Posts Tagged ‘container’
As of April 8-21, 2014, this was approved. The federal government approved this brand of powderized alcohol two weeks ago. The reviewing agency has been TTB (not FDA, as some press accounts have said). TTB is a sub-unit of the US Department of Treasury.
April 21, 2014, 5 pm ET, Update: The Palcohol company has surrendered all seven label approvals back to TTB. Here is one of the labels as approved on April 8, 2014 and then the same label as “surrendered” April 21. The differing status is shown at the center of each document. TTB has not said much about the change of course. Palcohol has said: “We have been in touch with the TTB and there seemed to be a discrepancy on our fill level, how much powder is in the bag. There was a mutual agreement for us to surrender the labels.”
I am not astonished that this is a real product — but I am absolutely astonished that this got approved. TTB approved seven versions of this powdered alcohol label on April 8, 2014. It is seven labels covering five products (two rum-like, two vodka-like, one Cosmopolitan-like, one Lemon Drop-like, and one Margarita-like).
- Prediction. The system will work, if not right away, soon. Rules and rulings will be made. Something like democracy will happen. Most of this stuff would need to go through licensed wholesalers with a strong stake in the status quo, so don’t assume they will be eager to carry this. After the initial shock value, perhaps this will be as rare as vodka tampons, eyeballing and vodka injections. Also, the Palcohol company had better get some really, really good liability insurance. Perhaps an enterprising reporter can call some insurance vendors to see if it’s available at any price for a product like this.
- Historical context
- Video: CBS Morning News, Today Show, WFTV
- Mark Phillips, The Palcohol Company, Lipsmark LLC of Tempe, Arizona
The person that pushed this through must be very patient or lucky and/or good. The product seems highly likely to raise a large number of legal issues and controversies. The company’s website (as of a few days ago) tended to underscore the controversies, saying: “What’s worse than going to a concert, sporting event, etc. and having to pay $10, $15, $20 for a mixed drink with tax and tip. Are you kidding me?! Take Palcohol into the venue and enjoy a mixed drink for a fraction of the cost.” And:
We’ve been talking about drinks so far. But we have found adding Palcohol to food is so much fun. Sprinkle Palcohol on almost any dish and give it an extra kick. Some of our favorites are the Kamikaze in guacamole, Rum on a BBQ sandwich, Cosmo on a salad and Vodka on eggs in the morning to start your day off right. Experiment. Palcohol is great on so many foods. Remember, you have to add Palcohol AFTER a dish is cooked as the alcohol will burn off if you cook with it…and that defeats the whole purpose.
The current Palcohol website is much more tame and also has a short bio for Mark Phillips, the force behind Palcohol. Over the weekend Mark confirmed that he was in fact quite patient about this; he said: “The TTB was cautious. It took us nearly four years to get the approval.”
California seems to have been way out in front of this with Regulation 2557. We are not aware of directly and specifically relevant TTB rules, and this may well explain why no rules blocked the initial approvals. Many thanks to John for finding these Palcohol approvals among millions of obscure government records.
Environmentally-conscious and corkscrew-phobic wine lovers alike will be thrilled to hear that TTB issued a ruling on March 11, 2014, allowing the filling of wine growlers by TTB-licensed tax-paid wine bottling houses (“TPWBH”). The ruling is in response to a new Washington state law allowing state-licensed wineries to sell wine off-site in kegs or “sanitary containers” (i.e., growlers) for off-premise consumption. Oregon passed a similar law in April 2013.
These laws are particularly helpful to wineries that operate both a production facility and a separate tasting room, allowing them to fill growlers for off-premise consumption at either location. The TTB ruling is somewhat less helpful to wine retailers, requiring that they go to the extra trouble of becoming TPWBH-licensed and comply with label and recordkeeping requirements.
Some wine retailers complain that it is unfair to not allow non-TPBH wine shops to sell growler fills to-go, since beer shops currently enjoy that privilege. TTB explains, the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) “has very specific requirements regarding the bottling of taxpaid wine. Section 5352 of the IRC requires any person who bottles, packages, or repackages taxpaid wine to first apply for and receive permission to operate as a taxpaid wine bottling house. There is no analogous provision with respect to beer.” The current TTB ruling interprets growler filling as bottling or packing and, therefore, restricted to TPWBH-licensed vendors.
Most people call them COLAs or FLAs (federal label approvals) or “label approvals.” But those terms leave out the not so minor B — as it appears in the word “bottle,” highlighted above. TTB’s pre-market approval system extends to bottles, and it is starting to seem like many people forgot about this or never knew.
TTB’s bottle review probably does not cover run of the mill bottles. It is meant to cover “distinctive bottles.” The COLA form mentions that you must complete item 18.c. “if you intend to bottle distilled spirits in a distinctive container.” It’s not so easy to know what is and isn’t distinctive. The regulations use the term “distinctive” many times, and even explain the requirements for distinctive bottles, but they don’t explain when bottles are and aren’t.
It is good to know that Jim Beam Brands, at least, still knows how to do this right, and can serve as a good reminder to others. The above Stillhouse Decanter certainly appears to be — on the distinctive side — for a bottle. And alas, the corresponding approval is here; item 18.c. seems to be duly completed to verify that the bottle is both distinctive and approved.
Beam’s press release puts things in perspective and explains that even Jim Beam does not use distinctive containers especially often anymore:
Mirroring the Jim Beam American Stillhouse in design, the new figural bottle revives a storied piece of Beam history, while offering whiskey enthusiasts and collectors the opportunity to add to their collection for the first time in more than a decade. … “Since the early 1950s, hundreds of Beam decanters have celebrated politics, sports, history and more.” … “Beam decanters have come in all shapes and sizes,” said Fredrick “Fred” Booker Noe III, seventh generation Jim Beam master distiller.
Individually hand-crafted by Louisville Stoneware, the Jim Beam American Stillhouse decanter joins hundreds of artfully designed, limited-edition decanters on display in the new Jim Beam American Stillhouse production tour. … Only 1,000 of the limited-edition Stillhouse decanters are available for sale (SRP: $199.99) … .
Originally created to help drive sales and offer bourbon fans more eye-catching packaging suitable for gifting, the specialty bottles and decanters were designed by the Regal China Company and introduced by Jim Beam to the public in 1955. For more than 40 years, the Regal China bottles celebrated many subject areas and reflected the rich traditions of Jim Beam Bourbon. Custom bottles were produced for the Jim Beam collectors’ club chapters, which were formed in 1966 and are collectively known around the globe today as the International Association of Jim Beam Bottle and Specialty Club. Bottle production ceased in the early 1990s only to be brought back by Jim Beam in 2012.
The COLA Registry search does not make it easy to find distinctive container approvals, so here is one more example of such a decanter (from a shelf at TTB). And here are some other examples from this blog.
Here is Pumpkin Face Dominican Rum. Does it remind me that summer is ending and Halloween is around the corner? No. It reminds me of many other things.
It reminds me that Dan Matauch at Flowdesign has a lot of skill. I especially like the main font.
It reminds me that Mark Itskovitz was serious when he said he was thinking about getting into the spirits business.
It reminds me of the new distiller and former bartender, I met at the ADI conference — at the bar — who said bartenders hate shapes like this because they take a lot of space. But they never go in the trash can.
It reminds me of the Apple-Samsung litigation. If Apple designed this, one might expect Apple to claim a patent on certain orb-shaped decanters.
Finally, it reminds me to thank Ann and Gerard for stopping by yesterday and saying nice things about this blog. Gerard is one of the most famous chefs in the U.S., and Ann makes a pretty good veal dish herself.
I am glad we are not stuck in this era. Work would not be fun.
proposes to “standardize” the appearance of all alcohol beverage containers. The proposal would accomplish this by prohibiting “Any container that, by virtue of the material from which it is composed or by its shape or design, or that by its ordinary and customary use is likely to mislead the consumer as to the alcohol character of the product. . . .” The proposal expresses ATF’s concern about containers that might confuse consumers about the presence or absence of alcohol in any form. The proposal secondarily expresses concern about containers that might confuse consumers, regulators and the trade about the “alcohol character of the product.” This part of the rule could conceivably be used to prohibit a malt beverage from being packed in a container that looks like a wine bottle, or a distilled spirit cooler from being packed in a container that looks like a beer bottle.
I am delighted to report that this proposal got buried not too many years apart from when one of its foremost proponents got buried. We might otherwise be deprived of all these great ideas that make the industry more competitive, modern, vibrant and fun. A good and further example is Double Agent, as above (approved at Bendistillery, an excellent contract bottler for spirits in Bend, Oregon). The outer chamber is vodka and the inner chamber is liqueur. I am pretty sure nobody will mistake it for a juicebox. Another good example, along these lines, is Milagro Romance Tequila.
Don’t hold your breath, but if we get really creative, perhaps it would only take a few more decades to identify good reasons why this sort of thing should be prohibited (preferably well after the government is running big surpluses, unemployment is below 3%, and other priorities are well under control).