(a) For a carbonated or noncarbonated beverage that contains less than 100 percent and more than 0 percent fruit or vegetable juice, the common or usual name shall be a descriptive name that meets the requirements of § 102.5(a) and, if the common or usual name uses the word “juice,” shall include a qualifying term such as “beverage,” “cocktail,” or “drink” appropriate to advise the consumer that the product is less than 100 percent juice (e.g., “diluted grape juice beverage” or “grape juice drink”).
(b) If the product is a diluted multiple-juice beverage or blend of single-strength juices and names, other than in the ingredient statement, more than one juice, then the names of those juices, except in the ingredient statement, must be in descending order of predominance by volume unless the name specifically shows that the juice with the represented flavor is used as a flavor (e.g., raspberry-flavored apple and pear juice drink). In accordance with § 101.22(i)(1)(iii) of this chapter, the presence of added natural flavors is not required to be declared in the name of the beverage unless the declared juices alone do not characterize the product before the addition of the added flavors.
(c) If a diluted multiple-juice beverage or blend of single-strength juices contains a juice that is named or implied on the label or labeling other than in the ingredient statement (represented juice), and also contains a juice other than the named or implied juice (nonrepresented juice), then the common or usual name for the product shall indicate that the represented juice is not the only juice present (e.g., “Apple blend; apple juice in a blend of two other fruit juices.”)
(d) In a diluted multiple-juice beverage or blend of single-strength juices where one or more, but not all, of the juices are named on the label other than in the ingredient statement, and where the named juice is not the predominant juice, the common or usual name for the product shall:
(1) Indicate that the named juice is present as a flavor or flavoring (e.g., “Raspcranberry”; raspberry and cranberry flavored juice drink); or
(2) Include the amount of the named juice, declared in a 5- percent range (e.g., Raspcranberry; raspberry and cranberry juice beverage, 10- to 15-percent cranberry juice and 3- to 8-percent raspberry juice). The 5-percent range, when used, shall be declared in the manner set forth in § 102.5(b)(2).
(e) The common or usual name of a juice that has been modified shall include a description of the exact nature of the modification (e.g., “acid-reduced cranberry juice,” “deflavored, decolored grape juice”).
(f) If the product is a beverage that contains a juice whose color, taste, or other organoleptic properties have been modified to the extent that the original juice is no longer recognizable at the time processing is complete, or if its nutrient profile has been diminished to a level below the normal nutrient range for the juice, then the source fruits or vegetables from which the modified juice was derived may not be depicted on the label by vignette or other pictorial representation.
(g)(1) If one or more juices in a juice beverage is made from concentrate, the name of the juice must include a term indicating that fact, such as “from concentrate,” or “reconstituted.” Such terms must be included in the name of each individual juice or it may be stated once adjacent to the product name so that it applies to all the juices, (e.g., “cherry juice (from concentrate) in a blend of two other juices” or “cherry juice in a blend of 2 other juices (from concentrate)”). The term shall be in a type size no less than one-half the height of the letters in the name of the juice.
(2) If the juice is 100 percent single species juice consisting of juice directly expressed from a fruit or vegetable whose Brix level has been raised by the addition of juice concentrate from the same fruit or vegetable, the name of the juice need not include a statement that the juice is from concentrate. However, if water is added to this 100 percent juice mixture to adjust the Brix level, the product shall be labeled with the term “from concentrate” or “reconstituted.”
[58 FR 2926, Jan. 6, 1993; 58 FR 17103, Apr. 1, 1993, as amended at 58 FR 44063, Aug. 18, 1993; 62 FR 15343, Mar. 31, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Pom Wonderful LLC v. COCA COLA CO., 727 F. Supp. 2d 849 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
· cites it 11× “Thus, FDA [proposes in 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (c) ] that if a diluted multiple-juice beverage or blend of a single-strength juice contains a represented juice and one or more that is not represented i.”
Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “, 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (c), (d). As sometimes happens with two broad federal statutes, the Lanham Act and the FDCA can conflict with each other.”
Campbell v. Freshbev LLC, 322 F. Supp. 3d 330 (E.D.N.Y 2018).
· cites it 2× “21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (b) states: If the product is a diluted multiple-juice beverage or blend of single-strength juices and names, other than in the ingredient statement, more than one juice, then the names of those juices, except in the ingredient statement, must be in descending…”
Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 574 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D.N.J. 2008).
· cites it 4× “21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (a). Further, if the product is a diluted multiple juice drink or a blend of single-strength juices, then the juices must be listed on the product label in descending order of prominence by volume, with certain exceptions.”
Stansfield v. Minute Maid Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
· cites it 6× “The first theory is that the label does not bear the “common or usual name of the food” under § 343(i) because it violates one of the implementing regulations, 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (d)(1). Plaintiffs want to enforce an identical requirement under state law.”
Pom Wonderful LLC v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
“” 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (d)(1). Regarding the picture of fruit on the label, the FDA requires that if the juice’s “organoleptic properties” are not recognizable or that its “nutrient profile” is diminished below the normal nutrient range, then “the source *1120 fruits or vegetables…”
Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014).
“In any event, under 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (d), when a product’s flavor comes from a juice that is not the primary ingredient, the name may include the flavoring juice, without including other juices, so long as the label includes a statement “that the named juice is present as a…”
Noelle Major v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, 690 F. App'x 564 (9th Cir. 2017).
“Although Plaintiff suggests that the blend of different juices may have served to make the cranberry and pomegranate juice drink sweeter than cranberry and pomegranate juice alone *565 would have been, the label stated that the product was a blend of juices, and the labeling was…”
Dopson-Troutt v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
“However, Pom Wonderful is not a drug label case; rather, it is a food case about a pomegranate blueberry drink label, where the Ninth Circuit discussed 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 , which provides requirements for the labeling of beverages that contain fruit or vegetable juice.”
Citrus Hill Mfg. Co. v. State, 29 Fla. Supp. 2d 217 (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'g 1987).
· cites it 3× “” Diluted fruit or vegetable juice beverages other than diluted orange juice beverages are the subject of 21 C.F.R. Section 102.33, 1 which provides as follows: *222 “102.”
Beckman v. Arizona Canning Co., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2019).
“at 108-09 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 21 (2013)). Ultimately reversing the Ninth Circuit decision, the United States 22 Supreme Court held that compliance with the FDCA and its regulations does not 23 preclude a claim challenging a food label as deceptive or misleading.”
Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2022).
“21 C.F.R. § 102.33 . The subject matter, in other words, was not simply one that technically fell within the scope of the FDCA; it was a topic in which the FDA had demonstrated specific regulatory interest and about which the FDA therefore could (and did) exercise regulatory…”
— 21 C.F.R. § 102.33(d)(1) — 1 case
Stansfield v. Minute Maid Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (N.D. Fla. 2015).
“The first theory is that the label does not bear the “common or usual name of the food” under § 343(i) because it violates one of the implementing regulations, 21 C.F.R. § 102.33 (d)(1). Plaintiffs want to enforce an identical requirement under state law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.