Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau was scheduled to propose comprehensive revisions to its regulations on labeling and advertising. Among the proposed changes:
- Greater flexibility in placing mandatory information on labels.
- For malt beverages and wine, modernizing strength claims by eliminating “outdated language, such as the ban on the term ‘pre-war strength’.”TTB noted the term referred to the period before World War I.
- Requiring mandatory information to appear on “opaque packaging” of malt beverage products.The rule currently applies only to distilled spirits. The idea is to make it possible for consumers to see the information without removing the container to view any of the required information.
- TTB is also proposing to require mandatory information to appear on any “closed packaging” of wine, distilled spirits, or malt beverages.Packaging is considered closed if the consumer must open, rip, untie, unzip, or otherwise manipulate the package to remove the container in order to view any of the mandatory information.
- TTB has noted that today’s industry increasingly uses terms that apply to one commodity on labels of a different commodity. For example, TTB sees many wine and malt beverage labels that include distilled spirits terms or malt beverage labels that include wine terms. TTB is proposing a specific regulatory provision to prohibit the use of such terms when they might mislead consumers as to the identity of the product, while allowing the non-misleading use of certain terms (such as references to aging malt beverages in barrels previously used for the storage of distilled spirits or wine).
TTB invited comments on “whether these proposals will protect consumers and whether they will require significant labeling changes by industry members.” The agency said it plans allow industry members to use up existing supplies of packaging by giving industry members three years to switch packaging.
TTB noted a number of proposed changes will be handled separately because they are so complex. For example, the proposal doesn’t deal with serving facts nor with existing rules on labels where labels include nutrient claims.
You can see the proposal here.