Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Regulation of wine labels prior to adoption of the FAA Act in August 1935

Text: Prior to the 20th century, federal legislation relating to wine and alcohol focused essentially upon revenue collection  specifically, enforcement of federal tax laws. (See Byse, Alcoholic Beverage Control Before Repeal (1940) 7 Law & Contemp. Probs. 543, 552, fns. 57 & 58 ( Alcoholic Beverage Control Before Repeal ).) By contrast, as disclosed below, widespread legislation enacted by states in the mid to late 19th century, and continuing through adoption of the FAA Act in August 1935, focused upon the substantive public problems of adulteration and misbranding (or mislabeling) of wines and alcohol. This historic record supports the view that prior to adoption of the federal act in 1935, states vigorously exercised their police powers to regulate wine labeling.
During the latter half of the 19th century, awareness gradually increased throughout the nation concerning a combination of related problems in the supply of food and beverages. Some food and beverage products were mere imitations or dilutions of what they purported to be; other products, subject to spoilage, were adulterated by a soaring employment of chemical preservatives. (Young, Pure Food (1989), p. 126.) Many of these preservatives  such as salicylic acid, employed as a preservative in wine ( id., at p. 105)  were used in excessive quantities dangerous to health. ( Id., at pp. 110, 112, 126.) As a result, it was found that more than 73 per cent of the milk in Buffalo [New York] was watered, 69 of 171 samples of ground coffee collected in New York were adulterated, 71 percent of the olive oils examined in New York and Massachusetts were mixed with cotton seed oil which had been shipped from the United States and returned as `olive oil' [, and] [f]orty-six percent of candy samples collected in Boston contained mineral pigments, chiefly lead chromate. (Hart, A History of the Adulteration of Food Before 1906 (1952) 7 Food Drug Cosmetic L.J. 5, 21); see also McCumber, The Alarming Adulteration of Food and Drugs (Jan. 5, 1905) The Independent, 28, 29-31 [listing common adulterations of various products].) Wines too were subject to abuses. Some were made from cheap substances and then doctored up. (Regier, The Struggle for Federal Food and Drugs Legislation (1933) 1 Law & Contemp. Probs. 3, 8.) Others were mislabeled as to place of origin. (Carosso, The California Wine Industry: A Study of the Formative Years (1951), p. 25 (California Wine Industry); see also Fanshawe, Liquor Legislation in the United States and Canada (1892), p. 308.) In response to the general threat to the food and beverage supply, many if not most states exercised their traditional police powers to regulate generally the marketing of impure or deceptively labeled foods and beverages. (See, e.g., Dig. of Pure Food and Drug Laws, Sen. Rep. No. 3, 57th Cong., 1st Sess. (1901).) [14] The vast majority of the resulting general pure food statutes broadly covered liquors and wines, as well as the mislabeling of those products. For example, in 1879 Wisconsin enacted a general pure food, drugs, and liquors statute, making it illegal to manufacture or sell any food (defined to include drink), accompanied by any label, mark or device whatever, so as and with intent to mislead or deceive as to the true name, nature, kind and quality thereof . . . . (1879 Wis. Laws, ch. 248, § 3, p. 502.) A similar labeling law was enacted in North Dakota. (1903 N.D. Laws, ch. 6, §§ 1-2, pp. 9-10; 1905 N.D. Laws, ch. 11, §§ 1-2, pp. 19-20.) An Ohio statute, enacted in 1884, made it illegal to manufacture or sell any food (defined to include drink) if by any means it is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is, or if it contained any impure substance not distinctly labeled as such. (1884 Ohio Laws, § 3, p. 67; 1890 Ohio Laws, § 3, p. 248.) Substantially similar labeling statutes were enacted in Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington. (1899 Ind. Acts, ch. 121, § 1, pp. 189-190; 1882 Mass. Acts, ch. 263, §§ 1-3, pp. 206-207; 1895 Mich. Pub. Acts, No. 193, § 3, p. 358; 1895 Pa. Laws, No. 233, § 3, p. 317; 1899 Wash. Laws, ch. 113, §§ 1-3, pp. 183-184.) A Maryland statute, enacted in 1890, required that food or drink be so manufactured . . . or sold, or offered for sale under its true and appropriate name and required that the purchaser be fully informed by the seller of the true name and ingredients . . . of such article of food or drink . . . . (1890 Md. Laws, ch. 604, § 1, p. 733.) Similar laws were enacted in Connecticut, North Carolina, and Tennessee. (1895 Conn. Pub. Acts, ch. 235, §§ 1, 2, p. 578; 1895 N.C. Sess. Laws, ch. 122, §§ 1, 2, 5, pp. 176-178; 1897 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 45, §§ 1, 4, pp. 177-178.) Finally, a New York statute (1893 N.Y. Laws, ch. 338), subsequently amended in 1903 and 1905, prohibited adulterated or misbranded food. The statute defined as misbranded  and illegal  any food or beverage package . . . or label that bore any statement regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which statement [is] false or misleading in any particular, or if the same is falsely branded as to the state or territory in which it is manufactured or produced . . . . (1903 N.Y. Laws, ch. 524, § 1, p. 1192, italics added; 1905 N.Y. Laws, ch. 100, § 1, p. 141.) A substantially identical labeling law was enacted in South Dakota. (1905 S.D. Laws, ch. 114, §§ 6, 8 & 10, pp. 162-163.) [15]
As early as 1860, California enacted a statute to penalize the sale of adulterated alcoholic or spirituous liquors, wines, cider, beer, or other liquid used as a beverage. (Stats. 1860, ch. 223, § 2, p. 186, currently Pen.Code, § 382.) But in the face of rampant deception in the labeling of wines  including the bottling of California wines under false foreign labels, and the bottling of inferior foreign wines under California labels (California Wine Industry, supra, at p. 25)  the California Legislature in 1866 passed a resolution asking Congress to enact nationwide legislation to curb the marketing of spurious and imitation wines and alcohols. (Sen. Conc. Res. No. 36, Stats. 1866 (approved Apr. 2, 1866) p. 908.) After much effort during the ensuing two decades, this endeavor ultimately failed in 1886. (See California Wine Industry, supra, at pp. 154-155.) Congress's inability to adopt a nationwide wine regulation and labeling statute induced the three primary wine-producing states  California, New York, and Ohio [16]  as well as other states with lesser wine industries (such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Oregon) [17] to enact, under their traditional police powers, specific and detailed statutes tailored to the problems of impurity and deception in the production and labeling of wines. California  then, as now, by far the leading producer of wine in the nation, [18] and an acknowledged leader in quality as well [19]  apparently was the first state to adopt such a statute, in March 1887. (Stats. 1887, ch. 36, p. 46; see Ex parte Kohler, supra, 74 Cal. 38, 42-43, 15 P. 436.) The California statute defined as pure wine that which was made from only pure grapes. (Stats.1887, ch. 36, § 1, p. 46.) The statute further defined [d]ry wine as that produced by complete fermentation of saccharine contained in [grape] must; [s]weet wine as that which contains saccharine appreciable to the taste; [f]ortified wine as wine to which distilled spirits have been added; and [p]ure champagne, or sparkling wine as that which contains . . . effervescence produced only by natural fermentation of saccharine matter of [grape] must, or partially fermented wine in bottle. ( Id., § 1, p. 47.) The statute prevented the use or introduction of impure substitutes for grapes or coloring, or foreign fruit juices not the pure product of grapes, and further barred the use of preservatives such as salicylic acid, glycerin, alum, or other chemical antiseptics. ( Id., § 2, p. 47.) The statute also provided for inspection of wine samples and for the use of bottleneck seals and label certificates ( id., § 7, pp. 48-49), and required either the statement `Pure California wine' (together with the maker's name) or the label certificate to be affixed to each bottle of pure wine. ( Id., § 8, p. 49.) [20] This court's decision in Ex parte Kohler, supra, 74 Cal. 38, 15 P. 436, rejected constitutional challenges to the act and concluded that, like legislation designed to ensure the marketing of pure milk and safe meats, the statute was a proper exercise of the state's police powers. ( Id., at pp. 41-42, 15 P. 436.) [21] Colorado quickly followed in April 1887 with its own statute regulating the manufacture or sale of wine and other alcoholic beverages. [22] New York adopted its own wine labeling statute in June 1887. [23] Two years later Ohio adopted a law that expanded upon the three wine labeling statutes described above. [24] Arkansas adopted a wine labeling statute in 1897, [25] and in 1905 Oregon adopted its own wine labeling statute. [26]