Powdered alcohol snagged
NEW YORK — Don't expect powdered alcohol to hit store shelves anytime soon.
A product called “Palcohol” gained widespread attention online in recent days when it was reported that the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau approved the powdered alcohol, including vodka and rum varieties. A representative for the federal bureau, Tom Hogue, said in an email late Monday that the approvals were issued in error.
In an email message, Palcohol's parent company, Lipsmark, said “there seemed to be a discrepancy on our fill level, how much powder is in the bag.” It said it will resubmit the labels for approval.
According to the website for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, multiple varieties of Palcohol received “label approval” on April 8. Palcohol said in an email that it agreed to surrender the approvals “a few hours ago.”
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is a part of the Treasury Department.
Earlier in the day, Palcohol said in an email that founder Mark Phillips was traveling and unavailable for an interview. It said it wasn't releasing any information on distribution or pricing, and the company's website doesn't provide details on how it makes powdered alcohol.
Robert Lehrman, who runs a beverage law website that initially reported on the product, noted that Palcohol had to have gone through an extensive process before reaching the label approval stage.
“An oversight of this nature does not ring true to me,” Lehrman said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Suspect in killings of wealthy D.C. family arrested
- California Congresswoman Sanchez apologizes for Indian whooping-cry caricature
- House bill would ease federal fish catch limits
- Dogs split from the wolf pack earlier than thought, DNA analysis suggests
- 38 Cuban migrants remain on U.S. ship
- Prosecutors: Duke Energy could have avoided Dan River spill
- Rulings require feds to consider carbon impact of coal mines
- Republicans claim enough votes to pass fast-track trade bill
- Police release video of person of interest in D.C. slaying
- Boehner: Little progress at VA year after Shinseki departure
- Senators push for full funding for Amtrak