CONTENTS III. BATF's proposed rulemaking and industry response_ IV. Subcommittee hearing, January 31, 1978_ Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. On May 7, 1979, the Senate passed an amendment requiring a health warning label on alcoholic beverages containing more than 24 percent alcohol. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, requested comments on consumer health warnings for alcoholic beverages and related issues and scheduled a hearing for September 14, 1979. (Introduction, I.) II. Of the more than 250 comments received by Senator Riegle, those in favor of warning labels outnumber those opposed by better than 2 to 1. Organizational support was expressed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the American Medical Association; the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors; the Salvation Army; the National Association of Alcoholism Treatment Programs; the National Association of Alcoholism Counselors; the American Business Men's Foundation; Women for Sobriety, Inc.; the Association of Halfway House Alcoholism Programs of North America; the Christopher B. Smithers Foundation; the Psychiatric Institute; and the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems Association of North America. Organizations writing in opposition to warning labels were the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc.; the U.S. Brewers' Association; the Wine Institute; the Health Education Foundation; the National Licensed Beverage Association; the American Council on Alcoholism; Volunteers of America; and the North Conway Institute. The alcoholic beverage industry deserves praise for its alcoholism prevention activities, which include support for many constituency organizations and individuals. The industry and many of those it supports strongly oppose warning labels. Question 1. Although some respondents indicated that warning labels would not deter alcoholics from drinking, others wrote that warnings would help prevent such addiction and other health problems from arising, as well as enabling consumers to make informed decisions. A few alcoholism specialists expressed fear that labels would stall progress toward comprehensive solutions or fail to reduce consumption, whereas others argued that they would spark additional measures and should be employed to raise awareness of health hazards, especially the fetal alcohol syndrome, whether or not they affect individual drinking decisions. Question 2. Those favoring a general warning label feared that a specific warning might decrease attention to health hazards not mentioned in the label text. The larger number favoring specific warnings cited the fetal alcohol syndrome as the greatest concern. Others favored combined warning incorporating both general and specific statements. Question 3. Most respondents indicated that rotating warning labels would be overcomplicated, expensive, or confusing. Some were intrigued by the proposal, citing the possibility of greater visibility and effectiveness; HEW Secretary Joseph Califano cited the apparent success of rotating warning labels in reducing cigarette consumption in Sweden. Question 4. There was almost unanimous support for extending any warning label requirements for distilled spirits to beer and wine as well. Question 5. Except for the U.S. Brewers' Association, all respondents favored requiring beer and wine containers to indicate their alcohol content by volume. Question 6. Generally, views on extending health warning requirements to advertisements paralleled those for package labels. Three publishers' associations expressed disapproval of advertising requirements. (Analysis of Responses, II) III. On November 15, 1978, FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy urged BATF to require health warning labels on alcoholic beverages warning of the risk of birth defects from alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Of the three BATF consultants hired to study this issue, One declined to comment on whether labels should be required, but noted that relying on physicians would be inadequate to reach women of childbearing age and their partners and that the prudent course was to advise abstinence during pregnancy; One endorsed warning labels; and One expressed doubts about the appropriateness and effectiveness of warning labels alone but suggested that dedicated taxation of alcohol sales coupled with public posting of fetal alcohol warnings in liquor stores and prenatal clinics and other information efforts together with warning labels are likely to be more effective than any of these efforts individually. Alcoholic beverage trade associations opposed BATF's proposed rule requiring a fetal alcohol warning label on the grounds that Labels would be ineffective at changing behavior; Labels would be inefficient through raising retail costs almost one cent per bottle in an attempt to prevent a substantial portion of the estimated 1,500 to 5,000 fetal alcohol syndrome births annually (and some additional number of lesser birth defects); A labeling requirement might constitute a non-tariff trade barrier: Labels would be misleading in not mentioning possible beneficial aspects of alcohol consumption; Imposition of a labeling requirement might delay comprehensive approaches to alcohol-related problems; Primary reliance on physicians to inform women of the risks of drinking during pregnancy would be more appropriate, possibly supplemented with public education efforts such as classroom and community programs, government publications, and patient brochures; |