Comment 04116448

From: daniel kahn [cdkahn@isp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Rulemaking, TTB
Subject: Notice #41 comments

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for soliciting the opinions and comments of those directly affected by the rules you enact.  As the brewmaster for a startup brewing operation in Reno, NV, I have a keen interest in the proposed changes related to Notice #41.

There are many more small breweries in this country now than large ones.  For the small brewer, the costs of updating packaging material can be a major setback, and have a significant impact on the profitability of operations.  Already, packaging materials and taxes cost more than three times as much as the product itself!  The brewing industry provides a great benefit to the economy in terms of jobs provided, wages and taxes paid, and you should carefully consider the risks and costs of requiring changes to the current labeling standards.

Furthermore, small breweries do not, in general, have the equipment, expertise, and manpower to accurately determine calorie and carbohydrate content. To require this information on labels would place an unfair burden on these small businesses, and place a prohibitive obstacle in the way of producing small runs of unique, specialized styles.  It should not be the goal of regulatory agencies to stifle creativity and diversity in the marketplace.

On the other hand, and would be in favor of allowing breweries to voluntarily supply nutritional data when they are properly equipped to do so.  I think it would be reasonable to require that if certain data were included, then a specific set must be completed; for example, carbohydrate content may only be listed if calorie content is as well; or folic acid, Vitamin B and protein content may only be listed if carbohydrate and calorie content are as well.

Personally, I am ambivalent about listing alcohol content.  All of us have the ability to measure our alcohol content.  If this becomes required information, then allow enough time for the rule to take effect for breweries to use up whatever current packaging they already have printed.

As far as requiring a definition and visual depiction of a standard drink on all labels, this is absolutely silly.  We are all sensitive to the issue of alcohol abuse, and completely willing to abide by regulations that can be reliably demonstrated to reduce underage drinking, DUI, or alcoholism, but I can't imagine any scenario in which this requirement would have any impact whatsoever.  Perhaps I am misinformed, though.  According to verified, scientific research, exactly (or even approximately) how many lives have been saved by the Government Warning currently on all labels?  How many pregnant women have not had a draft beer at a bar because a keg ring in a cooler that they never saw had a warning on it?  If there is no factual reason to believe that such warning labels have a positive impact, then there is no reason to expand their presence.  If there is any evidence that these warnings are effective, please make such evidence public.  I, for one, would love to see it.

To sum up, I am in favor of allowing voluntary inclusion of expanded ingredient and nutritional data on labels, opposed to making such inclusion mandatory, and demand to see evidence of efficacy before enacting further warning requirements.

Thank you for your time.
Your ever loyal taxpayer and revenue producer,

Daniel Kahn,
Buckbean Brewing Co, 
Reno, NV