ectively do this, should regulate this. In 1990, the NLEA was passed giving FDA the power to regulate health claims on food labels. The NLEA sets up guidelines for the scientific standard of the research necessary to justify the health claim. These guidelines or something similar should be applied to alcoholic beverage labels. Since the FDA has the experience of regulating health claims and evaluating scientific research it is appropriate for this agency to regulate wine and all alcohol.
This paper will explore the reasons why the FDA should regulate the health claims on wine labels. First, it will be necessary to understand the history of the BATF’s jurisdiction over alcoholic beverages. Next it will be necessary to explore the framework established by the NLEA. Third, it is necessary to evaluate the current research on alcohol and wine. Last, the reasons why the FDA is the most appropriate agency to regulate wine labels will be presented.
II. The FDA Can Better Regulate the Health Claims of Wine Labels
A. BATF’s Exclusive Control over Wine Labels
The FDA and BATF shared jurisdiction over alcoholic beverages from 1938 until 1976. During this time the labeling was reserved to the BATF and the FDA only continued to retain control over adulteration in alcoholic beverages. In order to understand BATF’s current role it is first necessary to explore the historical root of their jurisdiction and then to delve into the current role that the BATF plays in regulating wine.
In 1935, Congress passed the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, which gave the authority to regulate the labels of alcoholic beverages to the Department of Treasury, who designated the BATF as the enforcement authority. Until 1935 alcohol labels were regulated under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. After thirty years, Congress decided that this was insufficient because it only prohibited falsity and deception. The 1935 Act required that alcohol labels contain the identity and the quantity of the product, the net contents, and alcohol content. When Congress passed the FD&C Act in1938 they did not limit the definition of food to exclude alcoholic beverages and so the debate over the jurisdiction began. The Food Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 defines food as “articles used for food or drink for man or other animal.” The BATF clearly has jurisdiction over labels under the 1935 Act, and the FDA believed that they shared jurisdiction with BATF as a result of the 1938 FD&C Act. In 1940, the FDA issued a statement that indicated their position on alcoholic beverages.
While we have indicated that cordials, liqueurs, wine and whiskey are subject to the Act (the FD&C Act), we will continue as in the past to leave to the Federal Alcohol Administration the regulation of the labeling of these alcoholic beverages under the more specific Federal Alcohol Administration Act...we expect to continue our policy of not duplicating the work of the Federal Alcohol Administration.
BATF exerted exclusive control over the approval of the labels of alcoholic beverages for thirty-five years. On October 8, 1974, FDA and BATF entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that confirmed BATF’s primary jurisdiction over alcoholic beverage labels. The Memorandum announced that BATF had adopted ingredient regulations that were in agreement with the FDA. After the comment period, BATF withdrew the proposed regulation. BATF cited the following reasons for withdrawing the ingredient labeling proposal: (1) cost to the industry and the consumer, (2) the content of alcohol is extensively regulated, (3) uniqueness of the process of manufacturing alcohol may make an ingredient list misleading to the consumer, (4) hindrance on international trade negotiations, and (5) only a small segment of the public supports ingredient labeling. These reasons indicate that there was strong industry support against ingredient labeling. In response to BATF’s withdrawal, FDA issued a statement that they would be abandoning the memorandum of understanding and that they would begin to enforce ingredient labeling for alcoho