This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
News
Too Much Information?
“standfirst”>Diageo in the US is campaigning to reveal more about the contents of its spirits brands – but, rather than applauding this initiative, the wine and beer sectors are suspicious of Diageo’s motives, says Jon Rees
Anybody who does not want to know just how many calories they are consuming with every mouthful has a hard time of it nowadays, but for those who like a drink in the US, things are about to get worse. For the past 30 years the Center for Science in the Public Interest in the US has been pushing for federal regulators to label the ingredients of alcoholic drinks to inform consumers about calories and alcoholic content; and for the past 30 years they failed. Never ones to be put off, though, they tried again 18 months ago in a joint effort with the National Consumers League, while a Harvard University scientist also filed a petition with the Alcohol & Tobacco, Tax & Trade Bureau (TTB) asking for ingredients which might cause allergies to be listed.
There was a difference this time though, which is that the consumer groups found themselves with an unexpected ally, the giant drinks firm Diageo, which owns brands including Guinness, Smirnoff and Baileys.
Following the filing of the petition, Diageo began a campaign for voluntary labelling on beer, wine and spirits and has put such information in ads, as well as on the internet and in various promotional work.
On the face of it, this sounds like good news for the consumer groups. After all, who could be a more impressive supporter of your cause than one of the leading players in the industry itself?
Consumer groups can be a rather sceptical lot, though, and they view Diageo’s motives with a fair degree of suspicion. The point is that for companies trying to gain an advantage over their rivals, every little point of differentiation helps. So, if Diageo can persuade consumers that its particular brand of spirits has slightly fewer carbohydrates and calories, along with ingredients which are a little more exotic than their rivals’ brands, then it is more likely to make a sale. Consumer bodies also point out that alcohol is not a food but a social lubricant and intoxicant and while information on calories is important, information on carbohydrates can be used for marketing purposes. They fear that drinks companies might use the information to persuade consumers that some drinks are more suitable than others as part of a diet, so they could advertise a rum and Diet Coke as a diet drink.
Up for grabs
At the moment the only thing companies are required to put on bottles of alcoholic drink in the US is a health warning; pretty much everything else is up for grabs. For instance, there is no obligation to list the alcohol content of beer on bottles, but there is on wine and spirits which contain more than 14% alcohol. Nor is there any requirement for drinks companies to list ingredients or nutritional values on bottles, even though there are guidelines that govern the use of terms like “lite”, etc. There is not even a standard serving size which tells consumers how many drinks there are in a bottle.
Diageo, which said it polled consumers and found that more than 80% said they wanted to know how much alcohol there is in a standard serving, wants to put nutritional information and alcohol content on its bottles, but the TTB will not let it do so until the bureau has finished consulting with all interested parties on the issue of labelling, which will be in September.
So, Diageo has decided to plough on regardless, or at least start doing what it is legally allowed to do. It is using the internet and advertising to tell consumers about the alcohol content of its drinks, along with details of serving size, nutrients, carbohydrates and calories. In fact, it is doing a little more than this since it is actually taking the fight for more disclosure to the alcohol and tobacco bureau. It has run newspaper ads which take a swipe at the bureau for dragging its feet; it also encourages consumers to go to a website called KnowYourDrink.com, which urges them to write to regulators to support more disclosure.
The spirits industry has also been looking at ways of labelling and promoting drinks to show how much alcohol they contain compared with equivalent drinks.
So, 12 ounces of beer, five ounces of wine and 1.5 ounces of 80-proof spirits have the same alcohol content, goes the theory, so why not have a gin and tonic instead of a beer? There is even a suggestion that there could be a logo on the label with beer, wine and shot glasses showing how much of each is the equivalent of the other.
While this all seems pretty straightforward to Diageo, which says it is dangerous for people not to know what the equivalent servings are in each case, others see things differently. The Beer Institute, for instance, which represents the country’s brewers, is livid at the suggestion, pointing out that the notion that three martinis are the equivalent of three beers beggars belief since cocktails are often mixed at much more than 1.5 ounces per drink. Brewers support the notion of telling consumers how many carbohydrates and calories are in beer, which they do already with some beers, but they much prefer to use “alcohol by volume” to show what percentage of beer is alcohol.
Wary winemakers
Meanwhile, winemakers are equally wary. They have already told the alcohol and tobacco bureau that wine is a more moderate, mealtime drink than spirits or beer and its alcohol absorption is slowed by food consumption. Perhaps the wine drinking culture is not quite the same in the US as in the UK, because it seems reasonable to suggest that there are plenty of consumers here who drink wine on its own and not just when they are eating a meal.
The TTB wants all submissions on the subject of labelling in by September at the latest, but perhaps it is worth noting the comment of one vineyard owner who simply said that too much information can ruin a good thing. It would, he suggested, kill the moment; which seems a reasonable point to all of us who sometimes feel subjected to a little too much marketing. Though it’s a fair bet to say that the advertising departments of the multinational drinks companies might disagree.