Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

A Clockwork Orange Approach To Alcoholism

By

clockwork-orange
This is a strange one, and I’m not entirely sure what to make of it, though my natural skeptical tendencies run toward worry. As reported in the USA Today last week in an article entitled Kudzu Compound Could Help Alcoholics Quit Drinking, “[a]n ingredient derived from the [Kudzu] vine noted for gobbling up native Southeast landscapes could help treat alcoholism.

kudzu

Essentially the plant Kudzu, a vine that’s a native of Japan, later introduced in the U.S. and growing wild throughout the southeast, has been found to have a substance contained in it, daidzin, which researchers believe may help in the treatment of alcoholism. The article is based on a study published in the November issue of Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research under the title Suppression of Heavy Drinking and Alcohol Seeking by a Selective ALDH-2 Inhibitor.

But here’s the odd bit, at least for me. The Daidzin found in Kudzu (and which the scientists now believe they can synthesize) makes “drinking alcohol an unpleasant experience.” Isn’t that how they treated the violent kids in Anthony Burgess’ novel A Clockwork Orange? In the novel (and film by Stanley Kubrick) the protagonist undergoes “a form of aversion therapy, in which Alex is given a drug that induces extreme nausea while being forced to watch graphically violent films for two weeks.”

Apparently using Kudzu in this manner is an ancient Chinese folk remedy, thousands of years old. To learn more about it, check out The Amazing Story of Kudzu. The addiction community seems interested. “The results seem promising, says Raye Litten, co-leader of the medications development team at the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. ”

But I can’t help thinking that’s still not the right way to treat addiction. I suppose if it’s reserved for the very extreme cases or is done voluntarily, but still I worry. Remember when fluoride was added to the drinking water? Sure, dentists are convinced it helps prevent cavities, but not everyone is so sure, and even today there are people who don’t believe it. (Doc, this would be a good place for you to chime in.) My mother — a nurse — and countless other parents complained and protested when they added it to the school water fountains in the mid-to-late 1960s. What’s to stop certain groups from trying to add this to the water to stop all people from drinking alcohol? Sure I sound paranoid, but it sure would make a good action/adventure flick, don’t you think?

Whither Goes News, Who Pays?

By

newspaper
This is another one of my rambling rants that’s not really beer-related, or at least not beer-centric. If heavy media discussions are not your bag, feel free to stop here and just ignore this one. Beer topics will resume in a few moments. This topic does effect beer insofar as it effects everything in the world, the galaxy and the universe. I’ve long argued that as newspapers die their slow death, that people’s unwillingness to continue to support them and other “paid” media, will have a chilling effect on how the news is shaped, who shapes it, and ultimately how transparent and unbiased it is. I spoke a little bit about this during my time on The Brewing Network this past Sunday, and regular readers may recognize the topic, as well. I’ve been arguing that we have to be willing to pay for our news or we won’t have any news left, or at least not the diversity that’s essential to a free society. Now I realize the fourth estate is hardly free from bias as it stands now, but just wait until there’s only a couple of wire services left. We’re already going in that direction as smaller and regional newspapers lay off staff, create only their local news and rely on the wire services for state, national and world news. For almost any big story, especially overseas, the origin of the coverage is now from only a handful of sources, like the AP, Reuters or UPI.

In fact, there’s only two major U.S. news agencies (The Associated Press and United Press International) and maybe another five worldwide, all located in Europe. The other ones you’ve likely heard of include BBC News, Bloomberg, CNN and the PR Newswire. There’s many more smaller ones in addition, and Wikipedia list nearly fifty in total, which they consider “major”. The Mondo Times World Media Directory lists 34, and doesn’t appear to include the press release clearing houses. But there’s far less than there used to be, and the number is dropping all the time.

Once upon a time, most major papers, and at least the media groups, had “bureaus” all over the world with dedicated staff and reporters that were constantly monitoring local affairs and were ready at any time should a big story develop. Content varied widely and vigorous competition made each media outlet dig deeper and search for the fresh angle. Before that, most major cities had more than one newspaper competing for readership. That, too, made the news richer and fairer overall.

As much as I’d love that time to return, it’s just wishful thinking and the present is what it is. The internet, combined with other factors, have forever altered the way we consume information, and especially news. I’ve long thought that part of the reason for the media decline is because so much news is available free on the internet. As a result, people get their news from other sources than traditional media. The problem with that is, if people aren’t willing to continue paying for their news, then who’s going to collect it and report on it? Yes, blogging has taken up some of the slack in limited ways with amateur reporters finding unique voices and most media outlets now even have blogs as a part of the web presence.

But as cool as “citizen journalism” is, it can never completely replace traditional media, because somebody has to gather the original stories. The majority of blogs still rely on traditional media for source news. For example, I learn about a lot of the news in the beer world from a variety of sources. I get press releases from breweries and other beer-related companies. Friends in the industry let me know what they’re up to and send me samples. But I still have to rely on traditional media for some beer news, financial stuff, for example. Worldwide news, big brewery news, things like that are the type of things I have to rely upon other sources for. Like many bloggers, I strive to not just regurgitate the news, but analyze it, look deeper into its meaning or otherwise put my own stamp or spin on it. But if that source news isn’t there to comment on, all is lost. This is especially true for stories that aren’t clear cut or for which one side of it has an interest in being spun in a way that’s favorable to them. That’s already happening with dwindling media diversity where overworked newspapers don’t have the time or resources to tell the other side of a story or include contrary opinions so they instead rely heavily on press releases, which are notoriously one-sided. [I should disclose that I make a portion of my living writing for a traditional newspaper.]

I know plenty of people who work for different newspapers, and a lot of them are worried about their futures, personally, professionally and in a more general sense of what will happen when all the papers are no more. Yes, you can make the argument that all people resist change and history is littered with such examples. But I keep coming back to the point that if there are no more media (or more likely just a very few big) outlets paying reporters to gather the stories, then we’ll be relying on an ever decreasing number of sources for all news, which I can’t help but believe will make it easier to manipulate that news and spin it whichever way someone wants. Or at the very least, water it down more than it already is. And that’s what will happen if we don’t continue to support traditional media by paying for it.

My fears, I thought, were somewhat borne out by a recent poll reported in the New York Times. The article, entitled About Half in U.S. Would Pay for Online News, Study Finds, which concludes that “Americans, it turns out, are less willing than people in many other Western countries to pay for their online news.”

Among regular Internet users in the United States, 48 percent said in the survey, conducted in October, that they would pay to read news online, including on mobile devices. That result tied with Britain for the lowest figure among nine countries where Boston Consulting commissioned surveys. In several Western European countries, more than 60 percent said they would pay.

When asked how much they would pay, Americans averaged just $3 a month, tied with Australia for the lowest figure — and less than half the $7 average for Italians. The other countries included in the study were Germany, France, Spain, Norway and Finland.

“Consumer willingness and intent to pay is related to the availability of a rich amount of free content,” said John Rose, a senior partner and head of the group’s global media practice. “There is more, better, richer free in the United States than anywhere else.”

The question is of crucial interest to the American newspaper industry, which is weighing whether and how to put toll gates on its Web sites, to make up for plummeting print advertising.

Sounds bad, right? But here’s the thing, which in a weird way I think proves my point, at least to some extent. The Times article was based on a recent poll by the Boston Consulting Group. The title of their press release about that poll was News for Sale: Charges for Online News Are Set to Become the Norm as Most Consumers Say They Are Willing to Pay, According to The Boston Consulting Group, the title alone suggesting a different story than the one reported by the New York Times.

From the press release:

New research released today shows that consumers are willing to spend small monthly sums to receive news on their personal computers and mobile devices. In a survey of 5,000 individuals conducted in nine countries, BCG found that the average monthly amount that consumers would be prepared to pay ranges from $3 in the United States and Australia to $7 in Italy.

John Rose, a BCG senior partner based in New York who leads the firm’s global media sector, said, “The good news is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, consumers are willing to pay for meaningful content. The bad news is that they are not willing to pay much. But cumulatively, these payments could help offset one to three years of anticipated declines in advertising revenue.”

It has the same details as the Times, but the spin is completely the opposite. While the Times focuses on how little Americans are willing to pay, the BCG report emphasized the fact that their poll revealed people are willing to pay for news online, concluding that their “findings will benefit newspapers with unique voice and reporting and with strong subscriber bases[; i]n particular, national and local newspapers.” The only other story about this poll I could find was by Media Daily News, and they also spun it as bad news with the headline People Won’t Pay Much For Online Content. Is it possible they’re both taking a self-serving approach trying to persuade their readers that they should be willing to pay more? It seems to me if enough people are willing to pay a little bit, then it should work. Shouldn’t the better approach be to persuade people to pay something rather than berate them for not being willing to pay more?

So here’s a story that’s reasonably important, as what changes are occurring to our news effects every single one of us and the only two news outlets that cover it get it wrong, or at least recast it in a way that seems obviously more beneficial to them. One surprising tidbit that came out of the study is that the one group that appears to be willing to pay more are avid newspaper readers. Doesn’t that suggest that newspapers might be able to successfully move to a more online model? But instead of finding the news encouraging, America’s newspaper of record chastises the people most willing to pay for online content — their readers — for not being willing to pay enough. Strange times indeed.

But online or off, I continue to believe that we have to support traditional media or at least another model that achieves the same goal of having professional journalists as the primary source for news gathering. I absolutely love online media, and especially blogging, but I can’t see how it could supplant boots on the ground, so to speak. As a result, I subscribe to my local newspaper and also to online subscription websites like Salon. I’d encourage you to do the same. I don’t really believe news will disappear, of course. There will always be a demand for it, but the consolidation like we’ve seen in other industries (which I believe is always bad) is taking place. And the diversity that used to be readily available in news is most definitely in decline, even with the explosion of the internet. Information has undoubtedly increased online, but I’m not sure unique news online has kept pace. If we don’t support newspapers, all we’ll be left with is the USA Today. I shudder to think. I now return you to our regularly scheduled beer news.

Want A Healthier Heart? Drink More Beer!

By

health
This has got to drive the anti-alcohol lobby nuts, and especially their medical co-conspirators who continue to insist that a binge drinker is simply someone who drinks five or more drinks in one session. The UK newspaper, The Independent, had an interesting article today, provocatively titled “Drink half a dozen beers every day and have a healthier heart: Teetotallers more likely to have heart attack than drinkers, study shows.”

According to the article, “Drinking a bottle of wine a day, or half a dozen beers, cuts the risk of heart disease by more than half in men, it has been shown.” That’s based on a study just published in the medical journal Health entitled Alcohol intake and the Risk of coronary heart disease in the Spanish EPIC cohort study.

In the Abstract:

Background
The association between alcohol consumption and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been broadly studied. Most studies conclude that moderate alcohol intake reduces the risk of CHD. There are many discussions on whether the association is causal or biased. The objective is to analyse the association between alcohol intake and risk of CHD in the Spanish cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC).

Methods
Participants from the EPIC Spanish cohort were included (15,630 men and 25,808 women). The median follow up period was 10 years. Ethanol intake was calculated using a validated dietary history questionnaire. Participants with a definite CHD event were considered cases. A Cox regression model was performed adjusted for relevant covariables and stratified by age. Separate models were carried out for men and women.

Results
Crude incidence rate of CHD was 300.6/100,000 person-years for men and 47.9/100, 000 person-years for women. Moderate, high and very high consumption was associated with a reduce risk of CHD in men: HR 0.86 (95% CI= 0.54-1.38) for former drinkers, 0.64 (95% CI= 0.4-1.0) for low, 0.47 (95% CI= 0.31-0.73) for moderate, 0.45 (95% CI= 0.29-0.69) for high and 0.49 (95% CI= 0.28-0.86) for very high consumers. In women a negative association was found with p values above 0.05 in all categories.

Conclusions
In men aged 29-69 years, alcohol intake was associated with a more than 30% lower CHD incidence. Our study is based on a large prospective cohort study and is free of the abstainer error.

The Independent distills it in clearer language:

In one of the largest studies of the link between alcohol and heart disease, researchers have found that the protective effects of a daily tipple are not limited to those who drink moderately but also extend to those who consume at what are conventionally considered to be dangerously high levels.

The research was conducted among 15,000 men and 26,000 women aged from 29 to 69 who were followed for 10 years.

The results showed that those who drank a little — a glass of wine or a bottle of beer every other day — had a 35 per cent lower risk of a heart attack than those who never drank. Moderate drinkers, consuming up to a couple of glasses of wine a day or a couple of pints of ordinary bitter, had a 54 per cent lower risk.

The surprise was that heavy drinkers consuming up to a bottle of wine or six pints of ordinary bitter had a similar 50 per cent reduction in risk of a heart attack to moderate drinkers. Those drinking at even higher levels were still half as likely to suffer a heart attack as the teetotallers.

Larraitz Arriola, who led the study, said alcohol caused 1.8 million deaths a year around the world and 55,000 deaths among young people under 30 in Europe alone. “The first thing to say about our research is that alcohol is very harmful. If you drink heavily, you should drink moderately. The more you drink, the worse off you will be.” The researchers only looked at the effect of alcohol on the heart and confirmed what 30 years of studies have shown — that it is protective. The effect was independent of the form in which the alcohol was taken, as beer, wine or spirits. However, people who only drank wine had slightly less protection.

Not surprisingly, British “scientists” are calling the results “flawed,” most likely because it flies in the face of their politically-motivated advice and the ridiculous (and recently revealed to be completely arbitrary) “units of alcohol” that set the nation’s alcohol policy for over twenty years. In a BBC article, they’re still treating the guidelines as if they mean something, which is almost funny.

In May of 2006, Danish study that also found healthy heart benefits for alcohol drinkers, though in that study they concluded that drinking levels above moderate would not increase benefits. This new Spanish study appears to conclude otherwise. In every article I’ve seen on this study, everyone is scrambling to make sure to tell people not to go out and start drinking more, due to other risks from heavy drinking. I’d say anyone that suddenly started binging based on this study probably deserves whatever ill effects they experience. But seriously, do health professionals really believe people are that stupid? I’m sure there are a few stupid enough (P.T. Barnum had it right) but it’s more likely they were already unhealthy drinkers just looking for an excuse.

What I take away from this is simply that the arbitrary and self-serving definitions of binge drinking are not only wrong, but very, very wrong. I attend beer dinners all the time, drinking an average of four, five or six different beers (and sometimes more) over several hours, paired with several courses. These dinners cost $50, $75, $100 (and sometimes more). They are attended by people who can afford that, people with good jobs, professionals, people with families, upstanding members of their communities. Yet in the U.S., the CDC claims if you have “five or more drinks in a row,” you’re an unhealthy binge drinker, endangering your own life, and possibly those around you. That makes every one of the people at all the beer dinners I attend, binge drinkers, and, to some in the anti-alcohol movement, automatic alcoholics, too. Could any standard be farther from reality?

Despite all the warnings of binge drinking, it appears by defining it in a way that’s so far removed from ordinary experience, that it actually makes it completely meaningless. Certainly there are people who drink too much and put their health at risk. But lumping them together with those who occasionally drink “five or more drinks in a row” safely and without sinking into alcoholism, the problems of the people who really need help never get addressed. All it does is give the AnAl’s more ammunition to scare people with, and few media outlets ever call them on it. After all, it has the stamp of a government agency. But we all know it’s not accurate by any stretch of the imagination to call the average beer dinner attendee a binge drinker. At least now we know their heart will get a boost. In the end, I think the best advice is “everything in moderation … including moderation.”

Breweries Have 5th-Most Satisfied Customers

By

acsi
According to a new survey, released yesterday by the American Consumer Satisfaction Index (and tweeted my way by Anat Baron — thanks!), Breweries ranked 5th in overall satisfaction by consumers among industries polled by the group. Here are the first five with their score in parentheses (out of 100):

  1. Personal Care & Cleaning Products (85)
  2. Soft Drinks (85)
  3. Full Service Restaurants (84)
  4. Automobiles & Light Vehicles (84)
  5. Breweries (84)

For breweries, this is the highest marks they’ve received since this poll began, and represents a 1.2% increase over last year.

As reported by Brand Week, comfort foods like candy and beer continued to do well.

Beer manufacturers reached their highest level to date with a score of 84 (out of a 100-point scale) to mark a 1.2 percent change from 2008 rankings. Top companies included Anheuser-Busch InBev (85) and SABMiller (83), which grew 3.7 percent and 1.2 percent respectively from last year. Molson Coors Brewing (81) dipped by 2.4 percent, while “all others” maintained their rank at 83.

The ACSI had their own take on beer in their analysis:

Beer: A Comfort Drink?

Beer drinker satisfaction has soared to an all-time high in ACSI. It too seems to follow the pattern of chocolate and sweets, but perhaps a bit less pronounced. The industry improved 1.2% to an ACSI score of 84, led by a 4% climb for Anheuser-Busch to a score of 85. Just a year after it was acquired by the Belgian-Brazilian conglomerate InBev, Anheuser-Busch matched its biggest ever single-year gain to reach its highest level ever. InBev has made a number of changes in business strategy—it sold the ten theme parks owned by Anheuser-Busch to reduce debt and focus on core business, cut over 1,000 employees, and overhauled management. The company has seen increased sales of lower-priced brands such as Natural Light and Busch and of newer products such as Bud Light Lime and Golden Wheat varieties.

Results for Miller and Coors brands, which market under a joint operating agreement, were mixed. Miller improved slightly, up 1% to 83, while Coors dropped 2% to 81, falling to the bottom of the industry. The Coors brand portfolio is composed of a greater proportion of high-end entities and more high-priced brands compared with Anheuser-Busch. In the midst of an economic downturn, customers typically look more to value for money. Coors drinkers report a sharp decline in value for money.

The ACSI also noted a pattern during economic downturns:

“The same thing happened in 2001 in the midst of the previous recession and also in 2004 when concern over the Iraq war and rising fuel prices appeared to be reflected in higher satisfaction with comfort foods,” said Professor Claes Fornell, founder of the ACSI and author of The Satisfied Customer, in a statement.

Newspapers and Cable/Satellite TV tied for last, though Airlines were a close second-to-last.

Pinhead Drinking Statistics By Media Ignore Reality

By

graphchart
The e-mail newsletter sent out Tuesday by Join Together, the anti-alcohol center at Columbia University, included a summary of an item in the USA Today from November 3, entitled Beer With Extra Buzz On Tap Up To 16%. Join Together’s emphasis on the article is about “More States Allowing High-Alcohol Beer” and similarly the USA Today article takes a cautionary tone as it starts out stating that a “growing number of states are moving to allow higher alcohol content in beer, despite concerns from some substance-abuse experts.” While admitting that 20 states “still place some kind of limit on the amount of alcohol in beer,” the recent changes to the alcohol laws in several states, such as Alabama, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and others, are worrying the usual anti-alcohol folks.

Although they did talk to Paul Gatza from the Brewers Association, most of the voices in the article were from neo-prohibitionist groups expressing their “concerns.” For example, “David Rosenbloom, president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in N.Y., said the more alcohol, ‘the faster you get drunk and the longer you stay drunk. … There’s no evidence that people will drink less, or fewer beers.’ And here’s Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who said, “Our chief concern is that (higher-alcohol brews) be properly labeled so people understand it takes fewer beers to become intoxicated.”

But here’s why this is a non-story and why author Jessica Leving needs to go back to J-school. What’s not mentioned in this article is that wine and hard liquor, already much stronger than beer, in some cases many times stronger, is already available in those same states who’ve recently raised the allowable alcohol percentage for beer. Higher alcohol drinks have been available since at least 1933, and no doubt for a long time prior to 1920. That an infinitesimal portion of total beer sales can now include some higher alcohol ones is all but meaningless in that light. If someone wanted higher alcohol there’s been no shortage of opportunities for them to find such drinks. When this has come up before, the argument by Anti-Alcohol for why this matters is that more underage people drink beer. But that’s just propaganda. All people drink more beer than wine and spirits, so there’s nothing sinister or unique about beer and underage drinking. In fact, studies by neo-prohibitionist groups reveal that young people really prefer sweeter drinks, like wine and cocktails made with higher alcohol beverages.

The higher alcohol beers they’re all in a panic about are most often more bitter than the average young palate prefers. Those beers are the ones that a small percentage of the population — the beer geeks — want. Sales of those beers as compared to beer’s total is very, very small, I’d wager, and against all alcohol, virtually infinitesimal. So how was that ignored and this non-story published in a national newspaper? How was Rosenbloom allowed to get away with saying “[t]here’s no evidence that people will drink less, or fewer beers” when that’s clearly not true? Simple. Media outlets sell more papers or airtime or whatever by scaring the public and telling stories about what they should fear. What I fear is the lack of truth that accompanies these stories every time they’re told. Despite the fact that Leving at least (unlike many others) tried to include contrary opinions, the piece ends up just giving voice to the anti-alcohol agenda, while not asking the most basic questions that show that agenda to be riddled with misinformation and propaganda.

FDA Gives Alcohol/Caffeine Drinks 30 Days To Prove It’s Safe

By

caffeine
The FDA announced today that they’ve sent a letter to almost 30 manufacturers of alcohol drinks that also contain caffeine. The FDA is giving these companies 30 days to essentially prove that they’re safe. The move is undoubtedly motivated by a bullying letter sent to the FDA in September by 18 state Attorneys General. That letter was itself the product of pressure brought to bear by neo-prohibitionist groups at the state and local level.

From the press release:

“The increasing popularity of consumption of caffeinated alcoholic beverages by college students and reports of potential health and safety issues necessitates that we look seriously at the scientific evidence as soon as possible,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs.

Of the combined use of caffeine and alcohol among U.S. college students in the few studies on this topic, the prevalence was as high as 26 percent.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a substance added intentionally to food (such as caffeine in alcoholic beverages) is deemed “unsafe” and is unlawful unless its particular use has been approved by FDA regulation, the substance is subject to a prior sanction, or the substance is Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). FDA has not approved the use of caffeine in alcoholic beverages and thus such beverages can be lawfully marketed only if their use is subject to a prior sanction or is GRAS. For a substance to be GRAS, there must be evidence of its safety at the levels used and a basis to conclude that this evidence is generally known and accepted by qualified experts.

The FDA alerted manufacturers to the fact that the agency is considering whether caffeine can lawfully be added to alcoholic beverages. The FDA noted that it is unaware of the basis upon which manufacturers may have concluded that the use of caffeine in alcoholic beverages is GRAS or prior sanctioned. To date, the FDA has only approved caffeine as an additive for use in soft drinks in concentrations of no greater than 200 parts per million. It has not approved caffeine for use at any level in alcoholic beverages.

The FDA requested that, within 30 days, the companies produce evidence of their rationale, with supporting data and information, for concluding that the use of caffeine in their product is GRAS or prior sanctioned. FDA’s letter informed each company that if FDA determines that the use of caffeine in the firm’s alcoholic beverages is not GRAS or prior sanctioned, FDA will take appropriate action to ensure that the products are removed from the marketplace.

Notice that the press release outlines the rationale for the safety check because of “increasing popularity” by “college students” along with “reports of potential health and safety issues,” also known as anecdotes and stories people made up to scare other people. That’s about as flimsy a reason as I can imagine. They don’t seem concerned about older adults, us post-college folks which suggests to me that it’s not really about safety at all.

I think what bothers me about this is simply how obviously it’s the FDA bowing to pressure from anti-alcohol groups. Last time I checked, caffeine was legal. Alcohol is also legal if you’re the “right” age. People have been drinking alcohol and caffeine concurrently, myself included, for centuries. I’m drinking Tejava (my daily ritual) as I write this and by lunchtime I’ll be ready for a beer, followed by more caffeine this afternoon to fend off the mid-afternoon urge to nap. More recently — though even this was years ago — Red Bull and vodka became a very popular cocktail, mixing the two chemicals caffeine and alcohol. Certain people were worried then, too, but I’ve never heard of any real danger posed from that drink and the many imitations and variations it spawned. Even if they banned every alcohol and caffeine drink, people can, and probably will, go right on mixing them on their own. What’s to stop them? Actually, banning them would likely cause an increase in combination drinking, because people love a taboo.

All that would happen, really, is the harming of a few dozen alcohol companies, which I suspect is the Anti-Alcohols (or AnAl’s) game. Even in the unlikely event that they declare the pairing of the two substances a danger, it won’t, and they can’t, stop people from mixing them on their own. Even if it was made illegal, people would never stop having a few drinks followed by a cup of coffee. It’s absurd, really, like they’re trying to remake the world in the image of a Kafka novel.

White House Logs Reveal Neo-Prohibitionist Visits

By

white-house
In response to several requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the White House late Friday released a partial list of visitors during roughly the first six-months of Obama’s administration. You can view the entire list at Whitehouse.gov. The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC are both reporting on the politics and law behind the requests, while most media outlets are just focusing on the celebrities. According to MSNBC, the White House rejected their request that all the names of visitors be released. “Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.” I don’t know the law on this point, so I won’t argue who’s right one way or the other. Not surprisingly, the administration is spinning it that they’re providing “transparency like you’ve never seen before.”

So why is this important at all to the world of beer? Given that one of the neo-prohibitionist movements most persistent claims is that the beer lobby has undue influence over politics in Washington, one name fairly jumped off the page of the Wall Street Journal report, a name which is confirmed by the official White House list. From January 20 to July 31, the president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, visited the White House seven times (that’s over once a month) and met personally with President Obama twice. The Journal disingenuously characterizes Lavizzo-Mourey as “a thinker in health policy,” when his organization’s true aims have been revealed as something very different. See, for example, the Center For Consumer Freedom’s report Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign, which details the true agenda of the RWJF. But perhaps more troubling, is their and other neo-prohibitionist’s persistent claims that the beer lobby has bought favorable treatment disproportionate to other industries. For a recent example, the Marin Institute’s facetious report entitled Big Beer Duopoly made this claim less than two weeks ago.

But let’s look at the facts, at least with regard to the White House. For all their lobbyist spending, not one beer industry representative visited the White House over a six-month period, while during the same time the most pernicious neo-prohibitionist group, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, had monthly visits to the White House, including two meetings with POTUS. Of course, it’s possible that beer lobbyists did visit the White House and their names are among those not released by the Obama administration. But since most of the list does include other business leaders and given the White House’s current anti-lobbyist policy, that seems less likely. And let’s not forget that President Obama appointed the former head of MADD, Charles Hurley, to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The obvious conclusion is that what this reveals is the propaganda behind the neo-prohibitionst claims regarding the beer lobby. As is typical, once again they’ve been shown to not be truthful. While claiming undue political influence on the part of the beer industry, the truth is that neo-prohibitionists have the ear of the President. Considering today is Halloween, that may be the scariest news of all.

Seconding A Plea for Peaceful Coexistence

By

pour-the
I’d like to second New York Times beverage writer Eric Asimov’s plea for the peaceful coexistence of wine and beer. In his blog, The Pour, on Tuesday Asimov wrote A Plea for Peaceful Coexistence, saying:

Beer and wine are not in competition. Yet people in the wine business, who I assure you drink an awful lot of beer, don’t often take it seriously as a beverage. And people in the beer business, perhaps in reaction to not-so-imaginary slights, rarely even acknowledge the existence of wine, much less deem it worthy of drinking.

Asimov is, in my opinion, one of the few wine writers who actually understands and appreciates beer. I’ve quoted him before here in the Bulletin, precisely because he’s not typical of a wine writer. He understands for example; “[c]raft beer’s battle is not against wine but against decades of cynical marketing from the giant breweries, which have done everything possible to portray beer drinkers as asinine fools.”

What he didn’t include (and I understand why) is that most of the attacks come from the wine side. The assaults are not by regular wine drinkers or even winemakers, who both happily consume beer, but primarily from lesser wine writers who, as far as I can tell, feel threatened by craft beer. But as a cross-drinker (I love wine, too), I’m constantly irritated when a wine writer lashes out against beer for no discernible reason. Regular Bulletin readers will no doubt recognize it’s a theme I’ve returned to many times — precisely because it keeps happening. Living and working in the heart of northern California’s wine region, I’m especially sensitive to the way wine coverage so completely overshadows coverage of craft beer. I believe my column, Brooks on Beer, is almost certainly the only newspaper column in the Bay Area that’s devoted to beer, while the ones exclusively wine-focused considerably outnumber mine.

Sure, there have been a growing number of beer vs. wine dinners, usually instigated by beer people, but that’s usually a defensive strategy and a way to prove a point. Even Asimov understands this, and I’ve quoted him before on this subject, where he’s said the following.

The two beverages in fact co-exist quite well, and therefore it irritates me when wine and beer are pitted against each other, especially when wine-lovers demean beer. Beer-lovers have a bit of catching up to do in terms of achieving status and understanding, so I have a little more tolerance for them when they feel compelled to demonstrate how well good beers can go with certain foods, usually at the expense of wine.

But in the end, his point is well-taken and one I would argue should be assimilated by any writer whose subject includes an alcoholic beverage. We’re all in this together. While we’re at it, I’d also like to suggest to all those media outlets who insist on calling their “sections” or “magazines” something along the lines of “Food and Wine,” yet include coverage of other beverages, change their name and obvious bias to something all-encompassing like “Food & Drink” or “Food & Beverages.”

Asimov’s parting words:

“Fellow wine lovers, fellow beer lovers, unite! We shall not permit ourselves to be pitted against one another. Do not be fooled by false choices. You do not have to choose beer or wine. Just good or bad.”

Amen to that.

Marin Institute’s Latest Anti-Alcohol Report

By

marin-institute
The day after I left on vacation (I just spent 10 days in Asheville, NC) I received a frightening press release with the latest propaganda from my neighbors at the Marin Institute. This is the sort of thing I might expect on April 1 or even possibly Halloween, but they’ve taken things up yet another notch in their fight against alcohol.

It starts out with the same nonsense about the recent mergers in the big beer world that resulted in their being two large beer companies accounting for 80% of the American beer market. Ooh, scary. Except that this didn’t just suddenly happen. In 1984, when there were only 44 breweries in the entire country (today there are over 1,500), the top six accounted for 92% of the market. This is a meaningless statistic. That it’s the lead to so many recent stories gives you some idea of how this is being driven by propaganda in an effort to further an anti-alcohol agenda. From Jim Cramer to Joseph A. Califano, Jr. to junk medical “science” and all the way back to the Big Kahuna Looney, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, this is the all-out war against alcohol run amuck once more.

You can read the whole nonsensical press release, with their breathless worrying over a “drastic shift in U.S. beer market ownership to this powerful duo of global corporations” and that these “two global corporations sole interest is increasing profits.” Not to mention they’re “troubled that in its rush to approve these mega mergers, the Department of Justice put beer profits above the public interest.” There’s simply nothing new in the press release nor the report itself that hasn’t been addressed before both by these groups and the media at large. This is fake news at its most deadly. It’s almost too ridiculous to merit further comment.

But the most telling comment comes in the summary of the full report at page three, where they make this farcical statement: “Beer remains the cheapest and most widely used drug in America.” Uh, if you want to play that game, It’s fairly likely the hypocrites who wrote that nonsense start their alcohol bashing day with coffee or tea, containing what has to actually be the most widely used drug in the world, including America: caffeine.

The full quote is from page 11, under the heading the “Race to the Bottom.”

Beer is not harmless. Indeed, beer is the most commonly abused drug in the United States, and the most popular drug among youth. Beer should be treated as the drug it is, with stringent guidelines applied when addressing alcohol industry-related issues such as taxation, trade, distribution, production, and corporate structure and industry operations.

In fact that section concerns beer being too cheap and yet these people’s recent fulminations is all about the big beer companies announcing they were going to raise their prices. There’s just no pleasing some people.

The always insightful Harry Schuhmacher, who publishes Beer Business Daily, had a similar reaction.

But here’s where [the report] really comes off the rails and delivers the crazy talk that has everybody heated up. From the report: “Beer is not harmless. Indeed, beer is the most commonly abused drug in the United States, and the most popular drug among youth. Beer should be treated as the drug it is…” Whaa? First of all, the source Marin lists for this claim is a press release by Narconon Arrohead, a drug rehabilitation program affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Second, the dubious source doesn’t claim beer is the most commonly abused “drug”, but rather that “alcohol remains the most commonly abused substance in America.” Whatever, I get it, beer is more popular than wine or liquor. Regardless, by that criteria, we would suggest that the coffee, tea, and energy drink industries are starting to feel left out as the leading vehicles for administering the actual most commonly used “drug” in America: caffeine, used daily by over 90% of N. Americans (source is Wikipedia, which while not infallible, is certainly more credible than Scientology, unless you’re Tom Cruise).

Or were they meaning drug as in “narcotic”? If so, I doubt the average voting soccer dad — or President Obama for that matter (who routinely drinks beer on camera) would appreciate his favorite beverage being styled as a narcotic or himself as a drug user, in my opinion. But that and two bucks will get you a Red Bull. (Watch out, it’s full of taurine).

Even if we accept their absurd line of reasoning, a “drug” isn’t bad in and of itself. Aspirin is a drug. Countless drugs help people manage pain or treat and cure their maladies. You could make a case that even sugar is a drug following the definition, from Dictionary.com, that it’s “a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.” Sugar makes people feel better. Eat too much of it and your health suffers. Ditto overdosing on many drugs. The point is, which I’ve made many times, is that anything can be abused, even things that can be good for you in smaller amounts. The mistake these chuckleheads continually make is saying that something that can be bad if abused is always bad because of the potential is has for there to be negative effects. I doubt they actually believe it but it’s an effective propaganda tool. And let’s not forget what’s behind The Neo-Prohibition Campaign. This report is just the most recent example of their diabolical machinations.
duopoly
To download the entire report, Big Beer Duopoly, please visit the marininstitute.org website. It makes for entertaining fiction. Unfortunately, it’s subtitled “A Primer for Policymakers and Regulators” and despite its questionable and bogus claims, it’s likely some legislators will actually treat it as a credible source.