“…spirits marketer Diageo announced that it would provide certain information about its products voluntarily, in its promotions, on its websites, and on labels. In addition to alcohol content, serving size, and calories…”
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/WashingtonRpt0402.htm

And from the NYT Business Section, December 18, 2003…

“Diageo to Add Nutrition Labels
Diageo, the British liquor company whose brands include Johnnie Walker, Guinness and Smirnoff, is putting nutrition labels on its products to detail how many calories, carbohydrates and alcohol are in each package.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E0DF173FF93BA25751C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=

This was based on an anticipated interim ruling by the TTB that did come out on April 7, 2004, a few months after Diageo’s announcement.

TTB Ruling Number 2004-1 states;

“TTB believes that the rationale behind ATF Ruling 80-3 applies equally to distilled spirits and wines, and we have allowed the placement of statements of average analysis on containers of products other than malt beverages. Thus, we
are clarifying that wines, distilled spirits, and malt beverages may be labeled with truthful and factual caloric or carbohydrate statements, as long as the label also
contains a statement of average analysis in accordance with this ruling.”

Unfortunately, soon after the TTB made this “temporary” ruling, they also started the petition drive, indicating that a real labeling change might come. The drink industry’s radar went up.

For any brewer, vintner or distiller who wants to voluntarily change their product labels today and add nutritional info, that would mean destroying an entire inventory of current labels, and then if and when the TTB comes up with their own mandated version, filled with changes that differ from current standards, the manufacturers might have to destroy their label inventory once again.

The TTB has said they would give the industry 3 years for conformity, but who wants to take a monetary chance? Diageo, for instance, was ready to relabel their products back around 2004…even sent out a press release after using the services of a pollster firm that found that the average consumer wanted to see nutritional info on adult beverages. Once the TTB ran the comment drive, however, Diageo stopped this idea dead in its tracks.

Just my two cents! Great blog by the way!

Maybe I can accept that the higher ups actually had a change of heart, or that it wasn’t on their radar before the initial filing and they actually think it is a good idea.

The result, unfortunately, is the same no matter what Miller’s underlying principle is. Smaller brewers will bear a disproportionate burden to accommodate the regulations and Miller and the other booze giants will gain a non-competitive advantage over the market place because of it.

If Miller truly thinks these labels are “appropriate and timely” then they should go ahead and put them on their beer. It’s not as is there is a government regulation forbidding this type of information.

The huge costs associated with these labels (as Miller specifically notes) may serve as a small speed bump for the major breweries, but will often prove cost prohibitive for smaller artisan and craft brewers. As consumers are becoming more and more discerning in their beer tastes, Big Booze is losing market share. They know a measure like this would create an uncompetitive advantage for them.