My God! This is so beyond me!!! I can't believe how stupid american people can be... What would we do without our government telling us what is right and what is wrong?
This is just so sad. If anybody has ever traveled outside of this country, it is obvious that such rules indicate once more that the US has no soul. It's a bunch of little robots following the directions of Uncle Sam. Go ahead, just put some labels on the damn bottles, and carry your calculator around as you count how many calories you are allowed. And guess what, you will just have as many fat people as you do now...
Good luck with this...

It only makes common sense that ANYTHING intended to be consumed should have nutrition labels on them.

This isn't about alcohol encouraging consumption, it's about the publics' right to know what they are consuming.

What this is going to do is give more government control over a over controlled industry. Whats to say in a year with this health consensus rage that they won't ban alcoholic beverages unless they are "healthy" and such.

Its all sugar and water. Has been for 10k yerars.

@Buran: Somehow I don't think they care. Many things that take place in the service industry aren't legal. Try complaining. See where it gets you. 3 pushes of the AUC button, most likely and that's about it.

As for everyone on the "beer is unhealthy" train ... well, studies show it's not any less healthful than wine and may be significantly more healthful (many more vitamins, antioxidants, etc.). Of course, none of that can be listed or used as a selling tactic (see Bert Grant's attempt and the resultant clash with the ATF mentioned here: [seattlepi.nwsource.com]).

The cited article is bunk: it claims the industry is behind it but quotes someone from Smirnoff and individuals in the craft beer industry (the latter of which are somewhat opposed).

You know who they don't ask? Large American brewers, i.e. Coors and Budweiser, who wants you to know as little as possible about their beer aside from the fact that it gets you drunk.

All that said: I'm all for it.

@Christovir: I'd LOVE to see ingredients more than anything else myself, but never will. Budweiser would sooner fold than let you know what's in it.

To be honest, I'm baffled that the alcohol industry supports this. With nutrition information listed, people may be forced to consider how the calories in booze affect their overall intake. I think this will encourage people to drink LESS, not MORE.

Oh, and I don't buy that people are going to somehow start using alcohol as a diet option because they label how many calories are on it: "OMG It has a label with information, it's healthy!".

Even though I think there would be a good service being provided with nutrition labels on alcohol, it would just be taken out of hand. The way the trend is going bars, lounges and restaurants will soon be required to list all alcoholic nutrition information on their cocktails which couldnt always be accurate(and WAYYYYY too much of a hastle)

I would hate to think that just because something has a nutrition label on it that the avergage person would think it's healthy....but then again we live in America.

I'm for the labels. Hopefully it deters people from drinking and drinking and getting beer bellies. Beer has just as many calories as regular soda.

i would appreciate calorie labeling on alcohol, but i do worry that it might further encourage the all-too-common (& not to mention dangerous) "skip dinner--and maybe even lunch and breakfast!--so you can drink" attitude.

@Chicago7: @kingKonqueror: A consumer can't make informed choices without having INFORMATION readily available.

@morganlh85: Some smaller independent bars and restaurants do not list prices of alcoholic beverages because they tend to vary according to the attitude of the patron. The place my good friend works has an "A.U.C." (Asshole Up Charge) button right on the register.
Regarding the question at hand, I'd like to know how many calories are in my shots of Jameson.

And I think most people will be very surprised at all the ingredients that are in most mass produced beers.

On the other hand, if you want to add a label, you would have to declare beer and the like a 'foodstuff' That is why you don't have nutritional labels on Antifreeze and honey based legwax. It send the wrong message that you can get nutrition from alcohol. You get a little nutrition from beer, but the effect is reversed after you drink more.
Comapnies already advertise low cal info like on Guinness and can continue to do so, but listing it like on a carton of milk is probably not the best idea.

(And I know, the same argument could be used for Ho-Hos and Twinkies.. ;) Calling them 'foodstuff' is probably a misnomer.

As for regular nutritional labeling, there should at the very least be a caloric content & ingredients listing. Mmm, imagine some of the weird stuff that's probably in Bud Light and its ilk.

And please - alcohol has been legal in this country for a very long time now. We can't trust them to voluntarily label - not a single company has done it yet.

The free market isn't really free, nor should it necessarily be. As long as profit is king in this country, comapnies are predatorial and we should have laws that help protect and inform consumers.

@jaredharley:

Many states prohibit companies from listing the alcohol content of beerages like beer. Their stated concern is a "race to the top" as beer makers try to max out the legally-allowed ABV per serving. Since this is a federal regulation, it would override state requirements to the contrary.

It would be a good idea especially(like TEDSEZ said) for those flavored malt beverages. I've reluctantly drank a few Captain Morgan Parrot Bays and the like at parties because I hate beer. But it would be nice to know if the red coloring is from carmine or not.

If virtually all over the other beverages I can buy in a store have to have nutrition facts, why would alcoholic beverages be any different?

[beer.about.com]

Here's some for potato chips

[www.dietfacts.com]

Revealing, but no one is coming to the conclusion that this stuff is good for you.

As for the calorie question, if you're on a diet, you shouldn't be drinking beer to begin with. Low calorie beer, like say Mick Ultra, has so little alcohol content in it -- comparitively -- that you may as well just have a SpriteZero and say it's Gin and Tonic.

For thousands of years, the only liquid that you could consume that wouldn't lead to your immediate death you was beer, wine, or spirits.

But anyway, there has been considerable research that has suggested that Stouts not only really aren't bad for you, but can prevent blood clots and heart attacks. Guinness has more antioxidants than almost any "synthetic" drink (soda, etc)... and there's really no reason that a pint a day is any worse for you than a can of soda.

I agree with this new proposal. As mentioned prior, it's idiotic to think that someone would go "oh look, it's got a label, must be good for me" - and people who honestly think like that are probably not the creme de la creme we want breeding...

I would like to know, though, how many calories are in a can of beer. I think this would be especially useful for people who are on counting diets (whether calories, protein, etc).

If it has nutrients in it, then it really does have some nutritional value. No-one said nutritional values have to be high.

Anyone stupid enough to think that just because something has a nutritional label on it, it must be healthy is probably already well full up on booze...

This is a little off-topic, but I think they should add caffeine content to nutrition labels, some people are more sensitive to it than others and it is an important piece of information.

A slight complication with listing calories in alcohol is that although alcohol has a precisely known value for physical calories, we are still unsure as to how the body metabolizes it. I remember reading several articles (sorry, no link) suggesting the body treats them very differently than food-based calories.

This wiki article is a nice summary of some of the alcohol/health issues: [en.wikipedia.org]

maybe theres a ton of fiber and we just don't know about it!

However, generally, light beer has the most additives out of all alcoholic beverages cuz they have to put alot of stuff in it to make watered down beer taste not watered down.

Damn, looks like wine has some of the lesser calories compared to other alcoholic drinks based on that site.

...seriously?! That is probably the worst conceivable argument for not putting nutritional info on alcohol. Jesus, I don't even know where to start.

we lasted about 3 hours.

Liquor has nutritional value just the way that soft drinks do. Not "good value" , but an objective value in calories. Plus, it'll make it easier to figure the serving size and calories on mixed drinks, which I think bars and restaurants should carry.

I would also like to see ingredients labeling. Perhaps I'm allergic to something or just to a certain food color?

There's no nutritional value in chewing gum, but they put a label on that anyways.

Just say "nanny state" and get it over with and go back to your compound in Idaho.

but all the ads say "guiness for your health". now they can prove it :)

Bottled water has it ....

And as for this: "...some advocacy organizations are concerned that the nutrition labels might imply that alcoholic beverages have some nutritional value."-- I don't think that any reasonable person would think that having a "nutrition facts" label on their hooch actually means it's good for you-I mean, they put the same labels on tubs of lard, but nobody in their right mind would think that it has nutritional value. I say go for it.

Calori count & alcohol content is a must, the rest aren't needed.

Let companies that want to publish this information do so, and let consumers make an informed choice based on that. We don't need YAGB (Yet Another Government Bureaucrat) policing yet another labelling law.

Companies that want to flaunt their product's "benefits" are free to do so, and we're free to think poorly of companies that don't dare do it.