> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.03125in" height="1.28125in"}

PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT

Greg L. Wonsmos Kevin O\' Laughlin

Centennial Fine Wine and Spirits Charlie\'s Inc.

Dallas, TX Terre Haute, IN

VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT

David Jabour Zack Romaya

Twin Liquors Old Towne Liquor

Austin, TX 5101 River Road, Suite 108 San Diego, CA

Bethesda, MD 20816-1560

Web site: www.ablusa.org

phone: 301-656-1494 fax: 301-656-7539 TREASURER

VICE PRESIDENT Caren Assman

Colin Minehart EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR South Dakota Retail Liquor

Main Street Grill Harry G. Wiles Dealers Association

Alden, MN Bethesda, MD Pierre, SD

9/23/05

John J. Manfreda

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

1310 G Street NW -- Third Floor

Washington, DC 20220

Dear Mr. Manfreda:

The American Beverage Licensees (ABL) thanks you for the opportunity to
submit the following comments regarding TTB's White Paper on nutrient
and alcohol content information on labels and in advertising. ABL
represents more than 20,000 off-premise licensees in the "open" or
"license' states and on-premise proprietors in markets across the
nation.

On behalf of its members, ABL suggests TTB discontinue plans outlined in
its White Paper. The proposed rulemaking is arbitrary and possibly
misleading for our customers; creates an ambiguous and unworkable
situation for on-premise establishments; and requires more study as the
resulting consequences could have unforeseen and profound effects on the
beverage alcohol retail industry. We encourage TTB to examine this
subject through a formal rulemaking process.

ABL asks you to consider the following:

**[TTB's proposed labeling exposes retailers to increased litigation
risks.]{.underline}**

Should mandatory labeling regulations creep to on-premise sites, more
problems would occur.

It is impractical and inappropriate to ask small establishments to
regulate their "free pour" practices. Retailers responsibly cater to
countless variations in customer preferences, which would make it nearly
impossible to calculate, and then label, the innumerable nutrient and
alcohol-content permutations. Placement of any such information begs the
question: Where will they be forced to list such information? On menus,
table tents, or wall posters?

The added burden of dealing with myriad variables would put retailers at
risk of the kinds of lawsuits that have been threatened against food
sellers, such as ice cream stores. Further potential for frivolous
litigation against retailers would present itself through alcohol
content labeling. Unless protected by safe harbor language, retailers
would potentially be open to lawsuits from irresponsible consumers
involved in drunk driving accidents, claiming to have been misled by
confusing alcohol labeling. Whether these absurd suits would find
success is irrelevant; the potential for costly litigation defense
itself would cause retailers undue harm.

**[A driving force behind this proposal is an anti-alcohol
agenda.]{.underline}**

TTB has acknowledged that it has, in part, undertaken this unprecedented
step at the request of the Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI). This group's history indicates that its anti-alcohol agenda
rests outside the American mainstream, and that it seeks to include this
bias in government-sanctioned warning labels.

CSPI's alcohol policy director has shamefully accused winemakers of
"hawking America's costliest and most devastating drug." Its newsletter
has asserted that "the last thing the world needs is more drinkers, even
moderate ones." It has demanded hefty increases in beer taxes,
increasingly burdensome marketing restrictions, and even poster sized
warning labels placed in restaurants.

There is no evidence that a mandatory labeling scheme will be met with
significant consumer use with regard to this issue, but there is little
doubt the industry would bear a substantial cost.

The aforementioned organization claims on its own website that web-based
labeling is inadequate because "Few, if any consumers actually take the
time to go on-line or make a call when directed by label information."

Mandatory nutritional labeling has proven a monumental failure in the
area of packaged-food labeling. Evidence suggests this information is
used by only a small number of consumers.

No less an authority than Food and Drug Administration Commissioner
Lester Crawford acknowledged in 2004 that food labeling appears to be
utilized by only a small minority of consumers. With respect to package
labeling, and its uncorrelated effect on obesity rates in the United
States, Crawford said in 2004:

> What we did in making nutrition labeling mandatory did not help
> obesity. In fact, some people would say it hurt \... The first thing
> we notice is this contradiction about the fact that we had mandatory
> nutrition labeling for ten years, and the situation got steadily worse
> during that time.

In addition to anti-alcohol groups, it has come to ABL's attention that
other parties may be seeking the prescriptions recommended in the TTB
White Paper to some degree for promotional advantages. ABL would see it
as a major blow to the credibility of TTB should interests of those
simply seeking to increase their market share prevail in this
discussion, and the results manifest themselves in the form of
government sanctioned nutritional scare tactics.

TTB's proposed labeling exposes ABL members to increased costs.

CSPI acknowledges that per-SKU cost of altered labels can reach \$2,600,
according to the FDA. For ABL members, who can carry thousands of SKUs,
and who must make payroll for our valued team members from modest profit
margins, this increased cost is not inconsiderable.

In addition, there are foreseeable operational, regulatory, enforcement,
and tort problems if package labeling requirements are extended to ABL
establishments. And given CSPI's history of seeking restaurant menu
labeling after successfully attaching labels to packaged food products,
there is significant cause for concern that on-premise licensees would
soon face unworkable requirements.

TTB's White Paper is an inappropriate vehicle to discuss this issue.

The use of TTB's White Paper as a guide for the rulemaking process
minimizes public scrutiny and avoids rigorous scientific debate. It is
not appropriate for an issue of such complexity and great importance to
the ABL's 20,000 members. Moreover, ABL shares the concerns posed by
other organizations that TTB's White Paper is questionable on legal
grounds.

It should be noted, therefore, that the serious issue of mandatory
nutrient and alcohol content labeling is by no means settled and
requires a significant amount of future investigation and discourse. ABL
believes this discourse can only be appropriately carried out through a
formal rulemaking process.

ABL recognizes that there is not unanimity within the beverage alcohol
industry on the matter of the TTB White Paper. However, beverage alcohol
producers, distributors, retailers and consumers would benefit from a
more formal rulemaking process.

> Sincerely,

![](media/image2.png)

> Harry G. Wiles
>
> Executive Director