Opinion ID: 2597548
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Early state wine labeling statutes

Text: 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]