used keg morals

[krispy d]

All your kegs are belong to us!

 

[Cheesefood]

All your kegs are belong to us!

You have no chance to survive make your time.

Someone set us up the bomb.

 

[HarvInSTL]

I think people are loosing sight of one of the main problems here.
Stealing kegs from breweries hurts them financially. Especially the smaller craft breweries. In the UK at least it can be a large part of their operating cost and can and has push some of them over the edge. In the past and some have closed and stated keg costs to be a major factor in their financial difficulties.

www.kegwatch.co.uk

I've tried to stay out of this but alas I can not.

Simple solution, have the breweries increase the deposit that the distributors pay so that if the distributor fails to return the keg in a timely manner the deposit can pay for a new keg.

And while I'm sure that the distributors would just increase their deposit to the end user, which is fine.

I know that people keep saying that it is some law that prevents the breweries from doing this, but can some please direct me to this law?

But as someone else said, something like this would have to be done across the industry. If AB raises their keg deposits to their distributor by 600% and SAB doesn't I wonder which one that distributor will continue to sell?

While I understand that this hurts the craft brewers the most, which is the exact reason why BMC's won't go for this type of regulation. A company like AB can lose $4mil a year on kegs, but I'm sure that some of the craft brewers out there can't even stand to lose $40k a year on lost kegs.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Simple solution, have the breweries increase the deposit that the distributors pay so that if the distributor fails to return the keg in a timely manner the deposit can pay for a new keg.

And while I'm sure that the distributors would just increase their deposit to the end user, which is fine.

I know that people keep saying that it is some law that prevents the breweries from doing this, but can some please direct me to this law?

But as someone else said, something like this would have to be done across the industry. If AB raises their keg deposits to their distributor by 600% and SAB doesn't I wonder which one that distributor will continue to sell?

While I understand that this hurts the craft brewers the most, which is the exact reason why BMC's won't go for this type of regulation. A company like AB can lose $4mil a year on kegs, but I'm sure that some of the craft brewers out there can't even stand to lose $40k a year on lost kegs.

The law they refer to, so they say, is a limit on the amount you can lawfully charge for a deposit on a keg. I'm not interested in looking up the law, but let me say this...

We are talking about large breweries who have so much lobbying power that they are able to keep their list of ingredients off their beverage. Could you imagine if Coke wanted to delist their ingredients from a bottle of coke? What if sausage companies did the same? Every goddamned food item you buy has this information. Except for beer.

In my eyes, that means that the large breweries have sufficient political muscle to, at very least, get the measures passed which they need to remain profitable. If keg theft were a problem, a law would be passed to remedy it.

Bottom line? Sure, it may still be theft. But if the company losing money can't be bothered to complain about it....

What if someone broke into my house, stole a TV, and I decided I didn't want to call the cops and that the theft was small enough that I really didn't care and that I would rather just keep on going, living my life. It's still a theft, of course, but how sorry do you feel for me if I, myself, can't be bothered to care?



Here's what you do. Call up whoever's keg you stole, and tell them you stole it for your own use. Ask them to contact the accounting department and send you the bill for the depreciated cost of the used keg. I can practically guarantee you, you'll never hear from them again..

 

[abracadabra]

Someone asked the question, is there any way to track kegs? The Answer is: Yes, they have serial numbers.

I'm not going to get into the discussion of morality. But everyone should know that recieving stolen property is illegal.

Here in Georgia if you buy stolen property knowly or unknowly the charge is still the same: Thief by purchase.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advise and is not intended as such.

 

[Bobby_M]

There's no serial number on my keggle.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Someone asked the question, is there any way to track kegs? The Answer is Yes they have serial numbers.

I not going to get into the discussion of morality. But everyone should know that recieving stolen property is illegal.

Blacks drinking at drinking fountains for whites was illegal too. A law which is stupid or wrong need not be obeyed. I'm not trying to compare one law to another, I'm just pointing out that for people who are beyond the age of reason, illegality should have nothing to do with morality. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people confuse the two.

Is this law stupid or wrong? It most likely is neither stupid nor wrong. However, again, if it's not worth Budweiser's time to complain about it, then I really can't feel sorry for them. It's sort of a utilitarianism thing with me. How useful is the keg to you? How much does it hurt the other guy? Oh... he can't be bothered to even complain about the minuscule loss? Then far be it from me to complain for him. One, he's not paying me to complain. Two, I believe these "losses" may eventually create laws which more greatly reflect the economic reality of the situation and, as a capitalist, I'm all in support of expediting this process.

I'm not saying it's right... I'm just saying I don't care. There's starving children dying of hunger and you are spending time debating the morality of stealing kegs from a company that doesn't even care itself? On the morality level, I think it's immoral to argue about the morality of such a small issue when you could invest your energies on larger, more important issues.

 

[abracadabra]

There's no serial number on my keggle.

I did not say All kegs have serial numbers.

Certain brewers do and if you have one of their's without a serial number that's a pretty sure sign it's stolen.


Kind of like having a car with no vin.

 

[abracadabra]

. There's starving children dying of hunger and

you are spending time debating the morality of stealing kegs from a company that doesn't even care itself?

On the morality level, I think it's immoral to argue about the morality of such a small issue when you could invest your energies on larger, more important issues.

Did you read MY post ?

I said I am NOT debating the morailty

 

[Cheesefood]

Every goddamned food item you buy has this information. Except for beer.

Ummm...Water, Barley, Yeast and Hops.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Ummm...Water, Barley, Yeast and Hops.

If that's true, then why has the beer industry fought to NOT have to provide this information on their product. Look at a 6 pack of BMC. Show me where they list the ingredients.

FWIW, I remember something that said that a drop of milk in a beer will kill the head... unless chemicals are used to artificially improve the head. I can't confirm that this is true, but it's an interesting trick.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Did you read MY post ?

I said I am NOT debating the morailty

Then I guess I wasn't talking to you.



I only quoted you because you mentioned the illegality and I think people sometimes try to make that into a proxy for morality and it pisses me off because it's absurd. I wasn't taking a shot at you, just wanted to limit what you said to its proper perspective.

 

[Cheesefood]

If that's true, then why has the beer industry fought to NOT have to provide this information on their product. Look at a 6 pack of BMC. Show me where they list the ingredients.

FWIW, I remember something that said that a drop of milk in a beer will kill the head... unless chemicals are used to artificially improve the head. I can't confirm that this is true, but it's an interesting trick.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

"Brewed using the choicest hops, rice and best barley malt"


Now, where does it say that those are the ONLY ingredients? If I bake a cake using the finest sugar available, does that mean my cake is 100% pure sugar?

See? You need to read more carefully. I learned long ago that when dealing in the grown up world, EVERY word means something. And so does the absence of a word...


Sometimes things are meant to be deceiving and sometimes there is accidental miscommunication. In this case, I strongly doubt it is an accidental miscommunication on the part of a company that undoubtedly spent millions of dollars deciding on a label for their product...

 

[Cheesefood]

"Brewed using the choicest hops, rice and best barley malt"


Now, where does it say that those are the ONLY ingredients? If I bake a cake using the finest sugar available, does that mean my cake is 100% pure sugar?

See? You need to read more carefully. I learned long ago that when dealing in the grown up world, EVERY word means something.


Sometimes things are meant to be deceiving, sometimes there is an accidental miscommunication. In this case, I strongly doubt it is an accidental miscommunication on the part of a company that undoubtedly spent millions of dollars deciding on a label for their product...

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/press_room/mediakits/06 Budweiser Ingredients.pdf

 

[abracadabra]

I only quoted you because you mentioned the illegality and I think people sometimes try to make that into a proxy for morality and it pisses me off because it's absurd. I wasn't taking a shot at you, just wanted to limit what you said to its proper perspective.

No argument there.

There are plenty of stupid laws and more being passed everyday.

But you never know when you are going to run into an overly ambitious police detective thinking "just 1 more bust and I'll make captain".

 

[olllllo]

Laws and Ethics aren't the same.

OP asked about the morality.

Legal or not, he asked about the morality.

 

[Cheesefood]

No argument there.

There are plenty of stupid laws and more being passed everyday.

But you never know when you are going to run into an overly ambitious police detective thinking "just 1 more bust and I'll make captain".

On what basis would they have to even look at the keg though? They can't assume something you own is owned illegally unless they have reason to believe it is. They requires a complaint and a witness. Otherwise, who's to say that the $20 in your pocket isn't one I dropped somewhere, and rightfully mine?

Here's a question, who owns the cans or glass bottles? Why are we allowed to keep those, but not the kegs?

ANother question: if I hold onto a keg for a year, am I entitled to the interest earned on my deposit?

 

[abracadabra]

Laws and Ethics aren't the same.

OP asked about the morality.

Legal or not, he asked about the morality.

Someone else asked about being able to track kegs. Nobody answered his question so I did.

 

[olllllo]

Someone else asked about being able to track kegs. Nobody answered his question so I did.

Not directed at anyone. A series of posts were looking to get quasi-legalistic.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/press_room/mediakits/06 Budweiser Ingredients.pdf

They can repeat that all they want. They can scream it to the high heavens. But that doesn't change the words they use. That is all still one step short of them saying, "This beer contains only.... and nothing else" or "made 100% with... "

The problem is that if a company lies on the label they put on their food product, they may be sanctioned by the FDA, they will probably pay huge fines, and somebody will be going to jail.

On the other hand, if they create a press release saying the same lie, they are only liable for "damages" caused by their lie... so you'd basically have to prove that they lied and also that that lie was the proximate cause of an actual injury you sustained.


Now, to you and I, there isn't much difference between a press release and an ingredient label as far as our regular everyday lives are concerned... but put a few hundred million dollars on the table and I'd like to see if we ourselves don't start looking at the world a little bit differently. I admit it's a subtle distinction and you are free to call me paranoid, but the distinction still exists and it's for no good reason that I can tell. Understand, I'm talking about chemicals here, not main fermentables. I don't think they're fermenting broccoli and cauliflower... I have no doubt whatsoever that 99% of their beer is exactly as they describe. It's that extra 1% that really really bothers me...

That's what scares me. I can't find a single other reasonable explanation for the distinction between a law-mandated food label and a company-produced press release... Except that they are trying to hide something.... Of course, I hope I'm wrong with regards to what they put in their beer, but I am most assuredly NOT wrong that the way that they put the information out there is somewhat suspect...

 

[Cheesefood]

They can repeat that all they want. They can scream it to the high heavens. But that doesn't change the words they use. That is all still one step short of them saying, "This beer contains only.... and nothing else" or "made 100% with... "

The problem is that if a company lies on the label they put on their food product, they may be sanctioned by the FDA, they will probably pay huge fines, and somebody will be going to jail.

On the other hand, if they create a press release saying the same lie, they are only liable for "damages" caused by their lie... so you'd basically have to prove that they lied and also that that lie was the proximate cause of an actual injury you sustained.


Now, to you and I, there isn't much difference between a press release and an ingredient label as far as our regular everyday lives are concerned... but put a few hundred million dollars on the table and I'd like to see if we ourselves don't start looking at the world a little bit differently. I admit it's a subtle distinction and you are free to call me paranoid, but the distinction still exists and it's for no good reason that I can tell.

That's what scares me. I can't find a single reasonable explanation for the distinction except that they are trying to hide something....

What do you think they're hiding in there? Al Qaeda?

Pepsi and Coke don't disclose their ingredients. They say "Natural and Artificial Flavors". They don't copyright or patent their ingredients, because that's forcing them to publish what's in it. If you stumbled on the Coke recipe, you could sell it because they don't legally own their recipe.

Now, that said, I've no reason to believe that BMC aren't abiding by the standards required to call a product "Beer". I'm positive that every board of health has unbiasedly inspected and approved their ingredients.

You might conspiracy theorize away about bribes and crooked inspectors, but in reality I don't think the world is as interesting as you want it to be.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

What do you think they're hiding in there? Al Qaeda?

Pepsi and Coke don't disclose their ingredients. They say "Natural and Artificial Flavors". They don't copyright or patent their ingredients, because that's forcing them to publish what's in it.

One simple question. Why is there no list of the ingredients on beer in the form prescribed by the FDA for all other food products? Why does beer get a free pass?

Please just give me a simple explanation why this makes sense and I will sleep better at night. No, I don't think they are adding Soylent Green or depleted uranium. But I do think there are chemicals in there that most people would rather not know about.

Now, that said, I've no reason to believe that BMC aren't abiding by the standards required to call a product "Beer".

Is BMC considered beer in other countries? I know many german beers are malt liquors here and I'm really not sure what Budweiser is over in Germany, so I'm just asking.... Far be it from me to make a claim I do not know to be true, so I thought I would ask... please advise if you know the answer.

Oh, and don't forget that some breweries make batches differently depending on what market it is going to, so before you answer, please also be sure that the beer that is designated for export is comingled with the batch that is intended for domestic consumption, otherwise the designation of authorities in another country is somewhat meaningless...

Getting convoluted enough for you? Why can't they simply print the FDA form of ingredients on the labels, so we wouldn't have to ask all these questions?

I'm positive that every board of health has unbiasedly inspected and approved their ingredients.

I don't doubt that. They've also approved high fructose corn syrup and I don't put that **** in my body either. The government also approved asbestos at one time. "Approval" doesn't make something safe, it just means that the benefits of using it outweigh the dangers as we understand them at the present time. Asbestos was once considered safe. Then we learned otherwise. Approval does not mean Safe.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. This has to do with your lack of appreciation for what the role of government is in society. The role is to protect and improve the status quo. They don't have to be perfect at their job, but doing a good job will reduce the likelihood of revolution. So the government can have an occasional oops and it's no big deal. The question you should ask yourself though is whether you yourself can have an occasional oops. Can you yourself breath in 10 years of asbestos? If you aren't sure, you'd probably be well advised to either educate yourself on its risks, or else steer clear.

Personally, I don't have enough knowledge in the field of chemistry and biology to understand all the chemicals and compounds that exist. I understand some, like silicone, gold, copper, aluminum, steel, bleach, etc. And I avoid the rest.

I'm probably paranoid, but.....

You might conspiracy theorize away about bribes and crooked inspectors, but in reality I don't think the world is as interesting as you want it to be.

I'm not that paranoid. I just believe people should be well informed. As for my opinions...

Oswald acted alone, we landed on the moon, and Bonds uses 'roids. I don't buy into many conspiracy theories, but Bonds uses roids. So did Sosa. But I don't see a conspiracy here. I am sure we are getting a product that the present scientific knowledge believes is safe for us. That's a looooong stretch from saying a product is made with natural ingredients. And I think people have a right to know.


I'm not saying BMC is doing anything that is presently regarded as wrong. I'm saying there is information that may not be available to us. That's not as bad as hiding information, but they are certainly leaving room for doubt and that room alone is enough to bother me a little.

 

[Cheesefood]

OK, how would you label your beer?

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

OK, how would you label your beer?

I would follow the laws. At this time, they do not require me to list ingredients in the manner prescribed for all other food products by the FDA. So I wouldn't do that either. Because I don't have to.

But, as for labeling to get the point across, I would say, "Made with 100% malt, barley, hops, yeast, and nothing else. 100% beer"

Of course, I don't have millions of dollars to spend inventing a label...


And I also wouldn't bother fighting against the FDA when they tried to get beer companies to include their ingredients on the label. But, apparently, that was important to some brewers. I wonder why. That's all... I just wonder why....

 

[Willsellout]

Anything that makes me crap like that after a night of drinking just cannot be good for you

I like how Rogue does it. They list every malt and hop they used specifically in the recipe for that particular beer.

Dan

 

[Cheesefood]

But, as for labeling to get the point across, I would say, "Made with 100% malt, barley, hops, yeast, and nothing else. 100% beer"

No irish moss? No CO2 to bottle with? What about a Wit? Or a Wheat or Rye beer? Water buffers?

Before you start bashing Big 3, tell me which countries have ever required ingredient labeling?

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

No irish moss? No CO2 to bottle with? What about a Wit? Or a Wheat or Rye beer? Water buffers?

Before you start bashing Big 3, tell me which countries have ever required ingredient labeling?

I know the United States does, except for beer. This is the country I live in, so it's the one I focus on. I don't too much care what other countries require, but I am concerned with what I put into my body.

As for Irish moss? No way... if I was a large brewer, I would probably filter. Or bottle condition. I like bottle-conditioned beer. But that's only adding yeast, so it's not really an additional ingredient.

Water buffers? Now you're getting nitpicky, but that is kind of the point, so I commend you for it! First off, I would filter the water, I presume. I would list filtered water in the ingredients, I guess. As for buffers, I would try to avoid using them. If a particular style required them, however, I would want to avoid scaring people off with chemical names, so I would probably describe it as, "specially conditioned brewing water".... Again, I'm thinking like a businessman now... and personally, I would freely admit to how I "treated" the water, but I'm not seeing why I would really be required to do so.

In other words, I would do what BMC does, list their true ingredients in a press release. But are you telling me you don't think BMC uses treated water? Why don't they tell us that? Personally, I think it's good to give people all the information so they can make an informed decision. I'm glad you brought that up because I am now convinced they are not describing all the ingredients in their beer- even if those ingredients are innocuous. It still tells me, conclusively, that they aren't giving us the entire picture. It proves that their "barley, rice, hops, water and yeast" claim is truly, indisputably, inaccurate. Interesting.

As for CO2, I suppose that if I did force carbonate, I would admit to it.... unless I saved the CO2 coming out of the beer and reintroduced it to the beer at bottling. If I did, you could argue that it is part of the process, rather than an additional ingredient since you are only reintroducing something that was already there to begin with.


But remember, you're talking to a guy who is pretty serious about divulging the truth of what he puts into stuff. Companies don't work like that usually unless they have some degree of, you know, moral conviction... that would require it to be a privately held corporation because publicly held ones tend to stamp that **** out real quick... LOL

 

[Pumbaa]

I cant believe I wasted enuff time to read all 11 pages . . . .

Its a freeking keg.
You're going to lose sleep over a empty keg? IMHO you should be able to keep it as a reward for drinking 15.5 gallons of BMC and not killing yourself with the lack of anything beerlike.

 

[kvh]

I cant believe I wasted enuff time to read all 11 pages . . . .

Its a freeking keg.
You're going to lose sleep over a empty keg? IMHO you should be able to keep it as a reward for drinking 15.5 gallons of BMC and not killing yourself with the lack of anything beerlike.

Seriously, Pumbaa, I'm as surprised as you are. The thread has definitely taken a turn for the worse - not that I'm supporting or opposing any of the recent comments - just off topic. I agree, it's a stupid keg and I think I'm driving out tonight to get it. If a moderator would like to close this thread, I would be completely fine with that...

That said, thanks for everyone's input, genuinely. I wasn't trying to start a battle over semantics or an argument of where ethics, morals, and the law coincide. It's my decision and I'll live with it.

thx.

kvh