Reinheitsgebot double standard

[hunter_le five]

Is this thread a joke?

 

[Dirty25]

All these German beers claim to follow the reisgnwhatever but use hop extract. I don't belive they had that **** in the 1400's

 

[FarmerTed]

You're not even allowed to dry-hop if you follow the beer purity law. Eff that.

 

[beersk]

You're not even allowed to dry-hop if you follow the beer purity law. Eff that.

Anthony Michael Hall says, "So what!"

 

[grafvonbarnez]

I heard somewhere that the Rheinheitsgebot was enacted as a form of "drug law" that prevented people from brewing with alternate bittering agents like yarrow and marsh rosemary that induced psychedelic effects in the consumer. Draw a parallel with the snake oil salesmen pawning off opiates as a cure all for what ails ya in the 1800s. Check out grut if you have a chance.

Another aspect of banning gruit in favor of hops would have been actual purity reasons. The law was enacted before Germ Theory was developed. We didn't even know what yeast was, and certainly didn't have rigorous sanitation. The fact that hops have anti-bacterial properties would have made hopped beers less likely to spoil or become infected than those bittered with gruit.

 

[Texastrooper]

The Reinheitsgebot does not specify the procedure from what I know but only the ingredients. Originally the other big part of the law was the taxation. It described how beer is taxed. But this has part has changed so much over the last centuries that it was finally removed. Nowadays it is just a law for ingredients and beer brewed and sold on Germany still has to follow that law. Is it outdated? Maybe.
On the other hand here in the USA the FDA still exempts breweries from listing their ingredients on beer. And there are no allergy warnings either.
You basically don't know what it is made of. Could be rice, barley, high fructose corn syrup.

I just like to know what my food is made of. And yes I look at the ingredient labels when I go shopping.
I don't have a problem if breweries are adding other natural ingredients like fruits, spices, .... But it should be listed as ingredients. Unfortunately right now only with beers brewed by the RHG you know what is in it.

 

[Texastrooper]

I heard somewhere that the Rheinheitsgebot was enacted as a form of "drug law" that prevented people from brewing with alternate bittering agents like yarrow and marsh rosemary that induced psychedelic effects in the consumer. Draw a parallel with the snake oil salesmen pawning off opiates as a cure all for what ails ya in the 1800s. Check out grut if you have a chance.

Yes. Local little brewers used all kind of weird stuff. From intoxicative ingredients such as wormwood, myrtle, agaric mushrooms or just plain disgusting things like Ox-gall (bittering) or soot and blood for color.
People got sick and died. This is why they put a lid on it and limited the ingredients.
Most of that stuff would be forbidden anyhow nowadays by all kind of laws in the food industry but we may face other risks nowadays which continue to be controversial. From high fructose corn syrup to gen modified plants.

 

[processhead]

Back in the Dark Ages, the RHG was the solution to brewers using inferior ingredients during the brewing of beer.

Prior to the RHG, unscrupulous or ignorant German brewers were adding all kinds of crap to their beers, and it wasn't chocolate, sugar, or herbs.

However today, the law has certainly outlived its original intent and purpose IMHO.

 

[Texastrooper]

And I forgot one more thing: The RHG also originally limited the types of grain. The original law only allowed barley to secure grains for other foods such as bread and avoid price competition with bakers on grains like wheat and rye.
That was later changed as well.

 

[m_stodd]

Question/Discussion...

I just kegged a Black Pomegranate Tea beer on Tuesday and last weekend I brewed a California Kolsch. My wife being the constant antagonist in my life brought up the fact that most of the beers I brew don't follow the reinheitsgebot but I talk bad about breweries that don't and usually won't drink their beer. I told her that as a home brewer I am not selling my beer and like to see what other ingredients have to offer. She said the breweries want the same. (See what I'm up against?) So, my question/discussion topic has to do with commercial breweries following only the reinheitsgebot while home brewers "do their thing" is it a double standard for me?

Sorry, your wife makes more sense than you do.

You bash breweries that don't follow reinheitsgebot? Why? That law has absolutely no relevance anymore. Others have gone into the problems it was meant to solve, but those aren't problems anymore. I'd argue that breweries that go follow the law are artificially limiting themselves from advancing their craft. The only reason I can think of that they'd do that is out of laziness or fear, and I'd rather not drink THEIR beer.

And you're asking if two different people, doing the same thing, each with their own set of standards is a double standard?

 

[LAHammer]

alternate bittering agents like yarrow and marsh rosemary that induced psychedelic effects in the consumer.

Where can you get yarrow and marsh rosemary?
The mushrooms are clashing with the malt. This sound like a much better approach.:fro:

 

[ICWiener]

Nowadays it is just a law for ingredients and beer brewed and sold on Germany still has to follow that law.

That is incorrect. If it were still the case, 3 out of 5 German beers on the shelf wouldn't be hefeweizens and kristallweizens becuase wheat was prohibited. Breweries nowdays put it on their labels primarily as a marketing tool.

 

[FarmerTed]

That is incorrect. If it were still the case, 3 out of 5 German beers on the shelf wouldn't be hefeweizens and kristallweizens becuase wheat was prohibited. Breweries nowdays put it on their labels primarily as a marketing tool.

Yeah, but the laws are still pretty goofy, because wheat and rye beers can only be fermented with ale yeasts, and not lager yeasts. That is difficult to rationalize.

 

[erichsmith]

I must say I'm impressed with the response. I will also say that maybe I need to re-look at my view point. Give me that adjunct and let's brew beer.

 

[grafvonbarnez]

I must say I'm impressed with the response. I will also say that maybe I need to re-look at my view point. Give me that adjunct and let's brew beer.

Strictly speaking, an adjunct is just an unmalted grain(?) used in the mash. A wheat beer made with malted wheat doesn't contain any adjuncts.

As far as "anti-adjunct" goes, I'd imagine the reason behind that thinking would be a matter of confusing taste with process. The big producers of tasteless American lager famously use a large proportion of (cheaper) adjuncts, but those beers are also meant to be mostly tasteless. Adjuncts need not diminish taste, and can add flavors and qualities that are otherwise unobtainable.

 

[ICWiener]

Strictly speaking, an adjunct is just an unmalted grain(?) used in the mash. A wheat beer made with malted wheat doesn't contain any adjuncts.

Not necessarily. Fruits, vegetables, sugars, spices, and flavor additives like spruce and wormwood are all adjuncts.

 

[grafvonbarnez]

Not necessarily. Fruits, vegetables, sugars, spices, and flavor additives like spruce and wormwood are all adjuncts.

Thanks, I couldn't remember if it was restricted to grains or not. But still, you're making my point. Adjuncts are not bad.