Alcoholic beverages should be labeled with ingredients, calorie counts, sugar content, and other nutritional information. It’s a reasonable, responsible expectation—and one that’s long overdue.
Hey Derek, I agree with your point on disclosing all ingredients and allergens including calories, but the process of recreating, designing, and requiring new labeling specs for CRAFT DISTILLERIES right now is yet another difficult cost to swallow. It sounds silly, I know, but so many of these guys are currently on the brink of bankruptcy between market consolidation, the tariff war and the rising cost of doing business — right now, they need a lifeline, not additional product requirements and more hoops to jump through. That said, I do believe disclosure is important, and think these ingredients and calories should be clearly articulated on their websites. Down the road, great, let’s get them on the bottle, but right now it’s so important to pick our battles.
Really good point. Within the regulation, the “TTB is proposing a compliance date of 5 years from the date that a final rule resulting from this document is published in the Federal Register to minimize the costs and burdens associated with the proposed new labeling information.” I agree it should not be implemented during any egregious tariffs. Hopefully, tariffs and the threats of tariffs don’t outlive the current administration.
Totally agree on all fronts, and as a laboratory technician in a large brewery I would like to add in the issue of Acetaldehyde, also known as ethanal…
Acetaldehyde is the carcinogenic compound that leads to cancer in alcoholic beverages and is produced during fermentation BUT is not directly correlated with the ABV. Many times a lack of yeast health will produce 10x the amount of Acetaldehyde which has a direct impact on the consumers health. Most producers don’t test for this and are not required to disclose the amount preset in the beverage.
To my understanding when you remove the alcohol (and the ethanol along with it) there is nothing to metabolize into Acetaldehyde so there should be very little to no carcinogen issue with alcohol-removed products.
This is such a clear-eyed, necessary argument. It’s wild that something with the cultural weight—and health consequences—of alcohol still flies under the labeling radar. We’ve built this entire infrastructure around “informed choice” for food, snacks, even supplements… and yet alcohol, a known carcinogen, gets a pass?
Totally agree that transparency isn’t about fear-mongering—it’s about respect. Respect for consumers. Respect for bodies. Respect for reality.
That said, I also appreciate Alexandra’s point in the comments—small producers are already in survival mode. Maybe this is where we differentiate between transparency in principle vs in implementation. QR codes for micro-distillers? Website disclosures as phase one? Feels like we can hold both truths: the need for clarity and compassion for struggling independents.
Anyway, I’m here for the momentum. “Transparency shouldn’t end where the bar begins” is a phrase that should stick.
YES LONG needed my friend!
Alcoholic beverages should be labeled with ingredients, calorie counts, sugar content, and other nutritional information. It’s a reasonable, responsible expectation—and one that’s long overdue.
Thank you for the support, Tim!
Hey Derek, I agree with your point on disclosing all ingredients and allergens including calories, but the process of recreating, designing, and requiring new labeling specs for CRAFT DISTILLERIES right now is yet another difficult cost to swallow. It sounds silly, I know, but so many of these guys are currently on the brink of bankruptcy between market consolidation, the tariff war and the rising cost of doing business — right now, they need a lifeline, not additional product requirements and more hoops to jump through. That said, I do believe disclosure is important, and think these ingredients and calories should be clearly articulated on their websites. Down the road, great, let’s get them on the bottle, but right now it’s so important to pick our battles.
Really good point. Within the regulation, the “TTB is proposing a compliance date of 5 years from the date that a final rule resulting from this document is published in the Federal Register to minimize the costs and burdens associated with the proposed new labeling information.” I agree it should not be implemented during any egregious tariffs. Hopefully, tariffs and the threats of tariffs don’t outlive the current administration.
Totally agree on all fronts, and as a laboratory technician in a large brewery I would like to add in the issue of Acetaldehyde, also known as ethanal…
Acetaldehyde is the carcinogenic compound that leads to cancer in alcoholic beverages and is produced during fermentation BUT is not directly correlated with the ABV. Many times a lack of yeast health will produce 10x the amount of Acetaldehyde which has a direct impact on the consumers health. Most producers don’t test for this and are not required to disclose the amount preset in the beverage.
Thank you for sharing. Curious, does this also affect NA beers?
To my understanding when you remove the alcohol (and the ethanol along with it) there is nothing to metabolize into Acetaldehyde so there should be very little to no carcinogen issue with alcohol-removed products.
very interesting John!
This is such a clear-eyed, necessary argument. It’s wild that something with the cultural weight—and health consequences—of alcohol still flies under the labeling radar. We’ve built this entire infrastructure around “informed choice” for food, snacks, even supplements… and yet alcohol, a known carcinogen, gets a pass?
Totally agree that transparency isn’t about fear-mongering—it’s about respect. Respect for consumers. Respect for bodies. Respect for reality.
That said, I also appreciate Alexandra’s point in the comments—small producers are already in survival mode. Maybe this is where we differentiate between transparency in principle vs in implementation. QR codes for micro-distillers? Website disclosures as phase one? Feels like we can hold both truths: the need for clarity and compassion for struggling independents.
Anyway, I’m here for the momentum. “Transparency shouldn’t end where the bar begins” is a phrase that should stick.
Lobbyists.
They’re good. I’ll give them that.