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?

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.”

Update On FDA Caffeine/Alcohol Ultimatum

By

caffeine
As reported last Friday, the FDA announced that they’d sent letters to almost 30 manufacturers of alcohol drinks that also contain caffeine. The FDA gave these companies 30 days to essentially prove that they’re safe. On the beer side, some of the breweries that received letters include Ithaca Beer Co. (Ithaca Eleven Malt Beverage with Coffee), New Century Brewing (Moonshot) and Thomas Creek Brewery (Mobius Lager). Here’s the full list.

My friend and colleague, Harry Schuhmacher, who writes Beer Business Daily, has some interesting insights into this move by the FDA. Beer Business Daily reports daily on the beer business. If you don’t subscribe to it, you should, especially if you’re a brewery owner or work for one on the business side.

Here’s his take on a few relevant portions of the FDA letter.

FDA: “FDA has not made a determination regarding the GRAS status [GRAS stands for ‘generally regarded as safe’] of the use of caffeine in alcoholic beverages.”

BBD: True, although the FDA has determined that caffeine, even in doses much higher than what are in the alcohol beverages in question, isn’t unsafe. The fact is that caffeine and alcohol have been mixed safely for hundreds of years. But does that mean that the manufacturer should do it for us? Read on.

FDA: “Nor are we aware of a basis for concluding that your use of caffeine in these beverages is prior sanctioned.”

BBD: This doesn’t make sense to us at first blush. The TTB, the federal agency charged by the FAA Act with regulating alcoholic beverages, has certainly “sanctioned” these products by their approval of their formulas, their labels, and even vetted their marketing practices. The TTB has guidelines about adding caffeine to alcohol beverages — ironically based on FDA guidelines on caffeine — and all of the products on the market fall within these guidelines. In fact, these beverages are at caffeine levels well below what the FDA deems as unsafe. So while these beverages haven’t received prior sanction from the FDA, they have received a sort of de facto “sanction” from the TTB, which is just as much a part of the United States government as the FDA.

The crux here I suppose is in the idea of caffeine + alcohol. The FDA operates under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, while the TTB operates under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. FDA governs food and non-alc beverages (and caffeine in such), while the TTB governs beverage alcohol. Methinks there is a land grab going on here, and the TTB isn’t too pleased about it, we hear. The FDA says it has jurisdiction because the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act gives it authority over “articles used for food or drink” and “thus includes alcoholic beverages,” says the FDA. This is probably news to the TTB.

The FDA has guidelines for caffeine in non-alc beverages, and the TTB has guidelines for alcohol in general. So the TTB naturally put the FDA caffeine guidelines with their alcohol guidelines, looked at the products in question, and deemed them safe. But the FDA is now reaching out beyond its historical bounds by placing the onus on the bev-alc manufacturers to prove that putting alcohol and caffeine together in one beverage is safe. More on that below.

He’s been inundated with questions and earlier today gave his thoughts to the most popular ones. With his permission, here are several of the questions and his answers to them:

WHAT’S THE DEAL? The FDA, under pressure from several state Attorneys General (who we hasten to add could make these drinks illegal in their respective states tomorrow either through legislation, regulatory ruling, and/or by AG fiat, but would rather make the feds do the heavy lifting) is formally tackling the issue of caffeine intentionally added to alcohol beverages. It says it has providence when a food or beverage intentionally adds a substance to it that is “unsafe” unless its use has been approved by the FDA, is generally recognized as safe (as caffeine is), or is “subject to a prior sanction.” If the additive is “unapproved” then it is subject to “seizure” if deemed unsafe. The FDA has not “issued a food additive regulation to approve the use of caffeine in alcoholic beverages, and FDA is not aware of a basis to conclude that this use of caffeine is GRAS or subject to a prior sanction by FDA. By law, any person can make a GRAS determination but that determination must meet the GRAS criteria for safety and general recognition.” In other words, call in your best lawyers, because this is going to be a legal war of words just as much as it is a scientific one.

Historically, the FDA has listed caffeine as generally safe in cola-type beverages in lower doses, but there are no “regulations that permit the addition of caffeine, at any level, in alcoholic beverages.” That doesn’t mean it’s unsafe, it just means there aren’t any regulations. But as we mentioned above, the TTB has guidelines, based on the fact that the FDA hasn’t deemed caffeine as unsafe even in larger doses. Can you say turf war? In fact, the FDA and the TTB have a “Memorandum of Understanding” between them outlining what actions each should take under certain circumstances when there is overlap in their jurisdiction. We quote from it: “When FDA learns or is advised that an alcoholic beverage is or may be adulterated, FDA will contact ATF [Ed. Note: that’s the old name for the TTB].” The memorandum unhappily doesn’t mention what happens when a seemingly safe substance like caffeine has found to be “adulterating” alcoholic drinks. One would think the action would be the same as for other alleged adulterations: FDA should contact the TTB, make them aware of it, and let them take care of it. Instead they called a press conference. Politics are involved as usual, and we’ll get to that.

The FDA says it is “unaware of the basis upon which manufacturers may have concluded that the use of caffeine in alcoholic beverages is” generally recognized as safe. But I know of one basis: the fact that the TTB says it was okay. The two agencies must not read each other’s websites. I hear the Internets are slow this time of year in DC. But still, the FDA says that in order for caffeine AND alcohol together to be classified as “Generally Regarded as Safe”, even if they’re safe apart, it must past two tests: 1. Publicly available science must show that caffeine in alcohol is safe, and 2. there is a “consensus among qualified experts regarding the safety of caffeine for this use.” In other words, what the FDA is trying to do is come up with a new substance it can regulate, a substance that is the combination of both caffeine and alcohol. We can call it CafAlc. And CalfAlc, the FDA says, needs to be classified under FDA rules as GRAS or sanctioned. Here’s my beef with this reasoning: If CalfAlc comes under FDA jurisdiction, does that mean that plain old “Alc” isn’t too far behind? Slippery slopes and victory by inches, my friends.

[Ed. Note: This isn’t the first time the FDA has reached into the alcohol beverage business. Because of the strict legal wording of the what the TTB has authority over, gluten free beers like A-B’s Redbridge and Saki fall under FDA authority, because of how they’re made. Technically, it’s legal for gluten free beers to have slotting fees, as a result].

This is extremely unusual. The last time the FDA formally asked a manufacturer to prove their substance is GRAF was back in 2001, when it asked the manufacturers of Echinacea to prove it was GRAS or prior sanctioned for use in conventional foods. So this is a bid deal.

WHAT ABOUT KAHLUA AND CUBA LIBRES? This was a common cry from distributors. Consumers and manufacturers have been mixing alcohol with caffeine for many years. “This FDA action is not directed at products that are flavored with coffee,” says the FDA. So Kahlua isn’t illegal ….. yet. Also, for the time being, the bartender that serves you a Jack and Coke is also safe from arrest, as the FDA is “focusing its attention on products in which caffeine has been intentionally added to alcoholic beverages by the manufacturers. Other products containing added caffeine may be subject to agency review if the available scientific data and information indicate that added caffeine may pose a safety concern, or is being unlawfully used, under the conditions of its use in other products.” So stay tuned. Cuba libres may be next.

HOW HARD IS IT TO GET GRAS STATUS? The FDA says that there must be “technical evidence of safety and a basis to conclude that this evidence is generally known and accepted by qualified experts.” That includes establishing that the beverage’s “intended use” be safe and that it’s not harmful under “probable consumption” and the “cumulative effect of the ingredient in the diet.”

This is kind of bizarre, because as we’ve said, caffeine hasn’t been deemed unsafe. But there’s a reason that alcohol is regulated by a different agency, because by its very nature it is a different type of product — it can be intoxicating — and as such the guidelines of “safe” are a different animal. Here’s my point: If there was no such thing as alcohol on earth, and an alien suddenly landed in Des Moines and introduced the miracle of vodka to us, I doubt the FDA would approve it as GRAS. But the fact remains that alcohol has been on earth for thousands of years, and the voters won’t be denied it. The government once tried to “take away its GRAS status” in 1919, but that didn’t work out so well. We’ll let the lawyers grapple with that. We are in unchartered territory, and while we’re not talking about alcohol alone, but rather CafAlc, the consequences of going down this legal road could still be significant to the industry at large. If CafAlc is deemed unsafe by our protectors at the FDA, and yet caffeine is considered safe, then where does that leave Alc?

WHAT’S THE TIME FRAME? While the FDA gives the producers of these beverages 30 short Winter days to prove they are safe, it gives itself an indeterminate amount of Summer days to respond. “The timeframe is difficult to predict and it will depend on the amount and quality of data and information that the FDA receives from manufacturers and that are otherwise available to the agency and upon the complexity of scientific issues that may be encountered in the course of its review,” writes the FDA. “The FDA’s decision regarding the regulatory status of caffeine added to various alcoholic beverages will be a high priority for the agency; however, a decision regarding the use of caffeine in alcoholic beverages could take some time.”

BIG BREWERS’ HAND IN THIS? A few readers have suggested that A-B and MillerCoors probably have a hand in these latest developments, as it would kill a growing competitive threat while also fitting their crowns with bright white halos (and the added “benefit” of putting the NBWA on its heels). Perhaps, but there are several competing factors in that equation. You can imagine that their marketing people aren’t unhappy about what’s happened, as these indie manufacturers were operating under the radar and taking share and shelf space from castrated Sparks and Tilt. And at the same time I don’t think their government affairs people, who trump almost everything at both those companies, like having any malt-based products out there that cast a bad light on the industry at large — it puts a tax and regulation target on everybody’s back. Still, I also don’t think they’re particularly happy about the FDA getting into the alcohol business. I happen to know that they haven’t been in contact with the FDA about it, in fact. But they do seem to favor federal regulation over state-based regulation. So take all that for what it’s worth.

OUR TAKE. So what’s likely to happen? That’s anybody’s guess, as you can never predict what government agencies will do. But that won’t stop us from conjecturing. The larger producers will likely fold like lawn chairs on Labor Day. Constellation already killed their caffeinated alcohol drink, even though it’s still listed in the FDA’s hit list. I expect Diageo will kill Smirnoff Raw Tea in about sixty seconds if they haven’t already (one source says they already discontinued Raw Tea), as they also want that white halo that A-B and MC have. We note Boston Beer’s Twisted Tea didn’t get a love letter from the FDA.

The smaller producers like Four Loko and Joose, who have everything to lose, have already lawyered up, we hear. One thing that jumps out at us is that 30 days is a ridiculously short time frame for the FDA to expect anybody to prepare a defense. They’ll get extensions on that, you can almost be sure. And you have to think they may have a pretty decent case. There’s no evidence we’ve seen that caffeine and alcohol are dangerous to your health per se, or any more dangerous than either one apart. People have been quaffing rum and Cokes for years. The evidence will be vetted, and in the end, if indeed caffeine and alcohol aren’t any worse for you than drinking coffee and vodka separately, or together to your health, then the FDA will ultimately be satisfied and can report back to the AGs that they did their job.

But I think this is important: The FDA cites a letter provided by the AGs of a group of university scientists showing evidence that alcohol and caffeine may keep people up longer into the night, so there’s more of a chance of them consuming more and getting into dangerous mischief. But one would think this is beyond the scope of the FDA. They’re food regulators, not behavior police. Also, the fact that these products are high in alcohol and taste sweet, and so could be construed to appeal to young people, would also seem to be out of the FDA’s wheelhouse. But I’m no Perry Mason.

THE COLD HARD TRUTH. Having said all that, the fact remains that the Big Boys in our industry — brewers and distillers alike — in the alcohol industry don’t want these drinks to exist. Neither do the control states, neither do the license state regulators, neither do the AGs, neither do parents, neither do some chain retailers, and neither do the fun bunchers [Note: “fun bunchers” is Harry’s term for neo-prohibitionists —J]. These products have been painted with a tar brush — nobody wants to touch them. Even if Joose and Four Loko have great legal representation, there are a lot of big forces against them, including the beer, wine, and spirits industry at large in which they operate. While they may have a legal case against the FDA, this tide is a strong one to swim against.

Worst case scenario for these producers: Caffeine and taurine and other stimulants are deemed to be dangerous in conjunction with alcohol, so Joose and Four Loko and their ilk will have to reformulate without stimulants, but with other vitamins or whatever, and ultimately they get placed on the same playing field as Sparks and Tilt, and we move on down the road. Book it.

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.

Session #33: Don’t Think Of A Pink Elephant

By

pink-elephant
I’ll Have a Beer, a.k.a. Andrew Couch, our host for the 33rd monthly Session, begins his explanation of this month’s topic — framing beer — with a compelling story:

My sister once told me a story she had heard about a sculpture exhibit: on the winter day it opened, the artist placed a coat rack next to the door. Predictably, the patrons hung their coats on it. Each day the artist moved the rack a bit closer to the rest of the exhibit, until the day came when the visitors chose not to use the “piece of art” for their coats. That day the artist placed a sign on the coat rack that stated simply, “Art begins here.”

Framing as a concept has been around a long time in academia as a part of such disciplines as linguistics, communications theory and similar social sciences. But it became more mainstream in 2004 with the publication of UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff’s book on the subject of framing in politics, Don’t Think of an Elephant.
pink-elephant
Delirium Tremens’ pink elephant is my allusion to Lakoff’s book, and the idea of framing with regard to beer. But everything we write and say is framed, to one degree or another, as our language is very contextual. What words we choose and how we phrase our communications with one another gives a great deal of information, in some cases as much as the words themselves. The Republican Party is quite skilled at framing their agenda, calling an act that restricts people’s civil liberties “The Patriot Act” or a tax that falls disproportionally on the very rich a “Death Tax.” By calling it essentially the opposite of what it really is — as in say the Clear Skies Initiative that does little to make our skies any clearer — it’s easier to gain support for it since few people bother to look more closely at the substance. Take another example in the news lately: socialized medicine. Opponents of health care reform bandy this term around safe in the knowledge that people have a negative reaction to it. But it is almost meaningless. The term was crated by a PR firm on behalf of the American Medical Association in the late 1940s when Harry Truman had the temerity to try to reform health care then. The Cold War was just heating up and the PR firm correctly figured that by calling it “socialized” people with associate it with communism. This despite the fact that in school we all learned that we’re a social democracy and that the police department, fire department, post office, medicare, social security, unemployment and all manner of programs that make our lives better and few people would want to do without are forms of socialism. No matter, the framing of it has everything to do with how people react to it.

Framing isn’t necessarily as sinister as that suggests, and in fact more often than not it does accurately reflect the intentions of the communicator, especially outside politics. It’s only when framing is misused to manipulate that it takes a more sinister turn. When it comes to beer, not so much. But almost everything about a beer can be described in those terms, from the packaging to the beer’s name, style designation and label.

Couch describes this phenomenon with regard to beer:

Imagine persuasively describing craft beer to someone who has until now entirely missed out, maybe in a sales situation. Perhaps it’s a brown ale and you can can describe the caramel and toast flavors, or it’s a pale ale and you have fruit or herbs from the hops. You might start having to defend yourself if it’s an IPA and those hops taste earthy, resiny, or particularly bitter. You’ll definitely meet some resistance if your favorite is an imperial anything, brimming with intensity and a sharp kick, or if you’d like to convince a person of the credibility of a sour beer or anything for which you must use the word ‘funky’. Each of these descriptions is inevitably an attempt to ‘frame’ the beer, putting the consumer in the proper state of mind to drink it.

For better or worse, in everyday situations beer comes with a label. This label very really ‘frames’ the beer inside. The fact that the beer comes commercially-produced signals the presence of investment (if not skill). A style name or tasting notes indicates the general characteristics to expect. If you know the brewery the beer is framed with your past experiences. Even the label art will affect your expectations for the beer.

framed

Then Couch goes on to the assignment at hand:

What role does this framing play in beer tasting, especially for ‘professional evaluators’? Relate an amusing or optimistic anecdote about introducing someone to strange beer. Comment on the role a label plays in framing a beer or share a label-approval related story. I have not done much blind tasting, and I would be intrigued to hear about this ‘frameless’ evaluation of beer.

And drink a beer. Ideally drink something that you don’t think you will like. Try to pick out what it is about that brew that other people enjoy (make sure to properly frame the beer!).

As for tasting blind, it’s virtually a necessity for competitive judging. Being human, we all bring our prejudices and bias to the tasting table, no matter how much we try to avoid it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been surprised to discover what a beer I tasted blind was, freed from expectations and even faulty memories. One of the things that’s stressed at GABF judging is that if you think you can identify a beer you’re sampling blind, keep it to yourself. Not only are you usually wrong, but you’ll unduly influence others at the table. Memory is a curious thing, and I’ve read a great deal about it in the context of courtroom testimony where it’s not nearly as reliable as one might expect. More recent scientific inquiry is revealing just how poorly our memories can be. So anything we can do to remove those and any other bias, goes a long way toward making beer judging better and more fair for the beers being judged.

session_logo_all_text_200

One of my favorite beers to get people thinking differently about beer and what beer is and can be is Unibroue’s Quelque Chose. When it was more widely available, I used to serve it each year at an annual Christmas party we’d throw before the kiddles came along. Quelque Chose is French for “something different” and that it is. If you’re not familiar with it, Quelque Chose is an 8% abv dark beer fermented with wild cherries and intended to be served hot, around 160° F. Essentially you mull the beer in a pot filled with water. It was originally created to service the ski regions northwest of Montreal and it’s absolutely divine on a cold night.

But what makes it is seeing people’s faces the first time they try a hot beer that also tastes good. It’s priceless because it’s so far removed from their normal experiences with beer. In a sense, they’re so far outside the frame that they’re forced to see beer in a whole new way and, hopefully, it will be difficult for them to go back to the old view. As a result, this beer is perfect for turning people on their head. It can’t fit into the frames of colder and colder beer that the big breweries have been crowing about and the experience should suggest that cold beer is not always better. Actually, I’d argue it’s rarely, if ever, better, but then I feel most American bars serve their beer too cold already, robbing people of all the flavor they should be enjoying.

I think the usual frames — beer styles, labels and reputations — are double edged swords that are equal parts good and bad, depending on specific circumstances. All we can really do is be aware of them and how they influence us.

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.

New Study Reveals RWJF Behind Neo-Prohibitionist Movement

By

rwjf
Dan Mindus at the Center for Consumer Freedom recently published a report entitled Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign detailing just how deep the tentacles of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) go in funding neo-prohibitionist groups and campaigns. As someone who pays attention to the interconnectedness of the neo-prohibitionst organizations, I was still floored by what Mindus uncovered. I often take some flack for crying conspiracy concerning these organizations but I feel a certain vindication at just how big a role RWJF actually plays in leading the charge against alcohol.

Here’s an excerpt from the report:

America’s anti-alcohol movement is composed of dozens of overlapping community groups, research institutions, and advocacy organizations, but they are brought together and given direction by one entity: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). Based in Princeton, New Jersey, the RWJF has spent more than $265 million between 1997 and 2002 to tax, vilify, and restrict access to alcoholic beverages. Nearly every study disparaging alcohol in the mass media, every legislative push to limit marketing or increase taxes, and every supposedly “grassroots” anti-alcohol movement was conceived and coordinated at the RWJF’s headquarters. Thanks to this one foundation, the U.S. anti-alcohol movement speaks with one voice.

For the RWJF, it is an article of faith that diminishing per capita consumption across the board can contain the social consequences of alcohol abuse. Therefore, it has engaged in a long-term war to reduce overall drinking by all Americans. The RWJF relentlessly audits its own programs, checking to see if each dollar spent is having the maximum impact on reducing per capita consumption. Over the past 10 years, this blueprint has been refined. Increased taxes, omnipresent roadblocks, and a near total elimination of alcohol marketing are just a few of the tactics the RWJF now employs in its so-called “environmental” approach.

The environmental approach seeks to shift blame from the alcohol abuser to society in general (and to alcohol providers in particular). So the RWJF has turned providers into public enemy number one, burdening them with restrictions and taxes to make their business as difficult and complex as possible. The environmental approach’s message to typical consumers, meanwhile, is that drinking is abnormal and unacceptable. The RWJF seeks to marginalize drinking by driving it underground, away from mainstream culture and public places.

The RWJF funds programs that focus on every conceivable target, at every level from local community groups to state and federal legislation. Every demographic group is targeted: women, children, the middle class, business managers, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, Native Americans. Every legal means is used: taxation, regulation, litigation. Every PR tactic: grassroots advocacy, paid advertising, press warfare. Every conceivable location: college campuses, sporting events, restaurants, cultural activities, inner cities, residential neighborhoods, and even bars.

The RWJF scored a major victory in 2000 with a federal .08 BAC mandate, and can claim credit for restrictions on alcohol in localities all over the country. But its $265 million has accomplished much more: it has put in place all the elements required for more sweeping change. This includes a vast network of local community organizations, centers for technical support, a compliant press, and a growing body of academic literature critical of even moderate alcohol consumption. The next highly publicized study or angry local movement may now reach the “tipping point” where the RWJF-funded anti-alcohol agenda snowballs into the kind of orchestrated frenzy the tobacco industry knows well.

You can read the entire report in a pdf, and if you care about keeping alcohol legal in the U.S., I’d highly encourage you to do so. The report, Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign, is only 28 pages and includes a list of the organizations and people to watch out for.

Here’s another excerpt, listing the main points in the RWJF’s plan of attack:

The Anti-Alcohol Movement’s Game Plan

The RWJF-funded anti-alcohol movement seeks to convince the public of the following propositions:

  • The social consequences of alcohol consumption are immense, and require drastic action.
  • The vast majority of Americans either abuse alcohol or don’t drink it. The former shouldn’t have access to alcohol, and the latter won’t care if you take it away.
  • Responsible drinking is an oxymoron.
  • Drinking is not normal, it is not acceptable, and it should be isolated from mainstream culture.
  • Adult drinking encourages kids to engage in reckless behavior.
  • The alcohol industry “targets” children, abusers, and minorities with “deceptive” advertising.
  • Alcohol advertising leads inexorably to abuse.
  • Convenient, inexpensive alcohol leads inevitably to its abuse.
  • There is no such thing as responsible drinking and driving.

The more the public hears these messages, the more they will tolerate the legislation and regulation of the “environmental approach.” Billboards have been taken down, hours of service have been slashed, roadblocks have been thrown up, legal BAC levels have come down, taxes have been raised, ads in restaurants have been eliminated. It’s only the beginning.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. These folks are committed fanatics. They cannot be reasoned with. They will not bow to logic. They cannot be appeased. They have no qualms about bending the truth or outright fabrication. They will do absolutely anything to advance their misguided cause. They hate me and you, too, if you think drinking beer is okay.