http://www.thebeerstore.ca/beers/millennium-buzz-hemp-beer
The one I was mentioning does contain hemp. Theta several like this; I just grabbed the first link I could find.
And, to get back to labeling, neither of them contain marijuana.
So basically, I’m pro-ingredients lists and not so fussed about label imagery, and you’re… concerned about illiterate people over drinking age. Or something.
U.S. (and Australian and NZ and, yes, even Canadian) labeling laws have to do with truth in advertising. They’re there to ensure that when you buy a product, you’re getting what you expect to find inside the package.
You don’t realize Canadian labeling laws exist because you’ve never looked them up. Canadian beer and wine laws are actually really strict. Here they are. Before you say, “oh but those say nothing about images on the label,” let me draw your attention to this line of text (from the introductory paragraph):
“In addition to the general packaging and labeling requirements for most foods, the regulations for alcoholic beverages cover common names and standardized container rules.”
In other words, these are additional rules.
Beer labels are also covered by your standard packaging laws. Those can be found here. Check this out:
34. (1) Where a flavouring ingredient is added to a prepackaged product that is a food and the ingredient is not derived from such natural substances as meat, fish, poultry, fruits, vegetables, edible yeast, herbs, spices, bark, buds, roots, leaves or other plant material and the label of the prepackaged product shows a pictorial representation that connotes the natural food flavour that is being simulated by the added flavouring ingredient, the label shall contain information that the added flavouring ingredient is imitation, artificial or simulated.
So yes, Canada DOES care if you imply that you included an ingredient that is or isn’t in the brew.
EDIT: I KNOW the one you’re talking about in Canada contains hemp, they wouldn’t allow the claim on the label if it didn’t.
I hope you guys realize that these are consumer protection laws. They were put in place because prior to their existence, people felt it was acceptable to make claims like this:
I am perfectly aware Canadian labeling laws exist. This thread is about
whether or not said laws are fair, and whether or not they should be
adjudicated by one person.
You certainly haven’t been acting like it.
That was your original argument here, because in Canada a beer that actually contained hemp was allowed to have hemp on the label. The beer in the article has no hemp in it at all. It just implies it does through wording on the cap - falsely advertising, and only barely squeaking by thanks to the town name (which may not be clearly represented on the label).
Your example was really bad! You also totally missed the point of why the beer in the article was a problem. Canada’s laws would have had a problem with the label as well! Your laws are actually stricter than ours. So saying
In your first post - kinda points out that you really didn’t know about Canada’s labeling rules. I’m not being pretentious. You’re the one calling my country “weird” for having the same type of laws yours does.
As a vegetarian, I’d really like to know which beers have isinglass in them and which don’t.
On the other hand, there were some years that beer labels weren’t allowed to list alcohol content, because beer companies were allegedly using that to inform African-American consumers that their product was good for getting drunk on, so politicians decided they had to ban that. I found that extremely annoying, not only because of the racist paternalism involved, but because I drink craft beers and I’d really like some warning if I’m going to drink something that’s three times as strong as Budweiser, or conversely that it’s relatively low alcohol so I can have more than one pint.
Just look at that awesome banana beer. Just look at it!
(I’ve actually had at least one kind of banana beer, and it was quite nice.)
But US beer labeling laws aren’t consumer-protection laws, they’re political-correctness morality enforcement laws. A beer label that suggests you could get drunk is banned? That’s not because it’s deceptive, it’s because it’s true.
(On a different topic, I’ve had beers in the US that contained hemp also, but it was hemp seed, no significant THC quantity. And the last time I met manufacturers from Weed, they were a couple of guys out at a Northern California hot spring making hash oil. They could do their extraction and evaporation without needing any fire, just set a metal bowl of liquid floating in the hot spring to evaporate the butane, no risk of fire in the process. So there are products from Weed that actually are made from weed.)
Well, the isinglass settles out, so even if they use it as a clarifying agent, it’s not present in the final product. Not sure how many breweries use it (hard to know without labeling requirements), but there are alternatives.
Don’t knock it. These folks may be contemplating brain-bending extra-dimensional topologies in their downtime.
Isinglass is kinda ‘old school’–not in a bad way, just in a not as cost effective as it used to be way. Seaweed (I.e. Irish moss), bentonite clay, and for the larger breweries simple mechanical separation and precise temp control appear to be more popular.
I have used isinglass in the past with great results (as have millions of others). But nowadays I just enjoy them slightly cloudy.
Keep in mind though that labeling laws are federal, and though certain states are progressively choosing to ignore certain prohibitions you will never get your product in Safeway (kind of like a crappier Tesco) if you don’t comply federally. To pass federal muster laws like labeling can be stricter, not looser. And you can have any label you want if you don’t care about distribution (based on local law).
Ya, until the mid 1990’s it was illegal to put the alcohol content on beer – I think that Coors took it to the supreme court. I recall that Minnesota required any beer over 3.2% to be labelled “strong beer” - not sure if they still have that law, but my guess is yes. Many beer labels still don’t show any alcohol content information.
Sorry, but you flip-flopped it. Due to interstate commerce laws, federal laws must be followed. Some states (like Texas) actually have harsher local laws. That’s why thy put the ban on Dirty Bastard.
Now about that whole:
thing. Again @billstewart No, not really - or we wouldn’t have demons and hemp running around on them, and it’s fine to put hemp on bottles that actually contain that product.
I’m going to make this obnoxiously freaking clear for you. (Even though I already said it.) I ALREADY KNOW there are U.S. beers made with hemp. I really don’t take any issue with a hemp beer containing hemp. (I promise I don’t.) Neither does the labeling dude. Want proof? Look at the image above.
In fact, he’s trying to make sure a beer that doesn’t contain hemp doesn’t take any part of that specific market by falsely advertising. All that’s been said - by the TTB, him, or me - is, “if you intend to make a claim that beer does contain hemp, you better darn well put some in there!” The Shasta brewing Co. wasn’t putting hemp in the beer they put that cap on.
Since I had to post this for other countries, I guess no one’s willing to go find a link anywhere. Here’s the link for the U.S. law through the Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. The direct link for labeling law is 27 CFR Part 7. Here are some specifically-related parts of that law, so we can hopefully put this to bed.
Remember that “India Dark Ale” from the article? Here’s the applicable law.
7.24 Class and Type
(f) Geographical names for distinctive types of malt beverages (other than names found under paragraph (g) of this section to have become generic) shall not be applied to malt beverages produced in any place other than the particular region indicated by the name unless (1) in direct conjunction with the name there appears the word “type” or the word “American”, or some other statement indicating the true place of production in lettering substantially as conspicuous as such name, and (2) the malt beverages to which the name is applied conform to the type so designated. The following are examples of distinctive types of beer with geographical names that have not become generic; Dortmund, Dortmunder, Vienna, Wien, Wiener, Bavarian, Munich, Munchner, Salvator, Kulmbacher, Wurtzburger, Pilsen (Pilsener and Pilsner): Provided, That notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, beer which is produced in the United States may be designated as “Pilsen,” “Pilsener,” or “Pilsner” without further modification, if it conforms to such type.
(g) Only such geographical names for distinctive types of malt beverages as the appropriate TTB officer finds have by usage and common knowledge lost their geographical significance to such an extent that they have become generic shall be deemed to have become generic, e.g., India Pale Ale.
Unlike IPA, “India Dark Ale” isn’t a standard type of beer, and “India” isn’t a standard generic reference to beer from anywhere. It may suggest a region of source rather than a blend. Since that beer didn’t come from India, Battle’s argument was sound.
So YEAH - he followed the law.
He did that for the other examples as well.
7.29 Prohibited Practices is too long to post in full, so here’s a link to the page.
Here are notes about how it relates to the various beers in the article - and why it is that he really did follow the law when he questioned that 0.03% (maybe) of beer labels.
“King of Hearts” Look under 7(e)(ii) - it’s a symbol - considering that there’s a lot of research showing a link between alcohol consumption and heart disease, it’s not surprising that big, healthy hearts are being kept off labels.
Enjoy.
“Pickled Santa” - Look under 7.29(7). You can’t claim that beer is a distilled spirit, so you can’t make exaggerated claims about the alcohol content in a bottle - either in text or graphics.
Danish “hamburger” - That’s 7.29(a)(1), you can’t make an untrue statement - so you can’t claim a food product is in the bottle that isn’t in there.
“heart-warming ale” - That’s 7(e)(i) it’s a health-related statement making a claim that the alcohol will have a health effect
Finally, there’s the cap. WEED. Even though it isn’t the “label” it’s still covered by law. It falls under:
Misbranding 7.21(b)
(b) If the container, cap, or any label on the container, or any carton, case, or other covering of the container used for sale at retail, or any written, printed, graphic, or other matter accompanying the container to the consumer buyer contains any statement, design, device, or graphic, pictorial, or emblematic representation that is prohibited by §§7.20 through 7.29.
(What it’s breaking is 7.29(a)(1) - again, a claim that an ingredient is in the bottle when it isn’t.)
Seriously. Get over it.
3.2 is what was allowed to be sold at grocery stores. AKA- shitty beer. If you want real beer in Minnesota, you have to go to a liquor store. Which have to close by 10 pm, and are not open on Sunday. Bah. That’s one thing Michigan certainly has over Minnesota - few restrictions on alcohol purchases. Thanks to the political efforts of Arbor Brewing (there were a couple other breweries involved, but they were the main agitators), the only restriction on sales is between the hours of 2 am and 6 am (M-S, 2a-7a on Sunday).
I agree with all the Battle’s decisions that were quoted in the article. He sounds very careful and responsible.
What is it with the nuts alcohol sales laws in the US?
I had to deal with the no sales on Sunday nonsense in the South, didn’t realise other states had that too.
I’ve heard stuff about bars not being allowed windows in Indiana, and needing some kind of special licence to buy ‘strong’ beer in Utah?
At least thanks to this thread I now know why I can never find out how strong the beer I’m drinking is. Not that I understand that one either…
It’s all about Jeebus, and the evil, sinful alcohol. (IOW, controlling the behaviors of people who are not you using one religion’s dogma as the basis of passing such laws.)
That’s easy–federal law enforces a ‘minimum’ set of guidelines. Each state, county, and town can enforce stricter guidelines. And if you want to sell, you basically need to meet federal guidelines (but there are edge cases even there).
Makes sense, right? 
Some of my favorite local laws that are still enforced are: dry counties whose significant employers are distilleries; towns where you have to be a ‘private member’ or the club or establishment to imbibe, however you can purchase two week passes for $5; and ‘growler filling stations’ where the jug that you bring to be filled must have the logo of the brewery (try that one with a rotating tap list).
Lynchburg, TN?
