The BATF no longer handles alcohol-based products. Get your facts straight
before you get on your soap box, you wine-drinking blowhard.

All wrong and indicative of the kind of nonsense "information" that you
normally spew around here.

The Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau prohibits brewers from adding
carbohydrate information on regular-brewed beers. Any beer that claims to
have less calories or carbs than its regular-brewed equivalent, mudt not
only put carb and calories count on the beers' labels, cans or ad material,
they must do so in a "nutritional anlysis" statement.  There is NO
conspiracy here, nor sudden attention to low-carb dieting. These rules have
evolved since light beer came on the market in the early 1970s and have been
evolving ever since. The old ATF rulings still hold with the newly-formed
TTB:

ATF Ruling 80-3

ATF Ruling 79-17 dealt with statements of caloric and carbohydrate content
in the labeling and advertising of malt beverages. Specially, ATF Ruling
79-17 held that the Bureau will not sanction any caloric or carbohydrate
references on labels that do not contain a statement of average analysis.
Also, ATF Ruling 79-17 required an average analysis statement on all labels
for malt beverages using the word "light" (or "lite") as part of the brand
or product name. In addition, previously approved certificates of label
approval for malt beverages which did not comply with the ruling were
allowed until December 31, 1979.

The Bureau was asked to reconsider its position with respect to an average
analysis statement on all labels for malt beverages using the word "light"
or "lite" as part of the brand and product name. Numerous malt beverages
utilize the words "light" or "lite" as a color connotation. The Bureau also
received a number of inquiries relating to average analysis statements on
quarts or larger containers of malt beverages.

The Bureau has reconsidered its position with respect to requiring an
average analysis statement on labels for malt beverages using the word
"light" or "lite" as part of the brand or product name. We have decided to
thoroughly air the issue in a rulemaking proceeding. Further, the Bureau
recommends that the average analysis shown on labels should be for the
container. If the container is more than 12 fl. oz., the analyzed amount
should be stated per container size or per serving size, e.g. 12 fl. oz. No
average analysis is required to appear on kegs. Additionally, the use-up
period for previously approved certificates of label approval has been
lengthened to August 1, 1980.

Accordingly, Ruling 79-17 is restated below in its entirety with the
modifications noted above.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been asked to review its
present position regarding statements of caloric and carbohydrate content in
labeling and advertising of malt beverages.

CALORIC and CARBOHYDRATE CONTENT

Section5(e) and 5(f) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, implemented
by regulations in 27 CFR, Part 7 for malt beverages, relate to prohibited
statements and practices in labeling or advertising. In general, the FAA Act
and implementing regulations prohibit the use of certain statements on
labels of malt beverages introduced into interstate commerce, and the use of
such statements in advertisements that are calculated to induce sales in
interstate commerce, if the laws of the State into which the malt beverages
are to be shipped impose similar requirements.

Prohibited statements include those that are untrue in any particular; that,
irrespective of falsity, tend to create a misleading impression; that are
disparaging of a competitor's product; or that imply that the use of any
malt beverage has curative or therapeutic effects.

The Bureau has held (ATF Ruling 76-1, ATF C.B. 1976, 82) that labels and
advertising for malt beverage could not state or imply the presence of
calories unless such reference was specified either as part of an average
analysis or in comparison with the brewer's regular product. ATF Ruling 76-1
also held that any labeling or advertising references relating to the
carbohydrate content of these products could only appear as a part of a
statement of average analysis.

In reviewing its position, the Bureau has found that specifying the caloric
content of the product in comparison to the brewer's regular product is no
longer essential to give the consumer a point of reference. Also, the Bureau
has determined that carbohydrate references should be handled in the same
manner as caloric references.

Held, caloric and carbohydrate representations made without qualification in
the labeling and advertising of malt beverages are considered to be
misleading and contrary to the provisions of 27 CFR 7.29(e) and 7.54(e),
since they create the impression that the product has value as a dietary
aid.

The Bureau will not sanction any caloric or carbohydrate references on
labels that do not contain a statement of average analysis.

The average analysis shown on labels may be stated per container size if the
container is 12 fl. oz. or less. For example, the average analysis for a 7
ounce container may read:

PER 7 FL. OZ. -- AVERAGE ANALYSIS

Calories............56

Carbohydrates.......1.6 grams

Protein.............0.5 grams

Fat.................0.0 grams

If the container is more than 12 fl. oz. the analyzed amount may be stated
per container size or per serving size, e.g. "per 12 fl. oz." For example,
the average analysis for a quart container may read:

PER 12 FL. OZ. -- AVERAGE ANALYSIS

Calories............96

Carbohydrates.......2.8 grams

Protein.............0.9 grams

Fat.................0.0 grams

All statements of average analysis should include container size or serving
size. No average analysis is required to appear on kegs. The average
analysis statement will be optional in advertising.

In addition to the above, but not in lieu of the statement of average
analysis on labels, the Bureau will permit statements of caloric or
carbohydrate content such as "contains 96 calories per 12 ozs." on any label
and in any advertising of malt beverage products. The serving size, e.g.
"per 12 fl. oz.," must be specified for any such caloric or carbohydrate
statement.

Held further, specific caloric and carbohydrate comparisons may be made in
advertising between a malt beverage labeled in accordance with this ruling
and an equal volume of a competitor's product labeled in accordance with
this ruling. The comparison may not be either misleading or disparaging of a
competitor's product. Additionally, a brewer may compare on labels and in
advertising, the calories and carbohydrates of a malt beverage he has
produced and labeled in accordance with this ruling and an equal volume of
his regular beer.

Examples of allowable comparisons are as follows: "96 calories per 12
ozs. -- 48 calories (or 1/3) less than competitor's name Light Beer"; "2.8
grams carbohydrates per 12 ozs. -- 1.4 grams (or 1/3) less than competitor's
name Light Beer"; "Brand name contains 96 calories per 12 ozs. while
competitor's name Light Beer contains 106 calories per 12 ozs."; "Brand name
contains 2.6 grams carbohydrates per 12 ozs. while competitor's name Light
Beer contains 3.0 grams per 12 ozs."; "90 calories per 12 ozs. -- 45
calories (or 1/3) less than our regular beer"; "2.6 grams carbohydrates per
12 oz. -- 1.3 grams (or 1/3) less than our regular beer."

Previously approved certificates of label approval for malt beverages which
bear caloric or carbohydrate representations but not statements of average
analysis may be used until August 1, 1980. At that time the certificates
must be returned for cancellation. A reasonable amount of time will be
allowed for the preparation of substitute advertising copy to conform with
the requirements of this ruling. However, the transition should be effected
as expeditiously as possible.

TOLERANCES

The Bureau has determined that tolerance ranges are required with respect to
labeled statements of caloric, carbohydrate, protein, and fat contents for
malt beverages. The intent of these tolerances is to provide for normal
production and analytical variables while continuing to ensure that the
labeling is not misleading to the consumer.

Held, the statement of caloric content on labels for malt beverages will be
considered acceptable as long as the caloric content, as determined by ATF
analysis, is within the tolerance +5 and -10 calories of the labeled caloric
content. For example a label showing 96 calories will be acceptable if ATF
analysis of the product shows a caloric content between 86 and 101 calories.

Held further, the statements of carbohydrate and fat contents on labels for
malt beverages will be considered acceptable as long as the carbohydrate and
fat contents, as determined by ATF analysis, are within a reasonable range
below the labeled amount but, in no case, are more than 20% above the
labeled amount. For example, a label showing 4.0 grams (within good
manufacturing practice limitations) but not more than 4.8 grams.

Held further, the statement of protein content on labels for malt beverages
will be considered acceptable as long as the protein content, as determined
by ATF analysis, is within a reasonable range above the labeled amount but,
in no case, is less than 80% of the labeled amount. For example, a label
showing 1.0 gram protein will be acceptable if ATF analysis of the product
shows a protein content which is more than 1.0 gram (within good
manufacturing practice limitations) but no less than 0.8 gram.

Certificates of label approval which are not in compliance with this ruling
must be returned for cancellation after August 1, 1980.

ATF Ruling 79-17 is modified and superseded.

27 CFR 7.29(e) and 7.54(e).
****************************************

As for why brewers simply don't put this info on labels and such
voluntarily?

Bert Grant, better known by some as the man who opened the Yakima Brewing
Company, the first post-Prohibition brewpub in the U.S., decided that he was
going to subject his Scottish Ale to a nutritional analysis in the early
1990s, something that many of his customers had asked him to do, and put
this info on the beer's label. You would think that everyone would be happy.
After all, you know what's in the Hostess Twinkies you eat, but you no have
no idea what's in your beer.

The old BATF stepped in at this point and ruled that Grant's labeling of his
beer was a violation of an old Repeal-era ruling that prohibited beer makers
from suggesting that their products were food-like or curative. A number of
post-Repeal brewers used to brag that their beers contained "Vitamin D, the
sunshine vitamin!" After a long legal battle and many dollars spent trying
to do the right thing, Bert backed down from the Feds but the suits did
eventually throw him a bone; Grant could continue to place the carbohydrate
and fat content of his beer on the labels of his ale. The brewing industry,
as a whole, has decided not to follow Grant's lead and subsequent legal
problems.

You have evidence that consumption of alcohol is beneficial to weight loss?
Where is it?

You feel that consuming several hundred (thousand) calories of alcohol per
day while trying to lose weight is not either
1 - Replacing other calories that would be more healthful
or
2 - Slowing weight loss because useless calories are being consumed.

Where is the evidence that alcohol is somehow beneficial to a low-carb diet?

"Certainly beneficial minimum"; what kind of nonsense is that?
Non-alcoholic grape beverages have the same healthful benefits as red wine
does; alcohol has nothing to do with it.  There are proven health benefits
to taking one 81mg aspirin per day, that is hardly a reason to down a dozen.

In your own post in this very same thread you stated,
"I've lost fifty pounds drinking somewhat-more-than-moderate quantities of
cheap red wine."
And yet you argue that you are not replacing more healthful foods with
alcohol.  "Somewhat-more-than-moderate" sounds shitfaced to me, and the fact
that you are using "cheap red wine" shows that you are doing it to get
shitfaced and not for "health benefits".

Anyway, enough of this nonsense.  Enjoy your more-than-moderate cheap red
wine consumption and keep telling yourself that it is good for your health.
Hell, drink twice as much, that makes it twice as good for you!

Mark.

Martin,

Over 50% of the posts you have made in this newsgroup are about alcohol, or
you manage to bring alcohol into the discussion even when that is not the
topic.
You talk about having a 4-tap kegger in your frig at all times, about
drinking cheap red wine, about drinking 1/2 or more of a bottle of wine per
day while at the same time downing sour mash whiskey, various beers, etc.

Yet I'm the one with no balanced view on the subject.  Interesting.
Enjoy your alcohol, and keep telling yourself it is healthy and belongs as a
major part of a low-carb diet.

Mark.