History of the Crappy American Lager

[Sir Humpsalot]

So what percentage are you looking to have to make it beer? It seems a lot of this is just ranting. I don't understand how anyone likes the stuff, but people clearly do. It is beer, is a porter or stout with several pounds of honey no longer beer?

Good question. I would say that it is clearly a malt liquor. It is also a stout or, at the very least, a malt liquor in the style of a stout.

Sure, this is most certainly just a lot of ranting. But there ought to be a certain precision to the language. Calling something one thing when it is really another, simply because the alternative name is more desirable is, at the very least, dishonest. It's a marketing gimmick.

In my view, it is one thing to like BMC. There's nothing at all wrong with that. You can like Velveeta too, if you'd like. But Velveeta doesn't call itself cheese because Kraft knows that Velveeta is NOT cheese. However the large brewers are being more successful at pulling the wool over consumers' eyes than Kraft. They are successfully lobbying and crafting laws in such a way that they can slowly convince consumers that their product is beer.

Do we care if Velveeta calls itself cheese? I guess I can understand why the average joe on the street wouldn't care one way or the other. However, by allowing a category to go undefined or be open to interpretation, we as a society lose something. We lose the ability to distinguish between different items. When we permit businesses to tell us that Velveeta is cheese, or BMC is beer, or orange juice from concentrate is just "100% orange juice", we as a consumer lose because we no longer have the ability to discern quality. It becomes a race to the bottom- a race to find the lowest common denominator.

So... who cares?


Anybody who cares about cheese should care whether Velveeta is cheese. Because if it is, then what is to stop someone from knocking off Brie, or Cheddar, or Mozarella and calling it "cheese" when in fact it has a million chemicals and just a slight hint of real cheese. In other words, it encourages fakes.

Of course, fakes aren't allowed when it comes to brand names. I can't make a diamond-studded wristwatch and call it a Rolex. I can't make a sportscar and call it a Ferrari. Why should I be able to mix milk and spices and coagulants and call it Brie? Why should I be able to throw anything together in a kettle and call it Beer? We already have a name for things like that. The name is "malt liquor".

If you don't know the term "malt liquor", then your ignorance can be excused- not everybody pays attention to these types of things. People also call Velveeta "cheese". But if you do pay attention and you deliberately use the wrong term, then you are, at best, being intellectually lazy. At worst, you are being dishonest.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Of course, things change over time. If you want to argue that BMC is Beer, "by the modern definition" then I could concede that that is a middle ground. I don't agree with it, but I will say that that is certainly a middleground of sorts. In that case, then what I am really talking about are "classic" beers or beers in the classic style (i.e., the ReinHeitsgebot or whatever).

In my opinion, calling BMC an American Lager is perfectly accurate. It is fermented, it is a malt liquor, and it is lagered (or so I am told).

If you want to call it a "modern beer", well at least that clarification expands knowledge rather than detracts from it. And I support that.


I believe that as our society becomes more complex and more substitutes, fakes, and alternatives come to market, it is important to EXPAND our lexicon to encompass these other products, rather than dumbing down and expanding the descriptions that already exist.

We know what cheese is. The definition of cheese has been around for thousands of years. Until 30 years ago, we all agreed on what cheese is and how it is made. So now, you want to make something completely different that tastes like cheese? Well then come up with a new name for it. "Cheese" is already taken.

Similarly, "Beer" is already taken.



California wineries don't make Champagne. Nor should they...

 

[Todd]

Good question. I would say that it is clearly a malt liquor. It is also a stout or, at the very least, a malt liquor in the style of a stout.

Sure, this is most certainly just a lot of ranting. But there ought to be a certain precision to the language. Calling something one thing when it is really another, simply because the alternative name is more desirable is, at the very least, dishonest. It's a marketing gimmick.

In my view, it is one thing to like BMC. There's nothing at all wrong with that. You can like Velveeta too, if you'd like. But Velveeta doesn't call itself cheese because Kraft knows that Velveeta is NOT cheese. However the large brewers are being more successful at pulling the wool over consumers' eyes than Kraft. They are successfully lobbying and crafting laws in such a way that they can slowly convince consumers that their product is beer.

Do we care if Velveeta calls itself cheese? I guess I can understand why the average joe on the street wouldn't care one way or the other. However, by allowing a category to go undefined or be open to interpretation, we as a society lose something. We lose the ability to distinguish between different items. When we permit businesses to tell us that Velveeta is cheese, or BMC is beer, or orange juice from concentrate is just "100% orange juice", we as a consumer lose because we no longer have the ability to discern quality. It becomes a race to the bottom- a race to find the lowest common denominator.

So... who cares?


Anybody who cares about cheese should care whether Velveeta is cheese. Because if it is, then what is to stop someone from knocking off Brie, or Cheddar, or Mozarella and calling it "cheese" when in fact it has a million chemicals and just a slight hint of real cheese. In other words, it encourages fakes.

Of course, fakes aren't allowed when it comes to brand names. I can't make a diamond-studded wristwatch and call it a Rolex. I can't make a sportscar and call it a Ferrari. Why should I be able to mix milk and spices and coagulants and call it Brie? Why should I be able to throw anything together in a kettle and call it Beer? We already have a name for things like that. The name is "malt liquor".

If you don't know the term "malt liquor", then your ignorance can be excused- not everybody pays attention to these types of things. People also call Velveeta "cheese". But if you do pay attention and you deliberately use the wrong term, then you are being dishonest.

I fall into group that calls velveeta cheese and I wasn't sure what malt liquour was, I assumed it didn't have hops.

I guess I'm still not sold on why it matters all that much. If BMC started calling it malt liquor people would still drink it. I don't believe people drink beer to drink "beer" they like it so they keep drinking it.

Ok, now that I understand the differences, you can go back to arguing about it.

 

[olllllo]

All of the beverages that weve discussed (save the wine cooler) are defined by the AHA style guide and are recognized by the GABF. Malt liquor included.

Category: 22 American-Style Specialty Lager - 19 Entries
Gold: Mickey’s Malt Liquor, Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, WI
Silver: Icehouse, Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, WI
Bronze: HG 800, Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, WI

 

[Orfy]

All beers are alcoholic beverages but not all alcoholic beverages are beer.

Life is too short to waste it drinking crap tasteless fizz when there is so much good "Real Ale" available.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

I fall into group that calls velveeta cheese and I wasn't sure what malt liquour was, I assumed it didn't have hops.

I guess I'm still not sold on why it matters all that much. If BMC started calling it malt liquor people would still drink it. I don't believe people drink beer to drink "beer" they like it so they keep drinking it.

Ok, now that I understand the differences, you can go back to arguing about it.

It doesn't matter to all people at all times. The thing is, sometimes, for a small segment of the population, it matters a great deal.

We all know what juice is. But what the heck is "cider"? I can look up the definition and explanation as well as you, but here's the thing. What if some trade group convinced everyone that "cider" contains pressed apples and, perhaps, preservatives. Now, what if they weren't required to list ingredients (just as beer manufacturers)? Who cares, right?


Well, I recently bought 5 gallons to make hard cider. I pitched yeast in there. I sure would be pissed if my cider contained preservatives that weren't listed on the label which caused my yeast to die!


What if Velveeta were simply called cheese? All of a sudden, the list of ingredients on the side of the package would say: "Ingredients: 100% cheese". Because Velveeta would be cheese. By definition.


BMC can urinate in their brewkettles and call it beer. You ask what the bottle of "beer" contains and the answer is: "It contains beer". "Well," you ask, "What is your definition of beer?" and they reply, "Our definition of beer is what is in our bottles!" So you ask, "Well what if I have a weird allergy to one of your ingredients?" and they say, "well, then don't drink our product because we're not telling you what's in it!"

By contrast, if you have a list of ingredients permissible in beer, then any person can acquire a beer anywhere in the world and have some assurance that they know what is inside the bottle.

To screw with the definitions adds confusion in the marketplace and takes away marketshare from the companies that have fought "within the rules" of what is in a beer.

Let's say I'm a gourmet cheese maker. My family has been making cheese for generations. I make awesome cheese. And then along comes Kraft with a product that contains no cheese whatsoever, and they start selling it as cheese and marketing it as cheese. What happens to me? Well, I regroup, I pool some resources, and I start selling my product as "artisan cheese" or as "organic cheese" or somesuch. But is that fair to me and my company? That we've spent a hundred years following everyone's definition of cheese and now we have to change the name of our product when a large company swoops in and usurps the definition?

Sure, 20 years later, we'll either be out of the marketplace entirely or have been reborn as an "artisan cheese maker", but why should WE be the ones to have to change the name of OUR product? We were there first. We made cheese based upon the standard definition. We have hundreds of years invested in the term "cheese", bringing customers what they expect, made the way they expect. We've built up the "brand" known as "cheese". And then it gets cheapened by a newcomer whose product really isn't cheese at all, but becomes known as cheese. And then WE have to change the name of what we sell because they want to cash in on OUR tradition of making cheese?

Let them create their own tradition. Let them create their own name. Margarine is not called butter.

Now, I have no objection to new products entering the marketplace, but as a cheese-maker, I would strongly object to allowing them call their product "cheese". They should call it a "processed cheese product" or a "cheese-like spread".


BMC is not beer. In fact, since they don't tell us what ingredients they use, we can't even say for certain what it is. Hopefully, it's not anything that is carcinogenic. I'd hate for everyone drinking beer today to get cancer 30 years from now.

The only other industry I know of that is allowed to combine additives with a consumable substance without listing the additions on a label is the tobacco industry.

But don't worry, tobacco companies would never put additional carcinogens into their product, would they? Nah.... we can trust them. Just like we trust beer companies.

Right?

 

[Todd]

Whoa man, have a beer.. lol.

I see your point, I guess my view would be people buy bmc or velveeta because they like it, not because it is cheese. If you had excellent craft cheese you should not be concerned about a new product called cheese unless people prefer it over yours. Even then the fact it is called cheese won't really have any influence over them picking it over yours.

I do think it is important to list ingredients and I think beer companies should as well.

You are clearly passionate about this, it still comes down to people drinking BMC because they like it, not because it is called beer. If they call it malt whatever how is it going to change anything?

 

[dantodd]

This is actually quite interesting I had no idea that Toot has a franchise on the definition of beer.

FYI:

Webster defines beer as "an alcoholic beverage usually made from malted cereal grain (as barley), flavored with hops, and brewed by slow fermentation"

The Code of Federal Regulations defines it even more broadly as "Beer, ale, porter, stout, and other similar fermented beverages (including sake or similar products) of any name or description containing one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume, brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part, or from any substitute for malt." (http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title27/part25.html#25.11)

Naturally one could look back at the RHG but that has been superseded to a rule which, while still not allowing corn and rice does allow processed sugar and wheat malt.



Now, I'm sure that with an esteemed CV as your pseudonym would suggest you have, you must have solid basis for your opinion but I would humbly suggest you post some source for your assertion or risk sounding like a flaming ranter.

 

[sause]

My problem with BMC is that it's not beer. Go ahead. Look at the labels.

SHOW ME ON THE BOTTLE WHERE THEY CLAIM THEIR PRODUCT IS ACTUALLY BEER!!!!

Don't point me to the script that says, "King of Beers". I don't have to be a fairy to be the Fairy King. Similarly, you wouldn't have to be Beer in order to be the King of Beers (at least in theory). So go ahead. Check out the labels. Show me where any of those products claim to be beer. Sure, the Busch logo says "Busch Beer", but that's not a claim to be beer either, it's the name of the company that makes the stuff.

That is my real objection to BMC. Everybody has it in their mind that when they are drinking a BMC, they are having a Beer, but it's really just a malt liquor. And a low-alcohol, light, malt liquor at that. If you're gonna drink Malt Liquor, you might as well just buck up and get a 40 of the Colt 45. I mean, honestly...

Hmm.. On Miller Long necks, it says "The Champagn of Beers" it allows says "beer" right next to the upc. Miller Lite say "True Pilsner Beer" it also says "12fl oz. beer". I would say that they do say beer on them.

 

[olllllo]

To the definitionalists:

Do you then agree with the EC about Parmesan Cheese only from Parma?
Champagne from Champagne France?

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

This is actually quite interesting I had no idea that Toot has a franchise on the definition of beer.

I have no such thing. Merely an opinion which, I confess, has been cultivated by exposure to a great number of tasty beverages. (I took todd's advice and just cracked open a Warsteiner Dunkel, with a Woodchuck Perry, or perhaps a Fat Tire, for later).

FYI:

Webster defines beer as "an alcoholic beverage usually made from malted cereal grain (as barley), flavored with hops, and brewed by slow fermentation"

So.. you're saying that Webster AGREES with me. All right! Score one for the Tootster!!!!

The Code of Federal Regulations defines it even more broadly as "Beer, ale, porter, stout, and other similar fermented beverages (including sake or similar products) of any name or description containing one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume, brewed or produced from malt, wholly or in part, or from any substitute for malt." (http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title27/part25.html#25.11)

Sure, we could look at how the CFR's define "Beer", but I think it's important to know which regulating authority is defining it in the above manner. Understand, Congress does not create Regulations. Regulations are created by agencies of the Federal Government who are given the authorization to pass regulations. So, for one reason or another, maybe the FTC has one reason to define "beer" for their purposes, while the ATF, FAA, and SEC define it differently... for different purposes. So I'll have to dig through that reg and figure out why it was defined that way, and by who, before agreeing or disagreeing that the CFR lends any significant authority to the subject.

Naturally one could look back at the RHG but that has been superseded to a rule which, while still not allowing corn and rice does allow processed sugar and wheat malt.

Indeed! Times do change! Personally, I think that the new rule is a rather sound one. Of course, others are free to think otherwise.

Now, I'm sure that with an esteemed CV as your pseudonym would suggest you have, you must have solid basis for your opinion but I would humbly suggest you post some source for your assertion or risk sounding like a flaming ranter.

What does my pseudonym suggest? I just happen to fart a lot.


Anyway, you've already cited two sources that agree with me: RHG and Websters. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Alright, alright. I just clicked on your link above.

The definition of "Beer" you provided was from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). I would not consider them to be terribly concerned with purity of product or of recipes, but rather with the "enforcement" aspect. I don't really think they're focused on whether or not something is or is not beer. In other words, their definition is more one of convenience to encompass all fermented beverages in order to prevent loopholes.

I'd be far more interested in how the FDA defines "beer".

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

To the definitionalists:

Do you then agree with the EC about Parmesan Cheese only from Parma?
Champagne from Champagne France?

I agree with it. Although it hurts the economy in the short term by limiting companies' ability to compete in the marketplace, my longterm view is that it actually stimulates competition. When you stop trying to make a replica of someone else's product, and when you can't call it by the same name that they do, you are then free to experiment and develop something better rather than just creating a knock-off.

So I think that type of "brand" protectionism is actually good for people since it protects the quality of a well-valued substance (to a degree), and also challenges others to improve upon it, rather than rip it off.

In a sense, it permits a capitalist market to have a built-in intellectual property type of protection for an entire region which may depend on a particular style of indigenous product for its livelihood.

I'd hate to see Champaign coming out of california just as much as I'd hate to see Tennessee Whiskey coming out of france. As the world becomes a global marketplace and science enables us to copy the goods of other nations and cultures, it's nice to think that there will be something protecting those traditions. 100 years from now, when WalMart and McDonald's have taken over the world, these little niche industries particular to a region, will be what prevents one region of one country region from being exactly like every other region of every other country.

 

[Orfy]

They tried to stop Welsh dragon pate being sold.
No dragons in it.

 

[dibby33]

They tried to stop Welsh dragon pate being sold.
No dragons in it.

fupid stuckers that they are. I hate that sort of crraap, really riles me! The European Commision are just as bad, they were wanting to ban all sorts of things - just because the name did not tell you what it directly was. People are getting stupider becasuse they do not have to think as much. anyho, rant over, can you tell i have had a baaaaaaaaad morning?

 

[Engelramm]

I found the interview fascinating.

Yay beer!

 

[dantodd]

So.. you're saying that Webster AGREES with me. All right! Score one for the Tootster!!!!

I think perhaps you should read it again. It does not agree with you and clearly includes Light American Lager.

Indeed! Times do change! Personally, I think that the new rule is a rather sound one. Of course, others are free to think otherwise.

So, you think that rice or corn precludes a malt liquor from being called a beer but refined sugar is perfectly OK?