(IMBIBE+BLOG)

There were a number of new viticultural areas, commonly referred to as AVAs, approved by the TTB late this year, as well as an expansion of certain AVAs and several new proposed areas for which comments are due in early 2012. A summary on the latest activity is below. The TTB designates viticultural areas in order to allow vintners to more precisely describe the origins of their wines and so that consumers may make purchasing decisions with such specific origination information in mind.

Expanded Areas Effective December 16, 2011

Russian River Valley (California) – The Russian River Valley AVA, located in Sonoma County, California, was expanded by 14,044 acres.

Northern Sonoma (California) – The Northern Sonoma AVA, also located in Sonoma County, California, was expanded by 44,244 acres.

New Viticultural Areas Effective January 13, 2012

Coombsville (California) – The Coombsville AVA in Napa County, California covers 11,075 acres. The area is within the Napa Valley and North Coast viticultural areas. The Coombsville AVA is nearly identical to the previously proposed Tulocay AVA, which the TTB withdrew from consideration in June 2008.

Fort Ross-Seaview (California) – The Fort Ross-Seaview AVA in Sonoma County, California embodies 27,500 acres. The area is within the Sonoma Coast viticultural area, which in turn is within the North Coast viticultural area.

Naches Heights (Washington) – The Naches Heights AVA in Yakima County, Washington covers 13,254 acres. The Naches Heights AVA is within the Columbia Valley viticultural area located mainly in central and southern Washington, although a small portion of northern Oregon is also included within the Columbia Valley AVA.

New Proposed Viticultural Areas

Inwood Valley (California) – The TTB has proposed creating a 28,298-acre Inwood Valley AVA in Shasta County, California. Comments on the proposal must be received by February 3, 2012.

Middleburg Virginia (Virginia) – The TTB has proposed creating a 198-square mile Middleburg Virginia AVA located in the northern Virginia counties of Loudoun and Fauquier. Comments on the proposal must be received by January 9, 2012.

Alcohol Beverage industry members may soon hear from the TTB if their websites do not contain a responsible advertiser statement and other information that is mandatory on all alcohol advertisements.  Industry member websites are considered advertisements subject to these requirements, and recently the TTB has been independently investigating websites for compliance.  If the mandatory information is not present on a website’s homepage, the TTB has begun sending letters to industry members requiring compliance and a confirming response to the TTB.

The federal requirements vary slightly depending whether the alcohol being advertised is beer, wine, or distilled spirits, but in general all alcohol advertisements are required to contain a responsible advertising statement that includes the permittee’s name and address, as well as statements regarding the class and type of alcohol.

Industry members – check your websites and other advertisements and make sure they contain all mandatory information!  If you have any questions about these requirements, the attorneys at Strike & Techel are available to help.

Today the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) launched their Permits Online system, which is available here. The system is a counterpart to the Formulas Online and COLAs Online systems. The Permits Online system allows the application procedure for federal alcohol and tobacco business permits to be completed entirely online. The system allows one to prepare, submit and track applications through the TTB’s online portal, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. But as with many technology innovations and advances, there is often a corresponding down side. A few weeks ago, the TTB announced that they are no longer accepting “Expedite Requests” or “Informal Reviews” for certificate of label approvals (COLAs) and formula approvals. The former expedite option allowed for rapid turnaround of approvals that was especially helpful for the industry at large.

With a dramatic increase in approval requests over the years, coupled with shrinking governmental budgets, the TTB decided that all applications will be reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis, without any expedite availability. Further, the TTB stated that applicants should plan for a full 90-day review period, which does not include any additional time that could be necessary if label or formula changes are requested. The TTB did note that online applications are processed about twice as fast as paper applications, so there is a real incentive to using the online portals. If you have an upcoming formula approval or COLA, be sure to factor in enough time for the TTB’s review given that the expedite option is no longer available. If you have questions about formula or label approvals, please feel free to call any of the attorneys at Strike & Techel.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010-2011 · All Rights Reserved ·

This holiday season, thousands of households will be checking “whipped cream” off their shopping lists.  The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, wants to make sure those households are putting the right product in their cart come shopping time.  A handful of whipped cream products made with alcohol have popped up over the last year.  The products are typically made with grain alcohol and look like traditional whipping cream.  But they pack an alcoholic punch of around 16% alcohol per volume, or a little over 30 proof.  Such items are not considered food products, but rather alcoholic beverages.  As one manufacturer stated in the FAQ section of its website, they’ve never had the product tested for caloric content as it is “not a food product and is not subject to FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] labeling requirements; it is an alcoholic beverage.” 

The fact that the product is an alcoholic beverage as opposed to a food product means it is regulated by the TTB.  For more information on the TTB’s relationship with the FDA, refer back to our post on caffeinated alcoholic beverages.  As the TTB reminded producers last week, all alcoholic beverage products must abide by federal labeling requirements that prohibit consumer deception.  Product labels for distilled spirits are required to have a statement of the class, type and alcoholic content, along with the government warning required by 27 U.S.C. 215, among other things.  Additionally, such manufacturers must comply with Federal Alcohol Administration Act, or FAA, advertising laws and the various relevant state regulatory laws.  If you are of the legal drinking age and decide to try one of these alcoholic whipped cream products this holiday season, just remember, as always, to imbibe in moderation.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010 · All Rights Reserved ·

At this point, we’ve all recovered from the landslide ban on alcoholic energy drinks that crossed the U.S. in November.  We covered the opening act, here, when Michigan, quickly followed by Washington, banned the sale of alcoholic energy drinks.  New York then reached an agreement with certain suppliers and distributors that halted caffeinated malt beverage sales in that state (review our coverage here).  After that, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters to four caffeinated alcoholic beverage companies.  The letters warned those producers that caffeine added to their malt alcohol beverage products constitutes an “unsafe food additive.” 

Substances added to food products, which includes beverages, are considered food additives and are subject to review and approval by the FDA, unless the substance is specifically excluded from the definition of “food additive,” has been sanctioned by the FDA, or is recognized by qualified experts as adequately safe when used as intended.  This third category is referred to as Generally Recognized as Safe or GRAS. 

As many know, the FDA isn’t the usual stop for federal regulation of alcoholic beverages, but rather the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) which operates under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act).  In this instance, the FDA’s statements meant that the beverages in question were considered adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  The TTB takes the position that adulterated beverages, even if their formulas and labels have been approved by the TTB, are mislabeled under the FAA Act.  This means that shipping and selling such beverages violates the FAA Act, which can result in license revocations and misdemeanor penalties.  As the TTB stated, “…each producer and importer of alcohol beverages is responsible for ensuring that the ingredients in its products comply with the laws and regulations that FDA administers.  TTB’s approval of a label or formula does not imply or otherwise constitute a determination that the product complies with the FFDCA, including a determination as to whether the product is adulterated because it contains an unapproved food additive.” 

Producers of alcoholic energy drinks likely thought their products fell under the GRAS status.  The FDA’s announcement ended that assumption.  The question is, what other assumptions might it have ended?  Alcoholic beverage producers have been using caffeine in their products for years, the most popular being coffee.  In the FDA’s Questions and Answers section about the warning letters, it states that the letters are not directed at “alcoholic beverages that only contain caffeine as a natural constituent of one or more of their ingredients, such as a coffee flavoring.”  However, in that same section the FDA also stated that, “Other alcoholic beverages containing added caffeine may be subject to agency action in the future if the available scientific data and information indicate that the use of caffeine in those products is not GRAS.  A manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its products, including the ingredients of its products, are safe for their intended use and are otherwise in compliance with the law.”  Further, the TTB stated that if requested by the FDA, it would share “formulas for beers containing added caffeine that are approved under 27 CFR Part 25 [TTB regulations].”  In the upcoming months, and perhaps years, it will be interesting to see how the GRAS standard is applied to other alcoholic beverages containing some form of caffeine.

Imbiblog is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Copyright © 2010 · All Rights Reserved ·