U.S. Gives Winemakers Right to Point Out ‘Health Effects’ on Their Labels

WASHINGTON —  The federal government approved changes Friday that will allow winemakers for the first time to tout on labels the connection between drinking wine and better health.

The Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said that wine labels will now be allowed to carry a nonspecific reference to the “health effects” of wine consumption based on studies in recent years that suggest moderate drinking can lower the risk of coronary heart disease in some individuals.

The architects of the change--the $9-billion-a-year California wine industry and its leadership in the San Francisco-based Wine Institute--were jubilant, calling it a “historic regulatory breakthrough.”

But the new regulation provoked the wrath of federal health officials, among them Surgeon General David Satcher, who called alcohol abuse “one of the most vexing public health problems” in the United States in a letter last month to Treasury officials. And one powerful U.S. senator vowed to fight the labeling change.

Under the new rule, winemakers can immediately start putting either or both of two statements on their wine bottle labels: “The proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption,” or “To learn the health effects of wine consumption, send for the Federal Government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”

The changes will not replace current warnings on labels which declare that drinking alcohol can complicate pregnancies and impair ability to drive or operate machinery.

Industry officials have lobbied for three years for the right to put new language onto their products promoting the health connection.

Originally, winemakers sought wording referring to the health “benefits” of moderate wine drinking but backed off, revising it to health “effects,” to increase the likelihood of approval.

The bureau routinely approves such labeling language requests, about 60,000 annually, according to its chief counsel, Stephen McHale. The department has the authority to approve such changes without soliciting comment from the public--different, for example, from the process involved in the government requiring manufacturers to add health warnings or nutritional content lists, he said.

“What is unusual, and what took so long, was the nature of the content,” he said. “Originally, they wanted to use the word ‘benefits’ with regard to health, and we were unable to approve anything promoting benefits.”

The wine industry also wanted to use the word ‘moderate,’ but the bureau rejected that, said McHale, after the Department of Health and Human Services “told us that studies have shown that most people think of themselves as moderate drinkers.”

He was referring to a study conducted by the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, which showed that heavy drinkers thought that almost six drinks per occasion was “moderate.”

The government’s dietary guidelines define “moderate” as no more than one drink a day for women and no more than two drinks a day for men. A “moderate” serving of wine is 5 ounces.

The new language “is not intended to negate or supplant the mandatory government warning, in place since 1989,” said Dianne Nury, chairwoman of the Wine Institute.

Instead, “the wine industry believes that the American public has the right to know, and should be trusted to handle, the latest scientific findings on alcohol, the positive as well as the negative effects,” said Walt Klenz, president of Beringer Wine Estates, who was chairman of the institute in 1996, when winemakers first proposed the new label.

“The label approval represents a defining new chapter in the evolution of federal policy toward wine in America,” said John De Luca, president of the institute, who noted that the industry’s campaign for the label change was an attempt to counter efforts “to mischaracterize wine as a ‘gateway drug’ and a ‘sin’ that warrants higher taxes, trade limitations and advertising restrictions.”

But Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who nearly a decade ago authored the original legislation that established alcohol warnings on labels, reacted angrily to the decision, calling it a “glaring failure” and hinted that he would find a way to undo it.

“Now it is time for the legislative branch to take the lead on this issue,” he said in a statement.

The industry, in drafting its labeling game plan during the last three years, also was eager to include a notice urging consumers to obtain the government’s dietary guidelines, which contain a brief reference to the scientific evidence regarding moderate drinking and heart disease risks.

But anyone who goes to the trouble of getting the guidelines may find them more ominous than encouraging about alcohol use. They warn that heavy use raises the risk of high blood pressure, stroke, certain cancers, liver disease, accidents and violence--and even heart disease.

There is but one reference to its positive impact: “Current evidence suggests that moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk for coronary heart disease in some individuals.”

Satcher, citing disturbing increases in alcohol consumption in recent years among pregnant women and binge drinking among teenagers and young adults, said in his letter that it is “critical that public health agencies be cautious in taking any actions which might further exacerbate these trends.”

The Treasury Department also said that it would consider working with Congress to develop legislation to require government warnings on alcoholic beverages to be rotated among different messages about various risks and to require the warning on all alcohol-related advertising, much as is required on cigarette ads.