Alcohol Beverage Labels: The Importance of Each Word

Let's be honest, most of us as consumers don't read each and every word on a food and beverage labels, especially that fine print way down at the bottom. Sure, we check the ingredients, maybe even the calorie count, but for the most part that's about it. But when it comes down to it, everything on the label matters. Not necessarily to the majority of consumers, only those trying to squeeze money out of the pockets of businesses. And, as demonstrated below, it only takes one person to notice something questionable to cause major headaches.

Just ask Diageo PLC. They were recently sued over the labeling of their Red Stripe beer. Although marketed as a "Jamaican-style lager" and the logo of a Jamaican brewery is displayed on the bottle, the beer is brewed and bottled in Latrobe, PA. This isn't something Diageo is trying to hide, they disclose it directly on the label. However, the complaint claims that the label falsely misrepresented the country of origin of the beer which resulted in consumers paying higher costs for an imported beer. I guess the plaintiffs haven't purchased domestic craft beers lately, which can be some of the most expensive items in the beer cooler.

Another recent proposed settlement with "mislead" consumers came from the owners of Templeton Rye, an Iowa-based whiskey maker. According to the complaint, the whiskey company conducted deceptive marketing practices for failing to disclose its product's origins, and further suggesting that it was made in small batches of a "Prohibition-era recipe." In fact Templeton Rye doesn't even distill their own product. Instead, it buys the rye from MPG Ingredients in Lawrenceburg, IN, and passes it off as their own distillate. The rye whiskey that Templeton Rye purchases isn't even made in small batches, but in large quantities which Templeton Rye purchases in small amounts, the remaining whiskey is sold to other distillers which is then bottled under different brand names. Although Templeton Rye does blend the whiskey at their facilities with an alcohol flavoring formulation which they purchase from yet another vendor to achieve their own flavor profile. Of course, all of this is disclosed on the company website, but that didn't matter to the plaintiffs. Templeton Rye's co-founder, Keith Kerkhoff, is livid, stating: “It’s all about greedy people…if people didn’t like our product, they wouldn’t have bought a second bottle." The parties have reached a settlement where the company has agreed to reimburse consumers who purchased their product in the amount of $3-6 per bottle, up to 6 bottles. 

Last year, Fifth Generation Inc., the marker of Tito's Homemade Vodka, was sued in California for false and deceptive marketing, and in Florida for unfair and deceptive practices. The vodka maker touts that its product is "handmade", however, this apparently isn't the case anymore. Originally, the vodka was made by its founder, Tito Beveridge, in pot stills just outside of Austin, TX. But now, the company produces over 850,000 case per year out of an industrial facility. The company has stated in its own defense that their labels were signed off by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ("TTB"), so if putting "handmade" on their label is "false advertising" then the TTB wouldn't have approved the labels in the first place. Apparently, this logic wasn't enough for the courts to dismiss the lawsuit. 

As you can see above, each word really does matter. Similar lawsuits against alcohol beverage makers are being filed more and more frequently. Whether on a beverage label or marketing campaign or website, it is important to review and analyze all materials prior to releasing them into the marketplace. If a company doesn't have internal staff qualified to complete this type of regulatory review, they should locate and hire a specialist. Think of this as buying an insurance policy. You spend a small amount of money to get it right the first time to mitigate risk, instead of going without and hoping for the best. But if something is incorrect, one of two scenarios happen: regulators come knocking on your door or you're served with a civil complaint by affected "consumers". Either way, the company is faced with the high cost of defending themselves and possible damage to their reputation, which will most likely result in loss of customers. If your business is unsure whether a label or marketing materials are in compliance with, or need assistance in adapting your label or materials to meet, TTB or FTC regulations please contact our attorneys at Morsel Law. 

FDA Delays Menu Labeling Rule

As mentioned in another article in December, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a final rule on food labeling (the "Rule"), as required under the Affordable Care Act, which provides for nutrition labeling of "standard" menu items for chain restaurants with 20 or more locations and "similar retail food establishments." Initially the Rule was to be implemented on December 1, 2015; however, since the Rule was issued numerous chain restaurants, grocery stores, and other covered establishments complained that they may not be able to comply within such time period.  Thus, on July 9, 2015 the FDA responded by announcing that it was extending the compliance date for the Rule to December 1, 2016. 

This is welcome news to the food industry as many businesses have struggled to implement procedures to comply with the Rule. Food businesses will now be afforded additional time to train staff, design new menus, and develop new information systems to assist in efficiently complying with the Rule. The FDA also announced it intends to publish a guide to assist covered establishments in complying with the Rule which is expected to be issued in August 2015.

While the menu labeling rule implementation has been delayed for one more year, it’s important for businesses to start planning for the implementation. If your food or beverage business needs assistance with implementing or interpreting the menu labeling rule, please feel free to contact our attorneys at Morsel Law.

So You Want to Start a Brewery in Michigan?

How many times have you spent sipping on a cold pint of the dark stuff with your friends when one of them, after finishing his third beer, has an epiphany: "Dude, we should totally start our own brewery...I mean how hard can it be?" Although your kind-hearted friend's idea sounds good at the time, what he doesn't know is that starting a brewery is no easy task. Navigating the laws and regulations alone would send most people running for the hills. However, there are some of you out there with the drive and passion for good beer and a determination to bring these tasty suds to the masses. So for those who've made it this far into my article, below I'll outline the different types of licenses need to start a brewery in Michigan.

While breweries are regulated under both state and federal laws, for the purposes of this article I'll just touch in the Michigan specific requirements. Michigan law allows a brewer to operate under either a brewer's, brewpub or micro-brewery license. A brewery license permits manufacturing an unlimited quantity of beer. Brewers may sell the beer they produce to licensed wholesalers, but many not sell directly to retailers. A brewer may also sell the beer it produces to consumers for on-premise consumption at only one brewing facility in Michigan, but it may sell beer that it produces at all of its facilities for off-premises consumption. Sampling of beer in a hospitality room located on the brewery premises is also permitted.

A micro-brewery license permits manufacturing of up to 60,000 barrels of beer annually (which includes any out-of-state production). Micro-brewers may sell beer to licensed wholesalers, but not directly to retailers. Micro-breweries that produce 30,000 barrels or less per year may sell directly to consumers for on and off-premise consumption without an additional license. Sampling of beer on the brewery premises is permitted.

A brewpub license permits manufacturing up to 18,000 barrels of beer annually. In addition to a brewpub license, a brewpub must also hold an on-premise license (Class C, Tavern, A-Hotel, B-Hotel or Resort). The brewpub must operate a full service restaurant with at least 25% of gross sales coming from non-alcoholic items. Brewpubs may not sell their beer to wholesalers or retailers, but may sell their beer to consumers for on or off-premises consumption.  

The key differences between a brewer's, micro-brewery and brewpub license are the amount of beer the establishment can produce, restaurant requirements and restrictions, and limitations on to whom you can sell.

Specifically, whereas a brewer's license authorizes the production of an infinite amount of beer, a micro-brewery license restricts production to 60,000 barrels per year and a brewpub license restricts production to 18,000 barrels per year. While a brewery or micro-brewery may be allowed to have a restaurant on its premises, a brewpub license requires the brewer to operate a restaurant on its premises. No license permits the sale of beer directly to retailers and only breweries and micro-breweries may sell to wholesalers. 

It is important to note that local regulations may further restrict your operations, such as stricter closing hours than state requirements. Thus, it is critical to research and understand the local ordinances prior to choosing a location. If you need assistance in establishing or navigating the laws and regulations that effect your brewery, please contact us at Morsel Law.

Streamlining Your Food Imports Into the U.S.

If you import food into the United States then you are familiar with the headaches and hassles that go along with this burdensome regulatory process. But that may change with the release of the draft guidance that outlines FDA’s plan to implement the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program ("VQIP") mandated under the Food Safety Modernization Act. The VQIP is a voluntary, fee-based program for the expedited review and importation of foods from importers who achieve and maintain a high level of control over the safety and security of their supply chains. 

The new draft guidance lays out the various benefits in addition to expedited entry that an importer can expect to receive from participating in VQIP, including limiting examination and/or sampling of VQIP food entries to “for cause” situations. Additionally, participants in the VQIP will have access to the VQIP Importers Help Desk, which will be dedicated to responding to questions and concerns of VQIP importers. 

The draft guidance lays out the eligibility for participating in the program, which includes: (a) 3-year history of importing food into the U.S.; (b) do not import food subject to an import alert or Class 1 recall; (c) have a current facility certification for each foreign supplier of food intended to be imported under VQIP; and (d) be in compliance with Foreign Supplier Verification Program requirements and applicable seafood and juice HACCP regulations.  

Participation in the VQIP is for the U.S. fiscal year, which begins on October 1st each year. Applications to participate in VQIP will need to be submitted electronically through the FDA’s industry portal between January 1st and May 31st before the fiscal year in which the importer seeks to join the program. FDA has indicated that due to resource constraints, it will limit the number of participants in the first year to 200 at the most. Participation must be renewed annually, and participants will be subject to FDA inspection. 

If your company is considering participating in the VQIP program, carefully review the draft guidance as the FDA will only accept comments on until August 4, 2015. 

Update: Ag Committee Passes Bill to Repeal COOL

The Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted 38 to 6 to approve HR. 2393, a bill that would repeal Country of Origin Labeling ("COOL") requirements for beef, pork and chicken products, while leaving intact the requirements for all other covered commodities, such as seafood and shellfish. This move comes just two days after the World Trade Organization ("WTO") ruled against parts of the COOL law, a requirement that labels tell consumers what countries the meat is from: for example, "born in Canada, raised and slaughtered in the United States'' or "born, raised and slaughtered in the United States.''

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, a long-time supporter of the meat industry, stated "[w]e cannot sit back and let American businesses be held hostage to the desires of a small minority who refuse to acknowledge that the battle is lost." But other congressmen don't believe swift and immediate action is the way to react. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minnesota, ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, stated "I’m disappointed that the WTO ruled against the United States, but I think repealing COOL is premature...there are still several steps that have to occur before [retaliation from Canada and Mexico] would take place."  

What is interesting is how quickly Congress reacted to the WTO ruling, an international trade body with no input from American citizens. As mentioned in an earlier article, consumers are demanding increased transparency in the food supply, especially when it comes to knowing where their meat comes from. Moreover, more than 60 other countries have mandatory labeling requirements, including the European Union which requires indication of the country of birth, fattening and slaughter. Although the U.S. and EU laws are different, it is possible for Congress to review similar meat labeling laws and determine whether their is a suitable alternative to repealing the law outright. This may take some time, but it is better to get it right than to do it quick.

Congress is supposed to represent the people, not special interest groups; however, in passing this bill through committee it sends the message that their campaign donors are more important than voters. Time will only tell whether this bill goes anywhere, but I hope voters take notice and remember in November.