Marketing Developments , 56 Food & Drug L.J. 197, 200 (2001).
 Id .
 Id. at 201.
 Id .
 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
 Pearson v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
 Id. at 652.
 Id. at 653.
 Id. at 654.
 Id. at 655.
 Id. at 655.
 Id. at 656.
 Id. (quoting Central Hudson, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980).
 Id. at 656.
 Id .a t 657.
 Id. at 658.
 Id . at 661.
 Steinborn at 412.
 Id. at 413.
 Ilene Ringel Heller, Functional Foods: Regulatory and Marketing Developments , 56 Food & Drug L.J. 197, Appendix (2001).
 Steinborn at 418-19.
 Id at 419.
 Enforcement Policy Statement on Food Advertising , <http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-food.hitm> 119 149 159 169 209 219 229 239 249 259 309 319 339 349 359 379 389 39 409 459 469 49 499 5