SACRAMENTO, CA -- In California, a legal battle is brewing over the sale and taxation of flavored malt beverages (FMB).

On Tuesday, Jan. 17, a coalition of youth advocates filed a lawsuit against the state of California in an effort to force the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to limit the sales of FMB products on grounds that the beverages target underage kids, reports the Sacramento Bee. The lawsuit also calls for FMB products to be taxed as liquor products.

"We're seeking to prevent manufacturers and producers of this product from purposely, illegally targeting teenagers to use these products," said state Sen. Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). Dubbing FMB products 'alcopops,' Migden added that the sweet and fruity flavoring makes the beverages "look and taste like soda pop," with the "alcohol content of beer."

Specifically, the coalition is targeting FMB products such as Mike's Hard Lemonade, Smirnoff Ice and Seagram's Peach Fuzzy Navel, writes the newspaper, and other FMBs sold at "tens of thousands of stores statewide."

During a news conference, writes the Contra-Costa Times, Migden and state Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) pledged to "push legislation to reclassify the beverages, which contain about 6 percent alcohol--roughly the same as beer--as distilled spirits, and to ban advertising aimed at teenagers."

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian (R-Stockton) commented to the Sacramento Bee that although he has not reviewed the lawsuit, retailers should be at fault for selling licensed beverages to those under the legal drinking age--not the product itself.

"I think we need to look at our enforcement mechanisms. If there are problems with that, let's remedy it," Aghazarian said. 

In California, lawmakers have debated whether the state should collect excise taxes for FMBs as beer products, at an excise tax of 20 cents per gallon, or reclassify FMBs as liquor products and tax them accordingly at $3.30 per gallon. 

Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have ensured FMBs continued to be taxed as beer, writes the newspaper. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control adheres to the federal formula for taxing licensed beverages, which allows FMBs to be taxed as beer if more than 50 percent of the alcohol content is added during the brewing process. (For more information on excise tax rates of licensed beverages at the federal level, visit the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau's (TTB) Web site.)

Lawsuit plaintiffs, including the Alcohol Policy Network, the California Council on Alcohol Policy, the California Council on Alcohol Problems and the California Prevention Collaborative, say that increasing the tax on FMBs will decrease "minors' consumption" of the products and therefore reduce availability.

However, if the plaintiffs win, adult consumers would be adversely affected because the state's 35,000 restaurants and retailers would not be allowed to sell FMBs if they are not licensed to sell liquor.

Groups such as the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) have decried the lawsuit, calling it a "Neo-Prohibitionist assault on the business community."

According to WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp, there is no evidence that shows the sale of FMBs target underage teens.

"We take a back seat to no one in supporting legitimate steps to reduce underage drinking, but this lawsuit is not such a step but rather would simply make it much more difficult for adults to purchase an increasingly popular product," said Samp.

In a statement, WLF notes that all available evidence suggests that FMBs, "which represent only 2.6% of the entire beer market," are no more subject to illegal underage drinking than any other licensed beverage category.

WLF is also calling on California officials to "concentrate instead on steps that can make a real difference in reducing underage consumption, including increased law enforcement and alcohol education programs directed at youth."