The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Food beer alcohol percentages Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

From: tindall@mercury.interpath.net (Bruce Tindall)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal.moderated
Subject: Beer alcohol percentage (References, Questions)
Date: 30 Nov 1994 20:46:44 -0500

This is posted to alt.folklore.urban because of recent discussions there about whether and why U.S. law prohibits advertising of the alcohol content of beer. It is posted to misc.legal.moderated because of some legal-related questions I had about a news report on the Coors lawsuit (at the bottom of this post).

The following is a summary of a report by Mark Roberts on National Public Radio (U.S.) this morning.

The U.S. Supreme Court today hears arguments in a case brought in 1987 by the Coors brewing company, challenging the provision of the 1935 Alcohol Administration Act. The Act, while requiring that wine and spirits post their alcohol content on the label, forbids beer labels from containing that information *except* in states that require it. (There are now 6 such states.)

In 1935, brewers argued that beer is a food, and therefore should not be subject to the same rules as wine and spirits. (Now, ironically, Coors is arguing that beer *should* be allowed to post its alcohol content, drawing an analogy with food nutrition labels.) Also, opponents of beer labelling did and do fear that alcohol labelling
would lead to "strength wars" in which brewers would compete on alcohol strength, thus promoting alcohol abuse, especially among young people who (one interviewee said) are the primary abusers of beer.

Coors argues that there have not been any "strength wars" in states or countries where beer labels do mention alcohol content.

Note that Coors says it doesn't want to *advertise* alcohol content; just list it on the label. (Ah, yes, but then they could put a picture of the label in the ad, couldn't they?)

Coors won its suit in 1992 in district court. After that, the U.S. Treasury "lifted the ban" (stopped enforcing it?) on putting alcohol content on beer labels.

The questions for the net.legal.eagles are: (1) The report implied that the case was being appealed directly from the district court to the Supreme Court. I know this *can* be done in certain circumstances (e.g. the Watergate Tapes case), but why is it appropriate to do so in *this* case? Is time of the essence? Is immediate uniformity of the law across circuits all that necessary in this case?
(2) The reporter said that "Congress appealed" the decision of the district court. *Congress?* Wouldn't it have been the executive branch (the Treasury Department, maybe)?

Thanks.