September 9, 2026

RE:       Reasonable Food Availability and Tastings at Distilleries

Greetings,

Thank you for your outreach regarding SB424 and its implementation. This comment responds to Virginia ABC’s (“VABC”) Circular Letter 26-01 (“Circular”) and its interpretation of the food-availability requirements under amended Va. Code § 4.1-119(G). The Circular concludes that providing QR codes for food-delivery services, local restaurant menus, or signage advising that patrons may bring their own food does not satisfy the “reasonably available” standard. The Virginia Distillers Association (“Association”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on why that interpretation exceeds the statute and legislative bargain that produced SB424.

The Association’s position is straightforward. SB424 raised the daily spirits limit per person per day from three to six ounces and, in return, required that food be “reasonably available” whenever spirits are served. The statute itself supplies flexible means of compliance: food trucks, patrons supplying their own food, or food supplied by the agent. Food trucks and agent-supplied food present few audit difficulties. Patrons bringing their own food is less self-evident. The Association’s position is that conspicuous signage, QR codes for delivery services, and local restaurant menus fall squarely within that statutory flexibility while promoting both consumer access and public safety. The Circular’s narrower reading does not.

We understand the Circular’s holding. It states that a distillery agent may sell or serve spirits for on-premises consumption only if (1)  the agent has food available at the location, (2) a food truck is on site and “actively selling and serving food,” or (3) the patron already has his or her own food “at the time of the sale.” The Circular further declares that “[m]erely providing a patron with physical or virtual menus and/or permission to have food delivered to the location” does not satisfy Va. Code § 4.1-119(G).

The Association shares VABC’s commitment to public safety. However, the Circular’s three exclusive methods, however, and especially the requirements that a food truck be “actively selling” and that a patron already possess food “at the time of sale” replaces that flexible statutory standard with three exclusive, transaction-specific conditions that the General Assembly did not enact. Those added constraints create practical barriers the legislature deliberately avoided and conflict with both the text and the negotiated intent of SB424 and convert a standard based on reasonable availability into a mandatory point-of-sale possession rule.

The Circular’s distinction between compliant and non-compliant options does not withstand scrutiny. Ordering from an on-site food truck (deemed compliant) and ordering via QR code or local-restaurant delivery (deemed non-compliant) both require the patron to order and then wait for food. If the former satisfies “reasonably available,” the latter should as well. Nothing in the statute privileges physical proximity of the food source over actual availability to the patron.

The Circular’s requirement that a patron have food in hand at the time alcohol is sold is especially difficult to reconcile with the statutory text. The General Assembly required food to be “reasonably available”; it did not require each patron to possess, purchase, order, or consume food as a condition of alcohol service. When a food truck is present, a patron still orders and waits; the agent cannot know at the moment of the spirits sale whether that patron has already obtained food from the truck. Requiring physical possession of food before any pour goes beyond “reasonably available” and was never part of the statutory intent. Further, the statute expressly recognizes food “provided by” patrons as one means of satisfying the premises-level requirement, but that authorization does not transform every alcohol transaction into an individualized food-possession inquiry. Had the General Assembly intended a point-of-sale possession requirement, it could have stated one directly.

The Association’s position is that SB424 deliberately expands distilleries’ opportunities to serve consumers while establishing a flexible food-availability safeguard. Conspicuous QR codes for functioning food-delivery services, menus from restaurants that deliver to the premises, and notice that patrons may bring their own food can satisfy the statutory requirement when those options make qualifying food reasonably obtainable during service. By limiting compliance to food physically present at the location, a food truck actively selling and serving food, or food already in a patron’s possession at the time of sale, the Circular substitutes a narrower rule for the standard enacted by the General Assembly.

Other jurisdictions’ approaches reinforce that “reasonably available’ focuses on access, not on a rigid checklist of physical presence at the exact moment of sale, and Association respectfully points to these jurisdictions’ requirements for food availability alongside spirits sampling as justification that its position aligns with the goal of ensuring safe and responsible consumption.

Washington, for example, enacted regulations interpreting its statutory requirement that a distillery licensee have food available for sampling participants. WAC 314-02-106. It defines “minimum food service” as menu items “such as sandwiches, salad, soup … and other similar items … available to order.” WAC 314-02-010 (emphasis added). The emphasis is on availability to order, not whether the food is already in the patron’s hands when the sample is poured. Washington also allows a brewery to “contract with one or more entities to satisfy the food service requirements.” WAC 314-02-025(10). That flexibility is analogous to Virginia’s recognition of food trucks and should extend, under the same logic, to arrangements with local restaurants or delivery services. The Association asks VABC to give comparable weight to practical, contracted, or delivery-based availability.

The Circular also conflicts with the statute’s own definition of “food.” Va. Code § 4.1-119(G) defines food as “prepared or assembled food items requiring minimal preparation or handling, including items prepared off site, that are sufficiently substantial to provide nourishment” (emphasis added). The General Assembly expressly contemplated off-site preparation. Food ordered from a local restaurant for delivery is therefore food under the Code – the same food a patron could lawfully bring onto the premises under the Circular’s third prong. Treating the identical item as compliant when carried in by the patron but non-compliant when delivered moments later is an artificial distinction the statute does not support.

Legislative history and drafting choices lend additional weight to the Association’s position. In negotiating SB424, stakeholders and the General Assembly recognized that many distilleries – especially in rural areas – cannot reliably secure food trucks or maintain a full kitchen. The bill therefore preserved multiple, flexible paths to “reasonably available” food, including patrons bringing their own. The purpose was to expand reasonable on-premises service while accommodating real-world contracts, not to impose a de facto requirement that food be physically present, already purchased, and actually consumed before every pour. The Circular’s rigid three-prong test undoes that carefully negotiated flexibility.

The Association recognizes and understands VABC’s legitimate interest in enforceable standards that can be properly audited. As previously discussed, we are prepared to work with the VABC on practical compliance tools: conspicuous signage advising patrons they may bring food or order delivery; model letters of understanding with nearby restaurants; and continued member training on responsible service. These measures given agents clear, auditable evidence of “reasonably available” food without converting the statutory standard into a real-time inventory check at the moment of each sale.

We appreciate that VABC is understandably concerned about overservice. The Association remains committed to rigorous responsible-service training and to ensuring that the expanded six-ounce limit is administered safely. Public safety and expanded privileges can – and should – be advanced together.

SB424 was enacted to broaden consumer access while embedding a flexible food-availability safeguard. The association respectfully requests that VABC revise the Circular so that its guidance tracks the statute’s text, requiring food “reasonably available” through the means the General Assembly expressly listed, rather than adding requirements the legislature did not impose. We welcome the opportunity to discuss practical implementation that protects public safety and honors the legislative intent.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this comment. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Shauna Barnes

Counsel to Virginia Distiller’s Association

September 9, 2026

Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority

7450 Freight Way

Mechanicsville, VA  23116

Re: Comment in Support of Draft Circular Letter 26-01

On behalf of the Beer Institute, the nation’s oldest trade association representing the interests of brewers, beer importers, suppliers, and the more than 69,000 employees who have found a career in the $13.1 billion Virginia beer industry, I write in support of the draft circular and urge the Virginia ABC to adopt it as written. We specifically urge the Authority to retain its holding that merely providing a patron with physical or virtual menus, or permission to have food delivered to the location, does not satisfy the food requirement.

SB 424 increased the daily spirits allowance and conditioned that increase on the availability of food.

SB 424 increased the amount of spirits a distiller licensee may give or sell to any person per day from three ounces to six ounces. The same bill requires those licensees to have food reasonably available at all times when spirits are served, and states that in no event shall spirits be served by such an agent when food is not reasonably available.

Six ounces of spirits is a substantial amount of alcohol.

The draft circular states that the consumption of up to six full ounces of spirits is substantial. We agree, and the comparison to other alcoholic beverages makes the point concrete. Six ounces of spirits equals four standard drinks. The daily allowances for beer and wine each equal one standard drink:

Six ounces may be served to a patron as 12 half-ounce tasting samples or as four mixed beverages, each containing a full 1.5-ounce pour. A distillery patron may now lawfully consume four standard drinks in a single visit. The food requirement is the safeguard that the General Assembly attached to that allowance, and it should not be read narrowly.

The Beer Institute supports the proposed food requirement.

The legislation already provides relief to distilleries by allowing food to be provided by the distillery, a food truck, or the patron. That is far more lenient than what a mixed beverage restaurant must do: provide meals. The proposed circular preserves each of those options and asks licensees for nothing more than the General Assembly already asked.

Virginia ABC should not weaken the proposed circular by allowing a distillery to meet the food availability requirements through physical or virtual menus or by permitting food delivery to the location. Clear, enforceable guidance serves licensees, who deserve to know what the law asks of them, and it also supports the public safety goals the General Assembly sought when it conditioned a larger daily pour on the availability of food.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Brian Crawford

President & CEO

Comments of the Virginia Beer Wholesalers Association and Virginia Wine Wholesalers Association in Support of VABC Circular Letter 26-01

The Virginia Beer Wholesalers Association (“VBWA”) and Virginia Wine Wholesalers Association (“VWWA”) generally support Proposed Circular Letter 26-01. Although the VBWA and VWWA remained neutral on the passage of Senate Bill 424, it is undeniable that the legislation provides for a doubling of the volume of spirits that the Board’s distillery agents may sell or serve to any single consumer during a given day. Consequently, VBWA and VWWA believe that they, and all members of the beverage alcohol industry, should support measures designed to mitigate the risks of overconsumption.

It has long been understood that the potentially harmful effects of alcohol are mitigated by eating substantial food before or at the time the alcohol is being consumed. This is the basic premise that underlies the Commonwealth’s policy of tying the privilege of selling alcohol to the requirement of selling food. Moreover, that same policy requires that wherever more potent spirits are sold and consumed more substantial food be made available – which is why mixed beverage restaurants must sell “meals” and “entrees” and not just “food” or snacks.  See, e.g., Va. Code §§ 4.1-100, 4.1-206.3; 3VAC5-50-110. Accordingly, VBWA and VWWA applaud the legislation’s initiative to require that distilleries provide prepared food, or ensure ready access to prepared food, wherever spirits are to be sold and consumed – including at the distillery agent’s licensed premises.  

VBWA and VWWA remain concerned, however, that the proposed guidance letter still leaves too much unanswered as to who bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring substantial food is made available whenever spirits are served. A mixed beverage restaurant licensee has complete control over its menu and its kitchen’s hours of operation. A distillery agent should have the same control over a third-party “food truck” supporting on-premises spirits consumption, whether at an remote event or at the distillery agent’s premises. The guidance should make it clear that the distillery agent is responsible for the availability and adequacy of the food prepared and served by such third-party providers, which may require some form of contractual assurance be provided to ABC beforehand. If the distillery agent prefers to prepare and sell the food itself, then a menu of food items should be provided to ABC for prior approval, much as any restaurant must do when applying for a license.

The responsible sale of alcoholic beverages is a core principle of both VBWA and VWWA.  They, and their members, remain vigilant against the negative societal effects of overconsumption. As to this point, the regulatory interests of ABC and the business interests of all members of the alcoholic beverage industry are indistinguishable and should remain so. 

On behalf of VBWA & VWWA, thank you.

Kevin McNally, Counsel