Bill Easing Beer Labeling Rules Hits Snags

With little debate, the state Senate passed an industry-drafted bill two months ago that would blur the labeling distinctions between beer and its higher-octane cousins such as malt liquor.

Now before the Assembly, the bill by Sen. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) is not going down so smoothly.

By state law, beer can only be called beer if its alcoholic content is 5% or less by volume, or 4% by weight. Brews with higher alcoholic content must be labeled by other names--ale, stout or malt liquor, for example.

Thompson’s bill, backed by the liquor industry, would let all brews--some with as much as 17% alcohol--carry the beer label. He argues, for instance, that the state’s burgeoning microbrewery industry ought to be able to label its high-alcohol brews as beer.

But Assemblyman Bruce Thompson (R-Fallbrook)--no relation to the senator--vows to fight the measure. He denounces it as a special-interest “scam” that threatens to worsen the state’s already critical teenage drinking problem.

He has been joined in trying to kill or amend the bill by liberal Democrat Louis Caldera of Los Angeles.

The Senate bill (SB 1796), sponsored and originally drafted by a Miller Brewing Co. lobbyist, would allow all such “malt beverage” drinks to be labeled as beer. No limit on alcoholic content would apply, allowing drinks of up to 17% alcohol to carry the beer label.

“It’s unbelievable someone with a clear conscience would do this,” said Bruce Thompson, a member of the non-drinking Mormon faith and one of the Assembly’s most conservative members.

A person thinking he is buying beer could be carrying home more powerful concoctions such as malt liquor, Thompson said.

Ray Chavira, a recovering alcoholic who is a member of the Los Angeles County Commission on Alcoholism, noted that malt liquors, commonly sold in 40-ounce bottles in low-income areas where drinkers seek “more bang for their buck,” contain up to 8% alcohol.

Malt liquors are also the drink of choice for underage drinkers, Chavira said, who make their illegal purchases at poorly supervised small retail outlets.

Opponents are also concerned about the possible impact on the more than 1,800 outlets throughout the state, such as pool halls, which are licensed to sell only beer and allow minors on the premises. They could stock the stronger brews, opponents say, thus potentially increasing the exposure of minors to higher potency drinks.

Label descriptions matter, especially with teenagers, said Harvey Chinn, who lobbies against the liquor industry.

“Kids don’t want to have ale busts, they want to have beer busts,” he said.

Citing concerns of possible increased teenage drinking, Los Angeles is on record opposing the bill. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will consider taking a similar stance at a meeting next week, opponents said. Despite his alliance with Democrat Caldera, Assemblyman Thompson’s chances of stopping the measure from final legislative passage remain in doubt.

The alcoholic beverage industry is a heavy contributor to state legislative campaigns and historically has been among the most powerful of the Capitol’s special interests.

According to the public interest group Common Cause, major contributors among brewers and beer trade groups gave $620,000 to Sacramento lawmakers in 1994 and 1995.

Additionally, the Miller company gave more than $63,000 to 50 lawmakers in the same period. Contributors associated with Coors beer, a co-sponsor of the labeling bill, gave close to $100,000 in 1994 and 1995, state records show.

In April, the measure, which has received little public attention, passed a Senate committee hearing 8 to 0. It was sent to the Assembly on a 23-14 Senate floor vote after brief debate.

A spokesman for Gov. Pete Wilson said the governor has not taken a position on the bill, which is awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor.

In a recent interview, Sen. Thompson defended the bill, saying he carried it at the request of beer interests but contending that it was of little consequence to the drinking public.

Opponents’ arguments are “bogus, in my view,” he said. The claim that people would be “duped into buying things with a bigger kick rings hollow,” he said.

He dismissed arguments by rivals who say people will be misled by brews containing up to 17% alcohol and labeled as beer.

Furthermore, he said, California labeling laws are a “nightmare” for beer makers who must make separate labels to comply with state law. That was the impetus for the Miller Brewing Co.’s original sponsorship of the measure.

In 36 other states, and under federal law, there are no alcohol content limits governing labeling of various brews.

The problem is especially acute in his north coastal district, Sen. Thompson said, where a number of microbreweries have sprung up whose specialties include making a wide variety of beer-type drinks with varying alcohol content.

The microbreweries are “one of the biggest growth industries in California,” said Thompson.

He said it is “ridiculous” to suggest that the industry’s contributions accounted for the support his bill has received so far.

In the Assembly, opponents have slowed the bill’s progress.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Brouhaha

A Senate bill would ease restrictions on the alcohol content of “malt beverages,” allowing drinks of up of 17% alcohol to be called “beer.”

Current state law stipulates that beer’s alcoholic content must be 5% or less. Sudsy drinks above 5% alcohol by volume must be labeled by other names--ale, stout or malt liquor, for example.