Q&A: Navigating Compliance in the Non-Alc and Functional Beverage Space with Rend Al-Mondhiry

Rend Al-Mondhiry is Partner and Co-Chair of the Regulatory Practice Group at Amin Wasserman Gurnani LLP. She advises dietary supplement, food, cosmetic and over-the-counter medicine companies on FDA, FTC and NAD compliance. We spoke with her about the regulatory landscape for beverage brands, particularly in functional, wellness and hemp-adjacent categories.

What do you do for beverage brands?

We help scaling brands stay ahead of retail scrutiny by building airtight compliance habits before they hit the shelf. We also step in when issues are reactive, whether it’s dealing with retailer pressure or legal threats, providing specialized, cost-effective strategies to protect the business and keep things moving.

What are the most common questions you get from beverage brands?

Most questions are around labeling. We handle the technical aspects of FDA labeling, from nutrition facts and ingredient lists to high-risk marketing claims like “healthy” or “protein-packed.” Beyond what’s technically allowed, we guide brands on ingredient safety and class-action risks, ensuring messaging is both compliant and defensible.

What are the biggest compliance challenges for non-alcoholic brands?

A major hurdle is assuming that ingredients approved in supplements are automatically allowed in beverages. The FDA applies different rules to food and beverages; you can’t use a “supplement” label to bypass regulations. Marketing buzzwords like “healthy” or “clean label” are also risky, similar to how “natural” claims have caused litigation in the past.

How should brands approach transparency in ingredient labeling?

Brands need to define their terms carefully. The FDA focuses on safety, but consumers want to know if a product is highly processed or aligned with wellness standards. Class action exposure often hinges on what a “reasonable consumer” might interpret from messaging. If a term could mean multiple things and you can’t substantiate all interpretations, that’s a legal risk. Be transparent but narrow: define what “clean” or “natural” means for your product.

Could US beverage brands face issues like the EU’s restrictions on “non-alcoholic gin” or “non-alcoholic tequila”?

This falls under the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), not the FDA. The FDA doesn’t typically regulate alcohol-adjacent terms in non-alcoholic products. In the U.S., it’s more likely a TTB issue than an FDA one.

What mistakes do new beverage brands make in the functional or wellness space?

The biggest blind spot is not understanding the difference between supplements and food. Beverages are regulated as food, which means ingredients must meet food standards. Supplements allow more flexibility. Brands that overlook this often have to reformulate or relabel later due to FDA concerns, retailer pressure, investor diligence, or class action exposure.

Unlike the TTB with alcohol, the FDA doesn’t pre-approve labels. Can you explain?

That’s correct. FDA-regulated beverages go to market without pre-approval. Brands develop the formula and label, ideally review them with a consultant or lawyer, then launch. Enforcement is post-market, so issues may arise after the product is already available.

Are compliance issues increasing in alcohol-free and hemp-infused beverages?

For non-hemp beverages, FDA involvement is usually around safety, like undeclared allergens. The hemp space is different: FDA has issued many warning letters over products with Delta-8 THC or marketing appealing to children. CBD and THC are currently not permitted in beverages, so the risk is significant even if enforcement isn’t constant.

How do ingredients like kava and kratom fit in?

These are within FDA’s jurisdiction, but much enforcement happens at the state level. Kratom, in particular, has seen state-level regulation and class-action litigation. Kava is also emerging as a compliance concern in certain jurisdictions.

What’s your assessment of the hemp beverage situation?

Recent proposed limits of 0.4 mg of total THC per container would effectively ban most THC hemp beverages. Brands may need to operate within state adult-use cannabis frameworks, dramatically affecting interstate commerce and DTC models. Brands should prepare for multiple outcomes and consider a “Plan B” in case federal restrictions take effect.

How do federal and state laws create tension in this space?

States may allow certain hemp or cannabis products while federal law still restricts them, creating a patchwork system. Not every state treats hemp and cannabis the same way, so state-by-state analysis is crucial for compliance and strategy.

What keeps beverage brands up at night? FDA enforcement or something else?

Class action risk is the primary concern. Even with full FDA compliance, plaintiffs can claim labels are misleading or deceptive. Compliance extends beyond ingredients and claims to packaging, recyclability, and state deposit obligations. Brands need systems that withstand scrutiny as they scale.

How do FDA labeling requirements differ from alcohol labeling?

FDA-regulated beverages must meet food-labeling rules, including a nutrition facts panel, ingredient list, and use of approved or GRAS ingredients. Alcohol products regulated by TTB are aimed only at adults, so their regulatory framework differs in transparency and safety requirements.

What do the smartest brands do differently?

They are proactive, take compliance seriously early, and understand both rules and risk. They distinguish between smart risks and expensive risks. In consumer messaging, less is more: Simple, clear claims reduce exposure to class action and heightened consumer scrutiny.