ld be outweighed by numerous effects. This proposal sets the bar very high for alcoholic beverage manufacturers. It does not allow them to make any health effects statements unless they are specifically addressed to all classes of people who may not realize the health benefit. The practicality of this proposal leaves something to be desired. The proposal does not allow the industry to make truthful positive statements even in a limited sense unless accompanied by the complete list of negative effects. The BATF was attempting to strike a balance between the positive health effects and the negative effects; however, they did not strike the balance in the proper place.
Although the FDA has traditionally been even more paternalistic then the BATF, it is beneficial to consider the FDA use of the NLEA in health effects labeling on foods to provide a more adequate solution. Even the BATF recognizes that they may not be the best agency to evaluate the health effects and have stated that it will be necessary to consult with Health and Human Services to properly address the issue. The NLEA provides an interesting framework to evaluate health effects labels. Although the NLEA originally required the approval of each and every health claim, currently, the manufacturer may include health claims for which they have significant scientific agreement. The FDA’s ability to control labels was limited by Pearson v. Shalala . The Court in Pearson evaluated the regulations on labels of dietary supplements using the commercial speech three-part test. The first issue is whether the government’s interest is substantial. The next issue to consider is “whether the regulation directly advances the government interest asserted.” The third part of the test determines whether the fit between the government’s means and the desired ends are reasonable. The Court was skeptical of this paternalistic attitude and found that “disclaimers are constitutionally preferable to outright suppression.” The new approach of flexibility and finding the least restrictive 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.
 