The EU’s exemption of most alcoholic drinks from normal ingredient and nutrition labelling rules is outdated, inconsistent and increasingly indefensible.

Most food and drink sold in the EU must tell consumers what it contains and provide basic nutritional information. Yet beer, spirits and liqueurs above 1.2% ABV can still often be sold without stating their calories, sugar, fat or full ingredient composition.

That produces absurd inconsistencies.

A sugary premixed cocktail can contain large amounts of sugar and calories, yet provide less information than a can of ordinary soft drink.

A cream liqueur may contain alcohol, cream, sugar, flavourings, colourings, stabilisers and other additives, while legally disclosing less information than a yoghurt or milkshake.

Even a simple comparison between two similar products can become impossible: one producer may voluntarily publish calories and sugar content, while another can legally reveal almost nothing beyond alcohol strength and allergens.

There is no convincing consumer-protection argument for this special treatment.

The EU itself has already accepted the case for reform

The European Commission concluded as far back as 2017 that there were no objective grounds for exempting alcoholic beverages from ingredient and nutrition disclosure.

Then, in 2021, under Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, the Commission committed to proposing mandatory ingredient lists and nutrition declarations for alcoholic beverages by the end of 2022.

That deadline was missed.

Meanwhile, the EU has already moved in this direction for wine. Since December 2023, wine has been required to provide ingredient and nutritional information, even if some of it can be supplied electronically.

That leaves the EU with a plainly incoherent system:

>

Voluntary disclosure is not enough

Some producers provide detailed nutritional data voluntarily. Others do not.

That means transparency depends on the goodwill of the manufacturer rather than on a consistent legal standard. It also creates a perverse incentive: the least transparent producer may disclose the least information while remaining fully compliant.

Consumers should not have to search corporate websites, inspect foreign product databases or reverse-engineer nutritional values simply to find out how much sugar or fat is in a drink.

This is basic consumer information, not prohibitionism

This issue should be separated from the more contentious debate over cancer warnings, graphic health labels.

Requiring disclosure of:

• ingredients
• energy
• sugar
• fat and saturated fat
• carbohydrate
• protein
• salt

is not an anti-alcohol policy.

It is basic product transparency.

As someone who has migrated back and forth between the old ChatGPT Mac app and browser chat, and has never been fully happy with either of them, the newly released desktop app has been a massively pleasant surprise.

Now that Chat and Work has replaced Codex and ChatGPT, we finally have a single app to rule them all. The desktop app finally has the ability to use your local device to do code things more intuitively (pardon my lack of lingo) and more importantly to interact seamlessly between the powerhouse of Work and the day to day of Chat.

PETS! They finally have a purpose. They are a widget where you can easily monitor and access ongoing processes while you're away on another app and notify you with updates. And it's cute. It's kind of a modern Clippy. I love it.

The UI/UX has been massively upgraded and (for my mind) more intuitive, responsive and pleasant to use.

I've personally experienced much fewer bugs compared to before.

It has become the app I spend the most time on while working, almost completely replacing my browser. It is just a delight to use.

What do you think about the new desktop app?