On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the deployment of its own artificial intelligence system, “Elsa.” The large language model-powered system was scheduled for full-scale implementation across the agency by June 30, 2025. Initially piloted for FDA scientific reviewers, Elsa is intended to streamline internal processes and increase operational efficiency within the agency.
In the bustling landscape of consumer goods, caffeinated beverages stand out as a daily staple for millions of Americans. A recent shift towards “clean caffeine” and caffeine alternatives has further energized consumer demand for ready-to-drink caffeinated beverages.
Recently, however, the spotlight has turned to the highly caffeinated beverage industry for far less stimulating reasons, as cases of alleged caffeine overconsumption have led to severe health repercussions. As highly caffeinated beverages continue to expand their market share, it is crucial for ready-to-drink beverage brands to carefully consider their product’s caffeination levels and the way those products are labeled and/or marketed.
On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or “Agency”) released draft guidance on labeling of plant-based milk alternatives (“PDMA”). This draft guidance is meant to clarify the FDA’s current view on the naming of plant-based foods that are marketed and sold as alternatives for milk in accordance with Sections 403(a)(1) and 403(i)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The draft guidance also provides recommendations on the use of voluntary nutrient statements comparing plant-based milk to cow’s milk.
On November 9, 2022, the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB” or “Agency”) announced that the Agency is considering updating the alcohol trade practice regulations for the first time in 20 years. The current trade practice regulations, codified at 27 C.F.R. parts 6 (tied house), 8 (exclusive outlets), 10 (commerical bribery) and 11 (consignment sales), prohibit certain practices that threaten the independence of retailers and/or give the industry members an unfair advantage over their competitors.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) recently proposed amendments to 27 CFR Part 4 that would allow winemakers to reference added distilled spirits on labels and in advertisements. Currently, wine labels and advertisements are prohibited from including statements indicating that a wine contains a distilled spirit unless the wine is required to bear a statement of composition which references the use of a distilled spirit. While this 1930’s prohibition sought to protect consumers from misinformation, the TTB acknowledges that as the wine industry has evolved, the regulation has become inconsistent with the TTB’s mission. Allowing this additional information provides manufacturers flexibility and empowers them to communicate with consumers more accurately about their wine products.
In addition to the regulatory requirements imposed on beer labels, as discussed in the Anatomy of a Beer Label: Part I on COLAs, and the intellectual property protection offered by trademarks, as discussed in the Anatomy of a Beer Label: Part II, brewers may consider the value they can create through trade dress and
Aside from the regulatory requirements imposed on beer labels, as discussed in the Anatomy of a Beer Label: Part I post on COLAs, brewers should consider protecting the trademarks featured on their beer labels.
Trademarks
Since every brewer has a brand, consumers most commonly encounter brewers’ trademarks in the form of a brand name or
A beer label tells consumers more than just what the bottle or can contains (e.g., brewed hops, grain, yeast, and water). Labels inform consumers of important facts like the alcohol content by volume (ABV) and the net contents of the container, and may also provide insight on the flavor profile of the beer or the
On June 7, 2019, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it has adopted a final regulation eliminating the requirement for coffee to carry a Proposition 65 warning label. The regulation overturns a California State Court decision that found that coffee retailers failed to prove that the chemicals present in coffee, such as acrylamide, pose no significant risk of harm, requiring coffee to bear a warning.