Beverage makers will now have to ensure that the sweetening ingredients used in products are listed accurately.
There has been continuous demand from the soft drinks industry for "and/or" sweetener labeling for over two decades. The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) has consistently maintained that the soft drink industry's practice of using different sweetener formulations for the same product depending on supply and time of year, necessitates the flexibility of an "and/or" labeling system.
In addition, soft drink makers have to deal with considerations such as meeting consumer demands during peak selling periods, obtaining product labels from national suppliers, and huge volumes in the bottler system.
However, the FDA has ruled that "and/or" labeling for sweeteners is not warranted because there is insufficient evidence to show that declaring specific sweeteners in soft drinks is impracticable or would result in deception or unfair competition.
Labeling is a major issue in the States at the moment. Food makers are scrambling to meet the January 1 2006 deadline for trans fats labeling, and the debate over Country of Origin (COOL) labeling - whether it should be voluntary or mandatory - rumbles on.
There is also growing pressure on food makers to inform consumers that some starchy products may contain acrylamide, a carcinogen, if cooked at high temperatures. All this has contributed to an environment where accurate food and beverage labeling is increasingly becoming a legal necessity.
The withdrawal of the proposed "and/'or"rule is the latest development in a proposed piece of legislation that has continually swung from one side to the other. In 1993 for example, the FDA proposed to permit "and/or" labeling for nutritive sweeteners in soft drinks, if the manufacturer was unable to adhere to a constant pattern of nutritive sweeteners in soft drinks.
The agency stated however that the industry would have to produce data to demonstrate that it was in fact impracticable to produce the very limited number of versions of a label that would be necessary if an exemption were not granted.
And in 1997 the Office of Food Labeling (the predecessor to the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements) advised the NSDA that FDA was not initiating enforcement actions against soft drink manufacturers that used "and/or" labeling for nutritive sweeteners in soft drinks and would likely continue to exercise enforcement discretion until rulemaking on this issue was complete.
However, as part of the regulatory reform initiative, the FDA announced in 2003 that its intent to withdraw a number of proposed rules that were no longer considered viable candidates for final action based on the agency's limited resources and changing priorities.
This notice included the proposed rule for "and/or" labeling for nutritive sweeteners in soft drinks. The FDA justified its ruling by stating that it had received no data demonstrating that declaring specific sweeteners in soft drinks was impracticable and therefore did not have a sufficient basis to proceed to a final rule allowing "and/or" labeling for soft drinks.