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.

Click here to read about the most researched St. John's Wort formulation in America.

Click here to read about other natural antidepressant/emotional mood balancers