Label health statements what TTB's new regulations really mean

Wines & Vines, Oct, 2003 by Elisabeth Holmgren

Others, like the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) argued that the proposed statement was part of a wine industry marketing effort, as its initial directional label proposal to BATF had referred to "health benefits" rather then "health effects." This ongoing debate resulted in a major governmental survey and hearings around the country. Public health and alcohol abuse prevention authorities spoke out against any such labels, while wine industry representatives and related groups lobbied for the label. Significantly, scientific experts presented evidence on both sides of the issue, and BATF also received hundreds of independent written submissions from both sides. All of the facts, arguments and concerns were considered before the recent regulation was published.

In the meantime, leaders from the fields of policy, alcohol abuse prevention, science and public health have continued to charge that the wine industry, and specifically WI, has used science education and directional label proposals as part of a comprehensive promotion and marketing program, without showing a strong commitment to social responsibility. The book, Food Politics (UC Press, 2002) by Dr. Marion Nestle, a former member of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, discusses the wine industry's initiatives and directional label proposal in the context of public health concerns. This book reveals how the industry efforts are misinterpreted solely as marketing rather than a policy or education effort and how this affects the dietary guideline's alcohol message and related policy deliberations.

It can be anticipated that the debate will continue, especially since the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is likely to argue that the recent TTB decision is not constitutional.

Beyond TTB's Decision

It is likely that directional label statements will not be used extensively. They are voluntary, and difficult to include in light of the required detailed wording. In the meantime, the recent TTB regulation has very significant public policy value. It clearly reveals that there are both benefits and risks to alcohol, a scientific fact that was not acknowledged in the mid-1980s when the entire label debate surfaced. At the same time, however, the wording of the regulation underscores the importance of maintaining educational outreach efforts to consumers so that they will make sensible decisions about the enjoyment of moderate consumption of wine, beer and spirits.

Current scientific and public health deliberations acknowledge the positive health effects from moderate consumption but also caution against making broad positive messages due to certain health and social risks and individual differences. This stringent TTB regulation on health-related label statements is the outcome of an unresolved scientifically-based health and social issues debate. Therefore, it is crucial that science, education and social responsibility initiatives bring additional research perspectives to the forefront of social and public health policy deliberations. Most importantly, additional scientific perspectives should be bridged to the recently initiated 2005 Dietary Guidelines review process, which will most likely reconsider the wording of the guidelines in light of both the latest medical- and social issues-related developments and the recent TTB decision on directional labels.