History of the Crappy American Lager

[olllllo]

I live in Chicago and all but the largest national grocery stores carry locally-made sausages. The sausage I can get in a local store is truly of phenomenal quality. And the sausage I get at a butcher's shop is even better and more flavorful. Then, there's this little restaurant I go to where they make their own sausage, and that's the best sausage you may ever taste in your life.

A big city, lots of ethnic diversity, the "hog-butcher to the world" and whatnot. All that adds up to delicious pre-processed meat-in-a-tube products. Nevertheless, some people that I know still make their own sausage. Maybe they use lots of chive and onion. Maybe they make a garlic sausage that will bring tears to your eyes. Maybe a german guy married a girl from southern mexico and now they make sweet sausage with dates and raisins. Whatever. But I'll tell you: I have never heard of anyone going through the trouble to make their own sausage trying to replicate Oscar Meyer Weiners (OMW) as an "alternative" to good sausage.


I am sure that, in some areas of the country, OMW is the standard sausage that everyone knows and loves. I'm sure plenty of those people would be thoroughly grossed out at the thought of Chicago sausage which contains actual small chunks of meat, rather than a uniformly-consistent paste. But we're really talking about two different things and I'm not even sure it's fair to compare them...

One is a preprocessed food item, designed to maximize certain criteria for the lowest possible price. The other is a food/drink made the way that the particular food/drink has been made for thousands of years.


Is it really fair to even put BMC in the same league as beers that are made using old-fashioned methods? Is it fair to compare a baker's loaf to wonderbread? One is made using time-tested traditions and ingredients that are as old as man himself. The other is made for the lowest possible price.

Just had a Stanley's Polish Sausage yesterday, here in PHX. Made on the premises. Not too many of those ethnic type places here so we learn to appreciate them. I get you point. My point is that this hobby exists and thrives to do the contrarian thing alot of the time. I mean is anyone really drooling for a Papazian Chicken beer?

Beer, like other things has moments where the low brow becomes the high brow (or brau, if you will). Anyone remember a restaurant (or bistro) in NYC that was selling Swanson's frozen dinners at an extreme markup? There's a PBJ restaurant in Scottsdale and a Breakfast Cereal Restaurant in Tempe.

Sorry jakkin this thread.

I appreciate the history of some of the big breweries. Back in the day they created breweries that were palaces and were tightly woven into everyday life, the economy, trades, society. You can appreciate at least that much.

 

[sonvolt]

I'm sorry sonvolt, but BMC is good, cheap, easy drinking, low-alcohol malt liquor. It is NOT, however, good beer.

Do you people not read the threads that are posted. I never wrote that BMC is good beer. I did write that we need to respect the style that is American Light Lager and use it in our discourse in a way that is representative of its place in America's brewing tradition.

 

[sonvolt]

I submit to you the following hypothesis: Anyone who thinks BMC tastes good has no significantly living taste buds. Sure, people like it, but invariably, you will find that people who do drink it exclusively will NOT like other styles of beer- they will not like porters or stouts or IPA's or whatever. In other words, they do not like beer, they only like BMC and that is something different- low alcohol malt liquor.

Well, I guess that I will blow your hypothesis right out of the water, then. I think that High Life tasted good. I also think that my I2PA is good. I also like porters and stouts.

BTW, I know a lot of people whose tasted are similar to mine in this regard.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Just had a Stanley's Polish Sausage yesterday, here in PHX. Made on the premises. Not too many of those ethnic type places here so we learn to appreciate them. I get you point. My point is that this hobby exists and thrives to do the contrarian thing alot of the time. I mean is anyone really drooling for a Papazian Chicken beer?

True. I'm very much a contrarian and it seems like every other homebrewer I meet at least has some Libertarian leanings- not that those two things always go hand-in-hand, but often they do.

Beer, like other things has moments where the low brow becomes the high brow (or brau, if you will). Anyone remember a restaurant (or bistro) in NYC that was selling Swanson's frozen dinners at an extreme markup? There's a PBJ restaurant in Scottsdale and a Breakfast Cereal Restaurant in Tempe.

Sorry jakkin this thread.

LOL. Hell, there are times when it's fun to just sit out on your front porch with a 40 of Colt 45. And what would bowling be without a PBR?

I appreciate the history of some of the big breweries. Back in the day they created breweries that were palaces and were tightly woven into everyday life, the economy, trades, society. You can appreciate at least that much.

ABSOLUTELY AGREED!!! It is a fascinating story. My mother has about 3 drinks a year, my father has 1 or 2 every night. But mom remembers back when her grandparents owned a shop and down the block was a tavern where they would sell children a bucket of beer to take home to their parents and nobody thought much about it.

Last year, 10 years out of high school, a friend and I invited our old high school english teacher out to dinner at a local beerpub. He was facing the bar and, at one point, he got a huge smile on his face and we turned to see what he was looking at. When we turned back around, he said, "That's how you can tell when you're in a nice friendly place... there's a kid up there at the bar."

That's not the kind of stuff you see anymore. Alcohol has become such a "naughty" thing that children are typically kept at a very large distance. But some of my fondest memories growing up occured after dad had a beer or two. He didn't get tipsy or anything, but he was a little more relaxed and always seemed more approachable at those times. Alcohol has admirably served many varied functions in societies for thousands of years and it is a shame that we as a society are now trying to pigeon-hole the activity into a secret, strictly controlled, behind closed doors activity. Just another form of repression in America, IMNSHO.

 

[sonvolt]

I don't know why you have to ruin a perfectly good discussion with petty name calling. Being a bigot would require intolerence. Intolerence would require that I be inflamatory or inciteful.

Bigot \Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once
given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly
akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of
spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall.
Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same
source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Click Here for Source























If this seems too mean . . .

 

[zoebisch01]

I think a key observation is the fact that much of America (sadly) is dictated via. media and mass marketing, and to a degree tradition. My dad drank bud, uncle billy drinks bud, grandpa drinks bud, we at nascar drink bud, we at the ball game drink bud, we at the football stadium drink....y'all get my point I am sure. I have learned that developing a palate is not something everyone is concerned about. Beer is to get you drunk and food is to make you full. As long as it passes on the common palate as 'unoffensive' it is acceptable. These are stong traditions which are not so easily broken, and most likely we who love great beer will be a minority in this nation. Many people are afraid of 'different' foods and drinks. They want something safe, something familiar. I always love the looks I get at the grocery store. hehe.

The podcast was interesting, I listened to it when it first came out and have yet to complete the second half. I did know about the cider traditions, in fact most of the apple trees grown after the colonists set their roots down were cider apples. Many varieties have been lost because of the rise in popularity of cheap beer, so I have read.

For the masses, they can continue gnawing on tasteless food and cheap beverage. But for me, I choose a different route. Pass me another Oatmeal Stout will ya!

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

I couldn't agree with you more. My fiancé drinks Bud Light only, and doesn't like any other beers. Everytime I try to get her to taste something, she has exactly the reaction you described, namely, making a face and saying "blech!" She's also pretty picky and set in her ways with food. I'm trying to slowly, oh so slowly, get her to broaden her horizons, with both food and beer. It's a challenger, for sure. I think I'm going to make a really light ale as a gateway brew.

A better approach might be to let her design a beer. Sure, she doesn't know much about it right now, but you can teach her. I would start by making some hops teas with different varieties and let her sample those. And steep some malts. Let her come to recognize the different flavors that make up a beer and then select the features that she likes, then combine them into a cohesive recipe. Call it "my girlfriend's first" or somesuch and then brew it up yourself.

It's a lot more difficult to not like something when you've had a hand in creating it- at least it forces you to keep an open mind when sampling it.

Another fun thing I've done with BMC folks (and personally, though I try not to laugh, deep down I find this to be hilarious) is to pour them a sample of BMC alongside a sample of high quality sake. Usually, when they compare them side to side, if they have any taste buds at all, they will immediately recognize the ricey-ness in BMC.

Because sake is rarely appreciated by beer-swilling Americans, once they realize that their beer tastes more like sake than beer, a little lightbulb goes off in their head and they think to themselves, "Well, I guess BMC isn't really all that much like beer afterall..."

 

[Todd]

Before this gets locked, why is bmc not beer? it has malt, hops and yeast right? I must have missed something.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Before this gets locked, why is bmc not beer? it has malt, hops and yeast right? I must have missed something.

But if I took 4 ounces of malt, 2 pellets of hops, and three spores of yeast and combined it with 30 pounds of cotton candy and a full side of beef, and roasted it in the oven at 350 degrees for 3 hours, the result would not be beer. Beer is defined, not just by what is in it, but also by what is NOT in it. To whit: Rice extract, and god-knows-what-else because BMC is not required to list their ingredients. Of course, you could argue that if it's liquid that has alcohol, tastes like beer, and looks like beer, then it IS beer, however there is such a genre of drinks called "malt liquor" and that distinction is there for a reason. Although it has a bad reputation here in the United States (since it's equated with Olde English and Colt 45), it is nevertheless a very broad category which encompasses any number of brewed alcoholic beverages including Colt 45, Zima, and those Smirnoff Ice things. I submit to you, that absent any knowledge of the ingredients, BMC is closer to Colt 45 (which as far as I know is only considered a malt beverage due to its alcohol content) than to traditionally-brewed beers.

An interesting article I read sometime ago said that some beers use artificial chemicals to improve, among other things, head retention. The way to test for this is to add a single drop of milk to the bottom of the glass before pouring a "beer". Apparently, this will absolutely kill the foam if non-natural chemical additions were added for head retention. I can't recall which one it is, but based on this test, one of the big three do not use this addition, while the other two clearly do.

I've not tested this, however so it's still heresay. I'm just repeating what I read. Nevertheless, knowing that rice is used and knowing that other things are used which are apparently sufficiently distasteful to cause large breweries to fight against listing their ingredients is proof enough for me that they use some things which you would prefer not to drink if you knew it was in there...

 

[Todd]

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?

But if I took 4 ounces of malt, 2 pellets of hops, and three spores of yeast and combined it with 30 pounds of cotton candy and a full side of beef, and roasted it in the oven at 350 degrees for 3 hours, the result would not be beer. Beer is defined, not just by what is in it, but also by what is NOT in it. To whit: Rice extract, and god-knows-what-else because BMC is not required to list their ingredients.

An interesting article I read sometime ago said that some beers use artificial chemicals to improve, among other things, head retention. The way to test for this is to add a single drop of milk to the bottom of the glass before pouring a "beer". Apparently, this will absolutely kill the foam if non-natural chemical additions were added for head retention. I can't recall which one it is, but based on this test, one of the big three do not use this addition, while the other two clearly do.

I've not tested this, however so it's still heresay. I'm just repeating what I read. Nevertheless, knowing that rice is used and knowing that other things are used which are apparently sufficiently distasteful to cause large breweries to fight against listing their ingredients is proof enough for me that they use some things which you would prefer not to drink if you knew it was in there...

 

[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?