The More You Know
posted by Scott in Snooth, Wine, Guest Bloggers
A recent blurb (”Distillers team with MADD in call for alcohol labeling”) in Nation’s Restaurant’s News on May 5th stated that the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States has allied itself with MADD and other advocacy groups in calling for “the federal government to require labels stating nutrition and alcohol contents on all packaged alcoholic beverages, including bottled beers, wines, and spirits…” Let me begin by stating that I am neither for nor against the proposed ordinance; I am curious how the issue will play out. My head spins with the thought of how complicated the execution of such a simple idea can be.
Because both nutrition facts and alcohol contents are dependent on the accurate reporting of alcohol percentage, we might see the disappearance of the 1.5% margin currently given to winemakers. The absence of this courtesy would mean that those hoping to pay fewer taxes (the rate goes up once you cross the 14% threshold) would actually have to produce wines with less than 14% alcohol by volume. As things stand, you can make a wine that is 14.5% abv and label it 13% abv and pay the 13% taxes; its a pretty sweet loophole. So, would such labeling requirements herald a new era of relatively lower alcohol wines? It’s too early to say, but they would certainly put a dent in the current trend of wine emulating vodka.
How the already stressed and overworked TTB (the regulatory body that’s currently in charge of overseeing and approving all labels on alcoholic beverages) would cope with such a massive influx of additional work is another question that begs to be answered. And woe is the small 500-case producer who would have to pay someone to tell them how many carbs are in each of their bottles.
I don’t believe that requiring the nutrition and alcohol contents on wine labels will make things safer or entice people to be more temperate. People need more than information and education to make intelligent decisions; this is why some lament that common sense can’t be taught. Still, I believe in the consumer’s “right-to-know” and the easy accessibility of such important information would be welcomed. Let me know when someone figures out how it will all work.
Scott Rosenbaum is director of operations for the International Wine Center and wine buyer for the retailer DrinkUpNY.
Scott - there’s a space issue as well. The nutritional information takes up a fair amount of space, so wineries might end up using those concertina style labels that drug packaging has.
Also, at some point people will realize there’s limited “nutritional” value in wine. There are calories from the ethanol of course, but thats about it, unless Mega Purple suddenly comes with riboflavin
I’ve always thought that it was the anti-alcohol sentiment with respect to youth that caused the drinking problem as opposed to people not knowing how many calories are in a glass of wine or what the alcohol percentage is. Sure, let’s fill everyone in on the specifics as we do for other food products but back in Health Ed in middle school our teacher said wine was 14% ABV and that’s basically all one needs to know to gauge his or her limits.
I am all for informing the consumer, but I think having standard FDA nutritional facts on a bottle of wine would be a waste of ink. It’s bad enough you have to see it on bottled water. However, I agree that the alcohol content should be precisely reported, or the average measurement should be used instead of the bottom of the band. Taxes should be reduced accordingly.
Doesn’t make much sense how they think this will get people to drink responsibly. I would imagine most people wont read the label and those that do, it wont have any affect on their drinking.