<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: American Medical Association Comment; Top 7 Things to Know</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know</link>
	<description>Distilling a million label approvals down to the ones that affect you.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:19:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know/comment-page-1#comment-504</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/?p=1474#comment-504</guid>
		<description>Thanks Bob. And also, what will CSPI ask for next?  After serving facts and allergens?

I don&#039;t see much harm in showing zero fat for beer.  It&#039;s a nice, clear way of confirming that it has no fat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Bob. And also, what will CSPI ask for next?  After serving facts and allergens?</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see much harm in showing zero fat for beer.  It&#8217;s a nice, clear way of confirming that it has no fat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Skilnik</title>
		<link>http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know/comment-page-1#comment-502</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Skilnik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/?p=1474#comment-502</guid>
		<description>The TTB still has to contend with the harsh demands of the Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) which wants nutritional info, allergens and ingredients on adult beverage labels. The TTB also has to negotiate with the EU since they are about to mandate nutritional labeling requirements too and want worldwide conformity for trade purposes.

Change is coming and it has the tailwinds of consumer support and NAFTA-inspired conformity behind it with a soon-to-be standardized world market of beer, wine and booze labels. Without acceptance by U.S. drink manufacturers, it&#039;s conceivable that the import/export markets of beers, wines and spirits would come to a halt; but be assured, that that will not happen.

The label format will be generalized so as to work with all alcoholic products. It will be clumsy. There is no fat in beer, for instance, but to be ready for a drink such as an Irish Cream-type product, a measurement for fat will be on beer containers, as silly as it is.

What every article ignores, however, is the fact that the TTB will give the drink industry 3 years to achieve conformity with federal labeling standards. Of course, that still means that the TTB will have to come up with an acceptable standard that will please consumers, the drink industry and the EU.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The TTB still has to contend with the harsh demands of the Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) which wants nutritional info, allergens and ingredients on adult beverage labels. The TTB also has to negotiate with the EU since they are about to mandate nutritional labeling requirements too and want worldwide conformity for trade purposes.</p>
<p>Change is coming and it has the tailwinds of consumer support and NAFTA-inspired conformity behind it with a soon-to-be standardized world market of beer, wine and booze labels. Without acceptance by U.S. drink manufacturers, it&#8217;s conceivable that the import/export markets of beers, wines and spirits would come to a halt; but be assured, that that will not happen.</p>
<p>The label format will be generalized so as to work with all alcoholic products. It will be clumsy. There is no fat in beer, for instance, but to be ready for a drink such as an Irish Cream-type product, a measurement for fat will be on beer containers, as silly as it is.</p>
<p>What every article ignores, however, is the fact that the TTB will give the drink industry 3 years to achieve conformity with federal labeling standards. Of course, that still means that the TTB will have to come up with an acceptable standard that will please consumers, the drink industry and the EU.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know/comment-page-1#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/?p=1474#comment-469</guid>
		<description>Camper:  I don&#039;t think TTB has any plans to require FDA-style ingredient lists, like you see on cookies. Instead, TTB is contemplating a requirement to disclose nutritional information like calories and carbohydrates. And later, allergens like nuts and wheat. And then there is the existing requirement to disclose functional components like colors and sulfites and caffeine. The simple label is fading away. I believe glycerin is okay in many products like liqueur and flavored vodka but should not be used in &quot;vodka.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Camper:  I don&#8217;t think TTB has any plans to require FDA-style ingredient lists, like you see on cookies. Instead, TTB is contemplating a requirement to disclose nutritional information like calories and carbohydrates. And later, allergens like nuts and wheat. And then there is the existing requirement to disclose functional components like colors and sulfites and caffeine. The simple label is fading away. I believe glycerin is okay in many products like liqueur and flavored vodka but should not be used in &#8220;vodka.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Camper English</title>
		<link>http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/american-medical-association-comment-top-7-things-to-know/comment-page-1#comment-467</link>
		<dc:creator>Camper English</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/?p=1474#comment-467</guid>
		<description>Number 5 would be a huge change if truly all ingredients had to be listed. Not only do liqueur brands like Benedictine and Chartreuse have very secret recipes and ingredients, even spirits like vodka can have additives like glycerin up to a certain amount. I&#039;m not sure it&#039;s a bad thing to have this change, but it would ruin many brands that rely on their mystique.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Number 5 would be a huge change if truly all ingredients had to be listed. Not only do liqueur brands like Benedictine and Chartreuse have very secret recipes and ingredients, even spirits like vodka can have additives like glycerin up to a certain amount. I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s a bad thing to have this change, but it would ruin many brands that rely on their mystique.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

