Massachusetts Regulators Get Tough on LaCroix
LaCroix's parent company failed to get the special permission slip required by Massachusetts regulators.

LaCroix water could be removed from Massachusetts store shelves, as a result of a state law requiring permits to sell or distribute bottled water and carbonated beverages.
Until recently, LaCroix's line of flavored, fizzy water has been sold in Massachusetts stores with no objections. But after Consumer Reports requested information about what was in LaCroix beverages, the publication discovered that National Beverage Corps, the parent company of LaCroix, does not have the required permit to sell LaCroix in the Bay State.
Under Massachusetts law, "no person shall engage…in the business of manufacturing or bottling carbonated non-alcoholic beverages or water, both carbonated and noncarbonated, for human consumption without a permit to do so."
According to Consumer Reports, Massachusetts is one of only a few U.S. states that makes carbonated water manufacturers obtain a permit. The state also requires those manufacturers to regularly submit quality-test results to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. But when Consumer Reports staff inquired with the department, it found no LaCroix license had been obtained and no test results submitted.
Under federal law, carbonated water manufacturers are not required to submit such test results, though the makers of regular bottled water are. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates carbonated waters like LaCroix under the same classification as soda, not bottled water.
The FDA website states that for regulatory purposes, the category of bottled water "does not include those food ingredients that are declared in ingredient labeling as 'water,' 'carbonated water,' 'disinfected water,' 'filtered water,' 'seltzer water,' 'soda water,' 'sparkling water,' and 'tonic water.'"
Consumer Reports notes that the debate over the proper way to label and regulate carbonated water goes back decades. Some regulators wanted carbonated water to be held to the same standards as bottled water, but the FDA concluded in 1995 that "because there were already different standards in place for bottled water and carbonated products, there was no reason to make a change."
That didn't stop some states from making their own demands.
Massachusetts regulators told National Beverage in a June 4 letter that the company had 10 days to file for a permit. If it failed to comply, National Beverage would be fined or LaCroix could be banned in Massachusetts entirely.
The good news for LaCroix fans? A National Beverage spokesperson told Today that the company has now "completed an application required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, paid the required fee," and is working with officials "to promptly resolve this matter."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“Paid the required fee”
Problem solved!
Yeah, that all that this was about. The permit application is just and excuse to charge a fee.
how much is the fee?
According to mass.gov, the fee is $37.50 for in-state and $300 for out-of-state. So it's not about the fee. It's about the make-work for dozens, if not hundreds of state employees.
Oh, I'm sure it's also about politicians getting to claim credit for "protecting residents from greedy capitalists".
"Land of the free" my ass.
Land of the fee.
I'm perfectly willing to free your ass, but what are you planning on doing without it. 🙂
Can't do shit, obviously.
Without these regulations, someone could end up buying piss in a can! Bud Light? Yes, you can get that in Massachusetts, why do you ask?
Look, sometimes people want to get somewhat drunk and quite a bit fat at the same time without paying much for it. If you've got a better solution than crappy beer I'd love to hear it...
As it shouldn't. That's what Federalism is. In fact, having states set their own standards should be the default and if they choose to do so (or to not do so) should mean there's no reason for a Federal agency to exist to duplicate that work.
States setting such standards violates the NAP.
Ah, well, I guess we're stuck with the FDA then. *Their* existence doesn't violate the NAP.
Interstate commerce and reciprocity. Imagine if your state-issued driver's license was only good for the state it was issued in. Or your marriage license or your concealed-carry permit or ..... wait, nevermind.
Mmm, disinfected water.
Would you rather drink infected water?
Under federal law, carbonated water manufacturers are not required to submit such test results, though the makers of regular bottled water are.
Oh, FFS! "Our water is, um, *weakly* carbonated and hence untest, uh, we mean SAFE!"
"the debate over the proper way to label and regulate carbonated water goes back decades."
The option of NOT regulating has never been considered - - - - - - - - -
They should change the "Baked Bean State" motto to "The Baked Brain State"
"the “Baked Bean State”"
Ah, so that rotten smell was their politicians thinking. I thought it was something else.
Are they actually manufacturing in MA or just shipping it in?
I wondered that too. The law doesn't say anything about the sale of garbage.
Shipping I believe. Obviously a state without control of what crosses its borders isn't a state at all. Respect the rule of law you anarchists. Or so I've been told.
"The good news for LaCroix fans" is that there are now enough of them to get a big top at Denny's.
If there is a retarded law or ban against anything that didn’t start in California, it probably happened in Massachusetts
Yo, what's New York, chopped liver?
That better not be goose liver.
Well now that a fee has been assessed, all of those people that got sick drinking Lacroix will be cured. It doesn't matter that no one was harmed. Thanks for the help, Consumer Reports! Now kindly go fuck yourselves.
I'll give them some consumption to report on
[…] Click here for the article. […]
The lefty hipsters who drink that swill are getting a lesson in the sort of mindless bureaucracy they favor. Will they learn from it? I doubt it.