Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: California's post-Prohibition-repeal wine labeling regulations

Text: With the advent of Prohibition, which became effective on January 29, 1920 (U.S. Const., 18th Amend.), the California wine industry fell into a dormant phase, awakening upon repeal of Prohibition in December 1933 through adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment to the federal Constitution. At least two years prior to adoption of the FAA Act in August 1935and indeed before, and in anticipation of, the repeal of Prohibition  the California Legislature, exercising both its traditional police powers and its authority under newly enacted article XX, section 22 of the state Constitution, [35] adopted as an interim measure the State Liquor Control Act (Stats. 1933, ch. 178, p. 625; id., ch. 658, p. 1697) and thereafter adopted the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (ABC Act), which went into effect on June 13, 1935. (Stats.1935, ch. 330, p. 1123 et seq.; see Bus. Prof.Code, 23000 et seq.) [36] Meanwhile, in late December 1934  before adoption of any federal regulation applicable to wine labels  California, acting through its Department of Public Health, Bureau of Food and Drug Inspections, and pursuant to its own 1907 Pure Foods Act (Stats.1907, ch. 181, §§ 5 & 6, p. 210), adopted regulations concerning Definitions and Standards  Wines. (Cal. Dept. of Pub. Health, Bur. of Food and Drug Inspection, Regs. adopted Dec. 31, 1934, amended April 13, 1935, as printed Jan. 18, 1936 (1934 Regulations).) A preamble set forth in broad terms the purpose and scope of the regulations. The stated goal was to protect both the consuming public and the wine industry as a whole. ( Id., at p. 1.) [37] To this end, the regulations adopted specific chemical definitions for dry red wines, dry white wines, and sweet wines ( id., at pp. 1-2), similar in substance to the standards incorporated into the state's 1907 Pure Foods Act, and which, as explained ante, part II.B.1.d, had by then been in place in California (and numerous other states) for nearly 30 years. The 1934 Regulations also established strict and detailed labeling requirements for sparkling and artificially carbonated wines (Regs., at p. 2) [38] and for still wines ( id., at pp. 2-3). In the latter respect, the regulations addressed the decades-old problem of California wines being labeled with foreign place names such as Burgundy. The state regulations allowed the unqualified use of that name and similar French place names only [for] products from France, and provided that a wine would be regarded as misbranded  (and hence in violation of the state's 1907 Act and ensuing regulations described ante, pt. II.B.1.d) if the label read Burgundy (or any other foreign place name) and the wine was not produced there, unless the label also displayed with prominence equal to that of the foreign place name, the name of the state or country where the wine is produced. (1934 Regs., at p. 2, italics added.) [39] Bronco insists that these various state regulations, viewed as a whole, did not represent any innovation by California and that similar, albeit more detailed and comprehensive . . . standards already had been adopted nearly thirty years before by federal regulators. As explained ante, part II.B.1.c, however, the historic record does not support Bronco's claim. The standards to which Bronco refers never were enforceable under federal law, but in fact, by 1907, they had become part of the substantive (and enforceable) law of California  and within a short time, of most other states as well. In other words, the touted innovation (enforceable wine labeling standards) was accomplished by California and other states, and not by the federal government.