Asklemmy

43479 readers

1484 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why doesn't NA beer have nutrition fact labels in the USA? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago by BreakDecks@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I understand that alcoholic beverages are regulated by the ATF and not the FDA, which is why nutrition fact labels aren't legally required on alcoholic beverages, but why does this carry over to NA beer?

It's basically just beer-flavored soda. It has less than the required alcohol content (<0.5%) to be legally classified as an alcoholic beverage. Is it not regulated by the FDA?

The only clue I have is that Nutrition Fact labels appear on cans of NA beer made by companies that only produce NA beer (e.g. Athletic / Partake), but not NA beers produced by existing full-alcohol breweries (e.g. Heineken / Guinness). Is there some sort of "we also produce alcoholic beverages" loophole to avoid FDA regulation?

If so, would it be possible for Coca-Cola, who distributes alcoholic beverages (e.g. Topo Chico hard seltzer / Jack & Coke premixed cocktails), to get around the requirement for their regular sodas?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The labeling referred to was nutritional, not food safety. Why would its inhospitability to pathogens mean we don't need nutritional labeling?

Now, you mentioned lobbying, which is a valid reason if not a good one. I also have no skin in this game, since beer is one of my least favorite alcohols.

[–] frank@sopuli.xyz 12 points 5 months ago

The (absolutely gutted) organization for requiring things like nutritional information is primarily responsible for keeping people safe in the foods they consume. Should it be on there? Probably. But on the scale of things to do it's so absurdly insanely low with so many horrific things ahead of it that it probably isn't gonna happen. Nevermind the fact that it's lobbied against pretty hard at the same time.

I think it probably should have nutritional and allergenic info required on it, but hearing the horror stories of my friends in food safety who go to plants that produce dangerous products with so little rules and oversight, I can't imagine thinking it's a good idea to take any amount of FDA time and attention away from that for things like beer.

Most big breweries have nutritional info on their site for their beers, fwiw.