Posts Tagged ‘rejections’
Adult Beverages
Here it is, in all its glory, at long last. TTB’s “areola” policy.
From time to time, depending on the circumstances, TTB will say these particular body parts are “obscene” or “indecent” and must be covered. Here is a recent example of such a rejection. It says “Please cover the areolas on the woman.” And these, by way of another example, are certainly well covered.
The label above is Amethystos dry white wine, from the Drama region of Greece.
Related Posts:
Tags:
legally interesting/controversial, policy, rejections, risqué, sexual
Posted in:
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
|
Remove the Word “Digestif”
Fernet-Branca has been well known around the world as a “digestiv” since about 1845. The above poster shows Fernet-Branca described as a “digestivo.” By contrast, the US label, on the right, bears no reference to this key term.
TTB does not allow any reference to digestif, digestiv or similar. Here is an example of a recent rejection, wherein TTB explains that the term is not allowed, and why. TTB regards it as a therapeutic claim.
Eric Asimov explains:
Digestives were historically intended as palliatives, meant to counter all sorts of ailments and physical imbalances. They may no longer be assigned quite the same medicinal value today as they were a few hundred years ago, but count me among the many who believe they can help to settle that queasy feeling.
Fernet-Branca is one of the more famous examples of a digestif, but there are others, such as Fernet Stock, Escorial, Becherovka, Averna, bitters, amaro, etc. In general, digestifs are intended to be consumed after a meal, with dessert of coffee. By contrast, aperitifs, such as Aperol and Campari, are most often served before meals.
Related Posts:
Tags:
legally interesting/controversial, policy, rejections
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
Over Regulated Ale, Part 1
I saw this label a few days ago and it screamed out to say there was drama lurking under the surface. Indeed there was.
Kevin Bloom, brewer at Manchester Brewing, explained:
The original label was for St. Paula’s Liquid Wisdom, which shows the Renaissance painting “The Conversion of Paula by Saint Jerome.” However, TTB insisted that we were making a medical claim of physical effect, i.e., if you drank our beer you’d become wise. We countered that no reasonable person believed that drinking beer would make them wise (although, I suppose, if you drank enough you would probably learn the wisdom of avoiding such conduct henceforth). TTB said “they had to consider all the people” by which I would guess they mean idiots. Now, it’s hard to argue that there aren’t a lot of idiots about, but we like to think they drink Other People’s Beer.
Anyway, we appealed the decision. While the appeal was pending, we submitted Over Regulated Ale as a substitute. TTB had no objection to the Over Regulated label. We continue to dialogue with TTB about St. Paula’s and look forward to having approval soon.
Is TTB being too tough? Is Kevin being a baby? He only has to comply with TTB, EPA, FDA, IRS, SEC, FTC, New Hampshire beer rules, New Hampshire tax rules, New Hampshire zoning rules … and make beer. We look forward to seeing St. Paula someday soon.
Related Posts:
Tags:
legally interesting/controversial, policy, political, rejections, speech
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
Rejection: Refreshing
Quite a few readers have said, “yeah, unusual approvals are great, but what about rejections?” Here we have the first post of many, from time to time, showing common or revealing label rejections.
First, some ground rules. We will not show the brand or company at issue. TTB tends to treat label rejections as confidential and approvals as public, and we’ll mirror this sensible policy. To this end, we may blur out some identifying information where necessary, such as above. In rare cases, we’ll change a little bit of text (in the example above we changed about three letters to avoid the distraction that might otherwise be caused by typos; we did not change the substance). If you have a good and interesting rejection, please let us know and we’ll make sure to treat it in line with the policy above.
On to the controversial term at hand. For many decades, TTB has been concerned about the term “refreshing,” so common on all manner of beverages. TTB’s concern seems to be that it’s awfully close to a therapeutic claim, suggesting an effect on your body. “Invigorating” or “stimulating” would go a bit further and probably raise the same issues. Rather than ban the term “refreshing” outright — which would seem a bit out of proportion to the harm it could cause — TTB frequently says it must be accompanied, in close proximity, by something like “serve chilled.” The above rejection is such an example. It says “The statement ‘refreshing’ must be deleted or the statement ‘on the rocks’ or ‘serve chilled’ must be added.” This would tend to make it clearer that any effect on your body is rather innocent and fleeting. It’s not going to cure your eczema or chronic exhaustion.
This Franzia label pretty much shows how TTB wants the term used. “Refreshing” is fairly prominent on this label, but “Serve Chilled” is not too far behind.
By contrast, here are a few that seem to go in the opposite direction. Erik’s Refreshing Riesling does not seem to have much chill talk. Nor does this MillerCoors Honey Moon label (“A Refreshing Summer Ale with Honey & Orange Peel”).
We feel it’s important to set some of these policies out, because a lot of them do not appear in the regulations or BAM. As a result, they are inherently subject to confusion and surprise.
Related Posts:
Tags:
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
