Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

KQED Debates SF Alcohol Tax

By

kqed-forum
On KQED Radio this morning on the local show Forum with Michael Krasney held a defacto debate on the proposed Alcohol Mitigation Fee between San Francisco Brewers Guild president Rich Higgins and city supervisor John Avalos, who introduced the ordinance to tax alcohol sold in San Francisco. Rich held his own as best he could, but Avalos is a seasoned politician more used to dodging questions and spinning data his way. Plus, it seemed to me most of the callers were sympathetic to him and hostile to Rich, though most seemed more than a little uninformed (thanks local media). Same deal on the show’s web page, New Alcohol Fee for San Francisco?, where one commenter went so far as to call Rich unprepared because he didn’t know how to remedy the city’s financial problems, as if that’s his job. Unbelievable.

Perhaps most annoying was Michele Simon’s call. She’s an attorney and holds the position of Research & Policy Director for the Marin Institute, the organization that’s largely responsible for the proposed “fee” ordinance. She called to make it clear that their target was the big foreign alcohol companies and that she, too, likes beer or wine now and again so therefore the Marin Institute is not a neo-prohibitionist group, as she added that many of their critics have resorted to name-calling. Was she going for sympathy that anyone might have the temerity to be critical toward the organization? I call the Marin Institute a neo-prohibitionist because I sincerely believe that’s what they are, not because I’m on the playground in 5th grade. [Ms. Simon, in a comment (see below) also agrees that name-calling is a tired strategy. I would, however, counter that proper labeling of the character of any organization is useful, and even sometimes critical, to knowing their intentions. When I say the Marin Institute is a neo-prohibitionist group I do so not to simply lob a pejorative at them, but instead to characterize them as I indeed view them.]

Of course, their policies are what leads me to that conclusion. I know they keep saying they’re not anti-alcohol — and maybe they even believe it — but what they actually do is contrary to that. Actions speak louder than words. If it quacks like a duck, guess what it is? They may claim to be against just big alcohol, but their actions harm the small family breweries, wineries and distilleries far more than they ever hurt the big foreign corporations.

And they know it, too. Back when they were going after Alcopops, the big companies told them outright that if their legislation passed that every one of them would change the formula of their products so the new legislation would no longer apply to them. Who would it continue to apply to? All the small breweries who barrel-age their beers, that’s who. And they told the Marin Institute that fact directly to their face, in Sacramento. So they knew that their scheme would not do what they said it would and would instead directly harm people they claimed were not their target. What did they do? Crow about their hollow victory, that’s what.

Then there’s the fact that the Marin Institute gets at least a portion of its funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is most definitely not just a neo-prohibitionist group, but the neo-prohibitionist group. Read the Center for Consumer Freedom for their very different take on whether the Marin Institute is neo-prohibitionist or not. [Note: Ms. Simon writes that they no longer receive funding from the RWJF. The report I cited is from 2003, and it may well be they no longer do receive funding from them.]

I know that I’m not beloved in the halls of the Marin Institute, but that’s probably because they’re used to having most people, and particularly the media, swallow what they’re selling uncritically, often without examining it all. They enjoy widespread support because of the way they manipulate their information and shape propaganda to raise money from the faithful. Few politicians can stand up to them because of decades of demonizing alcohol on several fronts. And the media just seems to roll over rather than be seen as pro alcohol. That leaves mostly the industry to fight them, and they end up seeming too self-serving even if that’s not always the case. That’s how we got to where we are today, with alcohol paying more in taxes than any other consumer good — and still it’s not enough. It’s never enough.

Anyway, you can listen to the entire hour here, or you can go to the KQED archive and download it for later.

Still, overall I think Rich did much better than I would have done. I would have lost it on more than a few occasions. He at least kept his cool. Well done, Rich.

P1000429
Rich Higgins in his brewery at Social Kitchen.

Beer Production & Consumption Worldwide

By

earthday
Here’s another interesting infographic that nicely shows both the production and consumption of beer worldwide. It’s interesting to see the relationship between the two for each nation side by side. You can then easily work out how much beer they export or how much beer is imported into each country. One caveat, it shows Europe producing more than Asia — which recently changed — suggesting the data may be at least older than this year.

infograph-production

A Reminder: Play Fantasy Football At The Bulletin

By

football
There’s only two days left before the new NFL season of football begins on Thursday night. And as we’ve done for the past few years, there are two simple games for Bulletin readers to play, and plenty of room to fit as many as want to play (or at least the first 50 people anyway). Below is the original post from last week with all the details on how to sign up. Don’t be shy, sign up today!

This is the fourth year for the Brookston Fantasy Football Games. We’ve had a lot of fun over the last three, so if you love football and beer, consider joining us again this year. The NFL season begins on Thursday September 9, so you’ve got about a dozen days to sign up.

I’ve again set up two free Yahoo fantasy football games, one a simple pick ’em game and the other a survival pool. Up to 50 people can play each game (that’s Yahoo’s limit), so if you’re a regular Bulletin reader feel free to sign up for one or even both. It’s free to play, all you need is a Yahoo ID, which is also free. Below is a description of each game and the details on how to join each league and play.

Standings for both leagues will be listed at the bottom of the Bulletin’s right column.

Pro Football Pick’em

In this Pick’em game, just pick the winner for every game each week, with no spread, and let’s see who gets the most correct throughout the season. I’ve added a new wrinkle this year. Since we’re all very busy, and you (or I) might screw up at least one week, you can now throw out your lowest week. All that’s at stake is bragging rights, but it’s fun.

Also, a new feature Yahoo added is the ability to keep picking all through the playoffs, so the game will continue through to the Super Bowl, which is pretty cool.

In order to join the group, just go to Pro Football Pick’em, click the “Sign Up” button (or “Create or Join Group” if you are a returning user). From there, follow the path to join an existing private group and when prompted, enter the following information…

Group ID#: 37001 (Brookston NFL Pick To Win)
Password: brookston

Survival Football

If picking all sixteen football game every week seems like too much, then Survival Football is for you. In Survival Football, you only have to pick one game each week. The only catch is you can’t pick the same team to win more than once all season. And you better be sure about each game you pick because if you’re wrong, you’re out for the season. Actually this year they added a new feature and I changed the game so to be kicked out you have to be wrong twice. In that way more people stand a better chance of lasting longer into the season. So get one wrong, and you’re still okay, get a second wrong, now you’re gone for the season. Last man standing wins.

Yahoo also added the new feature to this game, too, where we can keep picking all through the playoffs, assuming our luck holds. So the game could even continue through to the Super Bowl.

In order to join the group, just go to Survival Football, click the “Sign Up” button and choose to “Join an Existing Group”, then “Join a Private Group”. Then, when prompted, enter the following information…

Group ID#: 15291 (Soused Survival League)
Password: bulletin

With 50 players allowed in each game, there’s plenty of room, so don’t be shy. Sign up for one or both games. Beginning after the first weekend of the regular season I’ll post the standings on the home page (at the bottom of the right-hand column) and then each Monday after that through the season. Won’t you join us?

Heavy Drinkers Outlive Abstainers

By

binge-barney
Many different studies have shown that people who drink alcohol in moderation liver longer than binge drinkers and abstainers. Anti-alcohol groups, and especially AA, have petulantly insisted the reason that abstainers show up in the data as having shorter lifespans than moderate drinkers is because they are all former heavy drinkers who stopped drinking after the damage was done. A new study finally puts that self-serving lie to rest.

Late-Life Alcohol Consumption and 20-Year Mortality was recently published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. The study examined “the association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality over 20 years among 1,824 older adults, controlling for a wide range of potential confounding factors associated with abstention.” The results, according to the abstract were the following;

Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.

And here it is again in a handy chart I made:

mortality-risk

See, drinking is good for you. It is part of a healthy lifestyle. Drinking moderately is the best choice you can make to lead a healthier life. It’s better for you than drinking only occasionally, drinking heavily or not at all.

Here’s how Time Magazine put it.

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

They conclude:

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

Of course, the researchers bend over backwards to make sure no one thinks they might be advocating for drinking. Heaven forbid. That’s been pretty much SOP for academic papers that have findings at odds with the anti-alcohol community for as long as I can remember. If they discovered tomorrow that chocolate cured cancer, do you think there would be warnings about the dangers of obesity attached to it? My point is everything has consequences but it seems that alcohol continues to carry a stigma that most others do not.

Still, this is great news.

The Future Of Good Beer Is Cans?

By

beer-can-beer
Gizmodo has an interesting article on Friday speculating that Canned Beer Is The Future of Good Beer. Like most Gizmodo articles, it’s in-your-face opinionated (especially in the comments, where it turns decidedly loopy) but makes most of the points we all know about that are advantages for canned beer.

I don’t believe cans will ever replace bottles entirely, but cans should command a greater market share as the craft segment of the industry continues to grow. Cans will continue to be place-driven and occasion-driven, at least in large part. But we don’t always spend our time camping, swimming or on the golf course so the real trick in marketing cans is to convince everyone that they’re ideal for the home, too, which is in fact often the case. But I continue to believe that as we also try to raise the perception of beer as a sophisticated beverage worthy of white-table fine dining, that bottles will continue to be seen as the superior package at least from that perspective. In the same way we all know that screw-top wine can be every bit as good as wine sealed with a cork, the perception remains tilted toward corks as an indicator of quality. I should hasten to add that I love craft beer in cans and support the idea whenever I can, I just don’t think it will ever be an all one package world, nor do I think it ever should be. Both packages are good from different points of view, and so I think most likely both will also remain viable for years to come.

gizmodo-lager

How Much Money Does The Government Make From Alcohol?

By

tax
The Turbo Tax Blog last month had an interesting post looking at the question of How Much Money Does The Government Make From Alcohol? It’s an overview, of course, and doesn’t include some of the dirty details that make alcohol the most taxed consumer good out there (though tobacco is pretty high, too), but there certainly is some interesting information contained in the rather large infographic.

infograph-taxation

The Science Of Smell

By

smell
NPR’s Science Friday had a show last week devoted to The Science of Smell. If you’ve ever taken tasting beer seriously, you know how important smell is to the flavor of beer (and everything else). Host Ira Flatow discussed Olfaction with research scientists Stuart Firestein and Donald Wilson. The show’s only a little under 18 minutes but is pretty interesting.

For example, twenty years ago [the field of olfaction] made the most important discovery in the modern era of olfaction, which “was the identification and cloning of a large family of receptors in our noses that mediate the sense of smell that act like a lock. If you think of it, odor is a key, and when they fit together, the brain is clued in to the fact that this odor is out there somehow. And this identification of this large, large family of genes, a thousand of them in many animals, as many as 450 in us, mediates this smell.

This turns out to be “the largest gene family in the mammalian genome. The mammalian genome, typically, we think consists of about 25,000 genes. So in a mouse, it’s about 5 percent of the genes and even in us, it’s almost 2 percent. About one out of every 50 genes in your genome was devoted to your nose.”

And here’s a later revealing exchange, from the transcript:

Dr. FIRESTEIN: I think we use our nose a lot more than most people believe. The biggest problem with our sense of smell or the feeling that we don’t have a good sense of smell is actually our bipedalism, the fact that we walk on two legs. And we have our noses stuck up here five or six feet in the air, when all the good odors are about eight or 10 inches off the ground. Or for example, as the case with other animals, they’re more willing to put their nose where the odors are, shall we say, delicately.

FLATOW: And well, we’ve always heard that animals like let’s pick out dogs, bloodhounds and things like that, that dogs are able to smell so much more sensitively than us in all different kinds of smells. Is that true?

Dr. FIRESTEIN: Well, it’s a good question. I mean, I often say to people who ask me that question, if they have such a good sense of smell, why do they think they do that greeting thing that they do?

Dr. FIRESTEIN: You think you could do that from 10 feet away, you know?

FLATOW: Well, that’s true. They get right up there and sniff you.

Dr. FIRESTEIN: Boy, they sure do.

FLATOW: So why do they need to be so close if they smell…

Dr. FIRESTEIN: Yes, well so some of this is behavioral, and a part of it, the another way to show that, I think, for humans, is that we actually have very sophisticated palate, for example, for food, much more than many other animals and we know that most of flavor is really olfaction.

And here’s another interesting exchange about the specifics of our sense of smell, insert “beer” in the place of “coffee” and the process of judging beer critically works the same way.

FLATOW: Don Wilson, tell us what happens what is connected to our noses in the sensory? What goes on in the brain when we smell something?

Dr. WILSON: Well, it’s actually really exciting because – so these you mentioned the ABCs of olfaction. I think that’s a good analogy because these hundreds of different receptors that Stuart just mentioned essentially are recognizing different features of a molecule. You don’t have — for most of odors, you don’t have a receptor for that particular odor. You don’t have a coffee receptor or a vanilla or a strawberry receptor. You have receptors that are recognizing small pieces of the molecules that you’re inhaling, and the aroma of coffee, for example, is made up of hundreds of different molecules.

So what the brain then has to do is make sense of this pattern of input that’s coming in: I’ve got receptors A, B and C activated when I smell this odor, and I’ve got receptors B, C, D and E activated when I smell this other odor. And what we’ve found is that what the brain is really doing with the olfactory cortex and the early parts of the olfactory system are doing is letting those features into what we and others would consider something like an odor object, so that you perceive now a coffee aroma from all of these individual features that you’ve inhaled. And, in fact, once you’ve perceived that coffee aroma, you really can’t pick out that, you know, there’s a really good ethyl ester in my Starbucks today or something – you really have an object that you can’t break down into different components. So that’s what the brain is doing.

And we know that part of that building of the object, that synthetic processing of all these features, is heavily dependent on memory. So you learn to put these features together and experience this odor the first time. So it’s really a – in some ways, olfaction seems really simple. They suck a molecule up my nose and it binds to a receptor and so I must know what I’ve just inhaled. But, in fact, it’s a fairly complex process where it’s akin to object perception and other sensory systems.

FLATOW: Does the fact that it elicits such strong memories — you know, so you can a smell from 40 years ago or something. Is it because — are they close together, the centers for smell and memory in the brain?

Dr. WILSON: Well, in humans, it’s — in some ways, the olfactory cortex is really enveloped by — embraced by parts of the brain that are important for emotion and memory. There are direct reciprocal connections between the olfactory system and the amygdala and hippocampus, these parts that are important for emotion and memory. So – and we think that as you’re putting these features together to make this perceptual object, the brain and the cortex is also sort of listening to the context of which I’m smelling it, maybe the emotions that I’m having as I’m smelling it. And those can, in fact, we think can become an integral part of the percept itself. So it not only becomes difficult to say what the molecules were within that coffee aroma, but it also becomes difficult to isolate the emotional responses you’re having with that same odor.

After that they go on about memory and aromas, and then take calls from listeners. You can also hear the entire discussion below or at Science Friday’s website (or download it below or at NPR) and also see the full transcript.


download mp3:

Beer In Art #91: Andriy Khomyk’s Drinking Beer

By

art-beer
Today’s painting is done using a unique technique, reverse painting on glass. It’s an ancient process, and today’s artist, Andriy Khomyk, is from the Ukraine where at one time it enjoyed more popularity. According to his website. “No other medium allows for the creation of such deep and energetic color! Painting is done on the reverse side of the pane — the work is viewed through the layer of glass, which produces amazing effects!” You can also read more about painting on glass on Khomyk’s website. The title of the painting below is Drinking Beer.

Andriy_Khomyk-beer

A short biography is on his website:

Andriy Khomyk was born in Lviv, Ukraine, on May 28, 1962. He graduated from the Faculty of Design of Lviv College of Applied end Decorative Arts in 1981, and from the Faculty of Decorative Ceramics of the Lviv Academy of the Arts in 1986. He has worked in the fields of easel painting and book printing art, and since 1991 in the field of easel painting on glass. He has participated in international and national exhibitions, and has had personal exhibitions of paintings on glass in Lviv, 1993, USA, 1995, Kyiv, 1996, Lviv, 1996, Krakow, 1997, USA, 1997, Lviv, 1998, Lviv, 1999, and USA, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.

He’s also done one more beer-themed painting that’s in his Folk Arts section under crafts, entitled The Brewer.

Andriy_Khomyk-brewer

You can see many more of his painted glass artwork at the gallery on his website.

World Drinking Age Maps

By

earthday
In a similar vein to yesterday’s hangover infographics, here are several more that show the minimum age that people can drink across the nations of the world. They show just how out of whack we are with the rest of the world, having one of the highest ages where people are permitted to drink: 21. The majority of the world is at 18 or below, with only a very few above eighteen (of those countries that permit their citizens to choose for themselves whether they want to consume alcohol).

infograph-drinking-age
For a larger view, click here.

One odd feature of this one is it shows India as a solid 21, whereas it’s actually 18-25 depending on the state. But it’s still pretty obvious that the world average, where drinking it allowed at all, is 18.

drinking-age-map
For a larger view, click here.

This one, too, shows a proliferation of 18 and under, where legal.

infograph-drinking-age-3
For a larger view, click here.

The last one, from Charts Bin, lumps together many of the ages of majority, which seems a little misleading. For example, it lumps 19-21 together making it seem like there’s many more that are on the high end whereas only five countries are as high as 21, including the puritanical U.S.

There are also a few decent lists of drinking ages, at the International Center for Alcohol Policies, Wikipedia and Alcohol Problems and Solutions.