Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Good For Your Bones: Beer

By

health
A study recently conducted in Spain revealed that women who drink beer daily, or nearly so, have stronger bone density and have a lower risk of developing osteoporosis later in life. The study, published in the June edition of Nutrition, speculates that “the high level of silicon in beer slows down the thinning that leads to fractures and boosts the formation of new bone. Beer is also rich in phytoestrogens, plant versions of oestrogen, which keep bones healthy.”

According to the Full Text of the Study:

Of the nearly 1700 women who took part in the study, there “were 793 (46.7%) who drank beer habitually. Two hundred fifty-seven (15.1%) subjects drank wine habitually, 374 (22.0%) subjects smoked, and among these 209 (12.3% of total) were beer drinkers. Postmenopausal women drank less beer than premenopausal and perimenopausal women.”

For postmenopausal women, circulating estrogen concentrations have been shown to be positively associated with alcohol intake. Our findings, of higher Ad-SoS in premenopausal and postmenopausal women who drink, support the idea that the bone-enhancing effects of alcohol might be partially due to a promotion of endogenous estrogens synthesis. Although wine at low doses, and in an acute form, has been observed to have an estrogenic effect, there have been no indications of pathways for its effect on bone other than its stimulation of the syntheses of estrogens and, because of its alcohol content, of calcitonin. This may explain the difference in our results, which were positive for the consumption of beer but not significant for the consumption of wine.

Beer is also a major source of silicon in the form of orthosilicic acid. In fact, it has been suggested that beer is one of the most important sources of silicon in the Western diet. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that dietary silicon intake may have salutary effects on skeletal health, especially cortical bone health in premenopausal women, although not in postmenopausal women. Despite a positive correlation also taking place in the postmenopausal group, we believe that this positive effect on bone might be due to the synergic effect of a combination of silicon and phytoestrogen (daidzein, genistein, and others) compounds in beer. These positive effects of silicon on the bone in postmenopause seem to occur when silicon supplementation is given to prevent bone mass loss. In fact, oral silicon is reported to completely abrogate the loss of bone mass.

In this study, we do not recommend the consumption of beer, wine, or any other alcoholic beverage for bone health; nevertheless, we have been able to verify that beer ingestion, a common component within our area’s diet, seems to provide bone mass with beneficial effects for those women who had moderate alcohol consumption. This was a cross-sectional study with certain limitations, which reflects associations but does not reveal causes and effects. A common problem with studies using dietetic questionnaires is the fact that some subjects could have difficulty recalling type and frequency of ingested food. This is a minor problem with respect to beer consumption because its quantification is easy and precise, since it is available only in 200-mL and 330-mL bottles at supermarkets in our area. Our study design did not include the measurements of plasma levels of phytoestrogens.

In conclusion, the consumption of beer, apart from its alcohol content, favors greater bone mass in women independently of their gonadal status. This might be a result of the phytoestrogen content of this alcoholic drink, which requires further investigation.

Despite their chickening out from actually recommending people drink beer for their health, the conclusions of the study nonetheless support doing just that. Another study by Tufts University earlier this year came to the same conclusion.

So why is it so difficult for scientists to just admit what’s right in front of their faces? That the moderate consumption of beer is really good for you. The only reasons I can think of is that they’re either afraid of having research grant money dry up for not reaching the “correct” conclusions or because they, too, have inadvertently drank the Kool-Aid and internalized the decades of prohibitionist propaganda. In the latter case — and I think this is true of many otherwise typical people — years and years of neo-prohibitionist groups having the only voice without dissenting opinions allowed have left many believing a series of premises that are simply not true or at best grossly exaggerated. That seems to me the only rational explanation of why it’s seemingly so difficult for many similar scientific studies to draw the logical conclusion from the data. Of course, it may simply be a liability issue and they’re afraid of being sued when people begin drinking more based on the studies.
Young woman with glass of beer
Drink up ladies! A beer a day may keep the doctor away.

Jewel Pet’s Garnet Drinks Beer

By

rocky
I confess I’d never heard of Jewel Pet before now. As far as I can tell, Jewel Pet is one of those saccharinely sweet Japanese cartoons in the Hello Kitty mold. In fact, it was created by the same company, Sanrio. It’s a cartoon for kids in Japan so far at least 52 episodes have been produced. Here’s one description of the show:

In a magical land, small animals learn magic and are then turned into Jewels to travel to the magic forest. While her classmates are busy being transformed into jewels, Ruby, a rabbit, is off playing. The stork delivering the Jewel pets to the forest is overcome by a gust of wind, and the Jewels spill, falling to Earth. Ruby, who is being punished for going off and playing instead of becoming a Jewel with her classmates, is sent to Earth to retrieve her friends.

One fan, with apparently a lot of time on his or her hands was worried their favorite character, a bunny named Garnet, would lose air time as new Jewel Pets were discovered each episode, but was relieved to find that wasn’t the case.

What’s happened, rather, is that a troika of pets (Ruby, Garnet and Sapphy) has taken over. Each episode, after sharing the limelight with the new Pet of the Week, they pretty much banish it from ever rearing its ugly head in town. I’m relieved!

What surprised me about all this is the scene below shows Garnet drinking a beer! Remember this is a show aimed at kids around 8-years old, plus or minus. You have to love the Japanese when they don’t think anything at all about showing beer during a kids show. Apparently nobody screamed about corrupting the young, which almost certainly would have occurred if it had aired here. If you want to watch some episodes in Japanese, there are a few online.

jewel-pet
“That’s beer!! Garnet, stop that bunny!”

Next Session Takes On Summer Beers

By

session-the
Peter Estanial, of the Better Beer Blog, has announced the topic for September’s Session: Summer Beers.

With the summer coming to a close, what was your favorite beer of the summer? It doesn’t even have to be from this summer. Is it a lager or maybe a light bodied wheat ale? Maybe you’re drinking anti-seasonally and are having a barleywine or Russian Imperial Stout. Why is this beer your favorite? Is there a particular memory associated with this beer? How about a city? Maybe there was a particular dish that made this beer memorable? Spare no detail.

Get drinking, summer’s a’wasting.

The Angry Arm Of Alcohol

By

angry-arm
I was outside the news bubble all last week, happily ignorant of most of the goings on stateside. I left just after the infamous Beer Summit, a relatively non-event that was blown completely out of proportion but which allowed the news media to avoid talking about more important issues for a while. The San Jose Mercury News even asked me to weigh in on the beer choices. And I was certainly not the only one, as the Brewers Association had a summary of links about it. Consensus seemed to be that we were all glad beer was in the public spotlight, we just wished it had been better beer. Of course, not everyone was happy about beer getting a moment in the sun, and the usual chuckleheads started complaining even before it took place. But afterward, it got even worse.

The head of the Delaware chapter of the notorious neo-prohibitionist group Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Nancy Raynor, said she “hopes those images don’t send the wrong message to the millions of young people who saw the president drinking on TV” during a radio interview on WDEL Radio 1150 AM. I’m not exactly sure how an adult being shown doing something that’s perfectly legal sends the “wrong message,” whatever that even means, but logic is not apparently her strong suit. She also said that “it’s a well-known fact that young people tend to mimic the actions that they see be adult (sic).” I’d think she might then be more concerned about images on TV of people shooting each other with guns. That would be a greater threat than drinking if indeed young people are mimicking what they see on television.

And that might have been the end of it except that the American Beverage Institute (ABI), a trade organization representing primarily restaurants serving alcohol, issued a press statement taking MADD to task for what Raynor said during her interview.

“MADD is no longer an organization that opposes drunk driving, but an anti-alcohol group that has been hijacked by the modern day temperance movement,” said Sarah Longwell, ABI Managing Director. “That someone in a position of leadership at MADD would criticize President Obama for simply drinking beer, illustrates the neoprohibitionist mentality that now dominates the group.”

Last week, President Obama met with the men involved in the Cambridge police incident in an attempt to diffuse the situation. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, and Cambridge police Sergeant James Crowley enjoyed cold beers while working out their differences. But in an interview this weekend, the President of the Delaware chapter of MADD, Nancy Raynor, expressed concern that the event could send the wrong message to young people who saw the president drinking on TV.

“MADD’s position on the ‘Beer Summit’ should remind Americans that the group once dedicated to preventing drunk driving has transitioned into leading the anti-alcohol movement,” said Longwell. “MADD has even been denounced by its founder Candy Lightner as ‘very neo-prohibitionist.’”

“MADD should return to its original mission of stopping drunk driving,” said Longwell. “The more time and resources the group spends pushing an anti-alcohol agenda, the more irrelevant it becomes.”

I’d say that the ABI statement is accurate from my experience watching how MADD operates and what they do, say and support. But MADD at the national level chimed in to defend both their position and the organization’s Delaware chapter head. Frank Harris, a spokesman with MADD’s national office in Washington, D.C. (though some accounts label him a “state policy specialist”), “emphasizes that his organization has no problem with safe alcohol consumption” and “is not against responsible drinking of alcohol for those over 21 years of age.” If that were true, of course, there would be no reason for Raynor to have been “concerned” about the Beer Summit sending “the wrong message.” She’s the head of an entire state, after all. She wouldn’t have attained that position without drinking the Kool-Aid. Everything that followed her statements was just damage control. And one of the most common tactics used to is to simply discredit your opponent. Harris attempted to do just that in hilarious fashion, by claiming that the ABI represents “the angry arm of the alcohol lobby.”

After I stopped laughing, it got me to thinking. The real question shouldn’t be that some people are angry, but that why aren’t more people angry? Why shouldn’t we be angry? For many years now, the anti-alcohol neo-prohibitionist groups have set the agenda. The media and politicians more often than not fall into lockstep in letting their side of the story be told, and very rarely give any meaningful time to any contrary position. That’s primarily because neo-prohibitionists pretend to own the moral high ground, forcing everyone into a defensive position. But there’s nothing remotely moral or immoral about alcohol. It just is. Like any other consumable food, it cannot be good or bad, just delicious or unappetizing. Despite our dysfunctional history of puritanical posturing, it can only be a sin to drink if you believe it’s a sin to drink. Not even different religions agree on this point. Not even different denominations of Christian religions can agree on whether or not drinking is a sin. That it’s wrong to decide for everyone through legislation what is essentially just personal preference should be obvious. That it didn’t work here, or anywhere else Prohibition was tried, should be a potent reminder that what they want is already a failed idea. Yet still they persist.

But as much as they wish it were otherwise, alcohol is legal is the United States, and the majority of people who drink do so responsibly and without the societal burdens or problems that are ascribed to alcohol by these groups. So something perfectly legal, used correctly by most people, is under constant attack by a minority who distort facts, prey on fear and will use almost any tactic to stop people from enjoying it. And people aren’t angry? Why not?!? I firmly believe we have every right to be angry — and not just the ABI — but everyone who drinks responsibly, isn’t a burden on society, and whose life didn’t turn into a bad country song the moment alcohol touched their lips should be angry that there are people who just won’t let them be. This is an issue that should have been settled over 75 years ago, but anti-alcohol groups not only won’t just admit defeat but have been fighting just as relentlessly as ever. They’re like that Japanese soldier on the deserted island who didn’t get the word that World War II was over, except that neo-prohibitionists are actually making headway and many people listen to these cranks because of the way they frame their arguments and because people are afraid to stand up to them, especially politicians.

So when they accuse the ABI of being the angry arm of the alcohol lobby, I say we embrace that idea and be angry. I am. I’m angry. Why aren’t you?

hurra-bier

My wife had the wonderful idea that we should make t-shirts, and she’s rarely, excuse me, never wrong. Anyone out there with some artistic skills want to create a logo for the “Angry Arm of Alcohol?” I’m picturing simply an outstretched horizontal arm holding a full pint glass or other beer glass. Perhaps with “The Angry Arm of Alcohol” tattooed on the forearm.

Beer In Art #38: Lawson Wood’s Nine Pints Of The Law

By

Since I just returned from England and the Great British Beer Festival I thought it made sense that today’s work of art is decidedly British. It’s a humorous work entitled Nine Pints of the Law by famed illustrator Lawson Wood.

Wood-Lawson_9-pints

One website describes the painting like this:

World-worn and weary after a hard day’s work, these British bobbies still have the strength to heave a hefty pint of ale. Artist Lawson Wood takes a lighthearted look at his country’s comical constables in characteristically British style.

And here’s a brief overview of Wood, according to one biography:

Clarence Lawson Wood (1878 – 1957) was born at Highgate, the grandson of the landscape painter L J Wood. He studied at the Slade School and at Heatherley’s and was the chief artist on the staff of C Arthur Pearson Ltd for a number of years. He served in the Kite Balloon Wing of the Royal Flying Corps during the First World War.

Wood’s work is usually in ink and watercolour and most of it is humorous in style and content and he was a member of the London Sketch Club. His repertoire of characters includes policemen, army officers, Stone Age people with dinosaurs and, most popularly, the orang-utan, Gran’pop, introduced in the 1930s.

Gran’pop appeared weekly in the Sketch for a number of years and his fame translated to the US, where Wood prepared at least four animated cartoons for production in Hollywood.

Lawson Wood, as he signed his work, retired from the world of illustration and lived in Kent in seclusion until he died at the age of 79.

For a more thorough biography, check out Been Publishing, I’m Back, and there’s also Art in a Click. To see more of his work, try the Baron Fine Art Gallery, Chris Beetles or Poster Unlimited.

Bistro IPA Festival Winners 2009

By

bistro
Head Hunter IPA from Fat Heads Brewery & Saloon in Cleveland, Ohio was chosen best in show at the 12th annual IPA Festival earlier today at the Bistro in Hayward, California. The keg of Fat Head beer was sent via FedEx in a blue suitcase to The Bistro. Bistro owner Vic Kralj recounts that when he called Fat Heads brewer Matt Cole, who coincidentally was enjoying a beer in Wisconsin with Bay Area brewers Arne Johnson and Alec Moss, that his screams of delight could be heard through the phone by everyone around Vic. The full list of winners is below.

Session #30: Beer Desserts

By

session-the
It’s been a full week since I forgot to participate in this month’s Session, for no better reason than it was the day I flew back from London; a lost day, as it were. So in an effort to at least write about the topic, albeit late, here is my take, backdated, on the last dish of the meal: dessert. The topic was hosted by Beer 47, who explained his rationale.

What beer desserts have you tried and liked? Disliked? What beer styles work well with dessert and which ones do not? Do you have any beer dessert recipes that you enjoyed and would like to share?

Like many people, the first beer dessert I had that opened my mind up to the myriad possibilities of beer with dessert was a porter float, which I had in the early 1990s during a visit to Colorado’s first microbrewery, Boulder Beer Co.. It was on their menu and I ordered one, not knowing exactly what to expect. It was revelatory.

session_logo_all_text_200

Since that close encounter of the dessert kind, I’ve had countless more experiences with beer and dessert, from desserts made with beer to simply heavenly pairings. Certain beers do, of course, more readily lend themselves to desserts than others. As a general rule, stronger, darker beers make good dessert beers, though some fruit beers are likewise a good match depending on the dessert. A Framboise (raspberry) Lambic and anything chocolate is a natural. The beers I’ve found work best with dessert are the following:

  • Barley Wine
  • Bocks & Doppelbocks
  • Dubbels
  • Flanders Red Ale
  • Fruit Beers (non-lambic)
  • Fruit Lambics
  • Lambic (Straight)
  • Oatmeal Stouts
  • Old Ale
  • Porters
  • Rauchbiers
  • Russian Imperial Stouts
  • Spice Beers
  • Stouts
  • Tripels

I assume I don’t have to mention two things. First, this list is not exhaustive, but merely some of the more common styles of beer to experiment with. Second, they’re not universal, each goes well with a certain range of desserts. But what could be more fun than trying a variety of desserts with a range of beers?

The Hopfather: A Beer You Can’t Refuse

By

russian-river
At the Bistro IPA Festival next Saturday, Russian River Brewing will debut their latest beer: The Hopfather. The Hopfather is a 7% IPA that’s loosely based on an IPA recipe Vinnie Cilurzo contributed to Sam Calagione’s book Extreme Brewing, though Vinnie says he’s changed things up considerably. It starts with CTZ and Magnum hops, but uses primarily Amarillo and Centennial for flavor and aroma to the tune of around 10 pounds per barrel. While Vinnie assures me it will have a big malt backbone, he also promises the flavors and aroma will be “balls to the wall hops.” As if you needed another reason to go to the Bistro IPA Festival, this should make your attendance all but mandatory if you love hops.

The Teachable Moment

By

red-stripe bud-light blue-moon
In a few hours, our President, Barack Obama, will sit down at a picnic table with two men in an event that’s been blown way out of proportion with the even more ridiculous title “Beer Summit.” The idea is to discuss race relations in America after events that unfolded much like the beginning of the Nicholas Cage film Amos & Andrew last week in Cambridge, Mass. I won’t go into all the controversy about the incident, and who was right or wrong, and what can be done about it. That’s been talked about to death. But there’s something else, a bit more under the radar, which has to do, I think, with the “teachable moment” that Obama was hoping to accomplish with his “Beer Summit.”

For me, the over-looked “teachable moment” is that three adults can sit down and discuss an issue, any issue really, over a beer. Sharing a beer is a way people have bonded for centuries. It’s the reason the Tavern was so critical to the success of the American Revolution. Drinking beer, I think, is particularly good as a shared experience and that adults can enjoy having a convivial conversation while responsibly enjoying a beer or two is beer’s power and an underlying reason for its popularity.

That should be obvious, but I’ve noticed a number of odd statements towards the end of various news reports, presumably in an effort to get a balanced perspective. But since having a couple of beers to talk over a problem seems like such an ordinary experience for a majority of people, they’ve had to go pretty far into the fringes to find dissenting opinions.

Take this example, from the Wall Street Journal, where the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union chimes in. I confess, I was unaware of their continued existence. But here’s what they had to say:

Rita K. Wert, the group’s national president, said her organization is disappointed that the president is serving beer at all. “There are so many other beverages he could have chosen that would have served just as well,” she said, mentioning lemonade or iced tea.

Served, maybe, but as well, doubtful. I love Iced Tea more than anyone really should [I drink at least a liter a day, usually more], but neither it nor lemonade is appropriate for a discussion of race relations. They might be fine if you were planning a high school dance. But for the harder issues, you need the harder stuff.

Then there’s this gem, from Politico:

But it wouldn’t be a contrived Washington event without a contrived Washington protest. Already, “Citizens Against the Beer Summit at White House”, a makeshift gathering spearheaded by Baltimore pastor Dr. Emmett Burns, will picket the White House today between 12 and 3 p.m. “The president’s actions are sending the wrong message to our nation’s youth who are becoming alcoholics at young ages,” reads an announcement for the protest. “This pernicious habit is also the reason for the large number of teen motor vehicle accidents throughout the country.”

Burns is not exactly just a pastor, but also a politician, a 4-term Democrat in Maryland’s House of Delegates. And he’s a Baptist minister, a denomination that generally comes out against alcohol, so it’s not too surprising.

But there are two things I just don’t get about what’s he’s saying. How are three adults, legally entitled to drink alcohol, sending a bad message to kids, who aren’t yet allowed alcohol? That makes no sense whatsoever. People allowed to do something, doing it (and doing it responsibly) does not send any rational person the message that it’s alright for anyone to do that same thing, especially if they’re not permitted to do it. A torturous sentence to be sure, but it’s a ridiculous notion, but one that’s often trotted out. “What about the kids.” Well, I’d say they’ll get to see a great model of responsible behavior, and perhaps learn that drinking can be done in a responsible manner instead of the scare tactics employed by Burns and people of his misguided ilk. That’s exactly the teachable moment I see. To say that seeing adults enjoy something legally can be the cause of teenagers having car accidents is so utterly a stretch of logic, that I have to seriously wonder about the mind of the author who included the quote. As I, and literally millions of responsible adults can attest, drinking beer does not always, or even usually, lead to a “pernicious habit” (defined as “highly injurious or destructive”). What does it add to the conversation, except to give voice to the fringe element?

Despite these rather pathetic attempts to admonish the President for doing something perfectly legal, something that’s a time-honored tradition, and take any opportunity to get their crazed anti-alcohol message out there, the real message is just the opposite. No matter what you think about Obama’s politics, having people sit down to talk over a beer is always a good idea. Beer as social lubricant: it bonds people, opens them up to talk more freely and discuss uncomfortable issues head on. If the three men walk away from the “Beer Summit” with a successful result — and how could it be otherwise? — beer will have played the role it’s been facilitating throughout history. This is nothing new. When enjoyed responsibly, like the vast majority of legal drinkers do, beer can have countless positive effects on society. If only all our differences could be tackled over a beer, now that would be real progress. We might actually get somewhere. But the real message is that anybody, from President to average citizen, can sit down and discuss the world, and any issue in it, over a beer in a positive, responsible and effective manner. To me, that’s the “teachable moment.”

All Beer Is The Same!?!

By

beer-bottle-brown
I try to keep my criticisms of beer coverage by the mainstream media civil, especially since at times I’m one of them. But an article posted yesterday on MSNBC, Will You Drink Beer In A Box?, is so completely riddled with error and ridiculousness that the gloves are off. Author James Dlugosch may know stocks and the world of finance, but when it comes to beer, he’s an unmitigated idiot.

First of all, the premise of his article, taken from a Wall Street Journal article, is that Molson Coors, actually MillerCoors but I’ll try not to nitpick, is testing beer in a box, which he finds as distasteful as box wine. Which is all well and good, but it’s not in a box at all. It’s a small keg that fits in your refrigerator, similar to the mini-kegs the Germans have been selling for decades. See below. You can also see another view of it from the front at Gizmodo. The keg itself is in a cardboard box, presumably for easier carrying, but the beer is in a container no different than any other keg or can of beer. It’s like saying that since a six-pack of bottles are packaged in a cardboard six-pack carrier that the beer is in cardboard, too. What a maroon.

miller-lite-home-keg
But it gets better. The reason he’s so opposed to a box has less to do with the container and more to do with his own twisted sense of how things ought to be. Here’s how he sees it:

Now, with beer, the box might be less objectionable since, in my opinion, the quality issue is not really in play. Despite what the microbrewers will tell you, all beer is pretty much the same. Consumers who pay a premium do so more for the experience than the taste.

So apparently an Old Rasputin Imperial Stout is exactly, excuse me, pretty much the same as Miller Lite. In the words of Bill Cosby channeling Noah. “Right ….” At this point, I almost feel sorry for him. Imagine having so little understanding or familiarity with taste and smell or such an underdeveloped palate that you could write those words and, presumably, believe them. It’s not that beer tastes differently, it’s just that we experience them differently. “Right …” Well that will certainly make judging at GABF this year considerably easier since we can just pile them all together instead of having to sit for hours with 78 different style categories and countless sub-categories, each pretending to have their own unique taste profile. Not that there’s much danger of this, but I sure hope I don’t get invited to the White House for a beer summit with this knucklehead.

But as ridiculous as that statement was, wait, this one’s even better:

But for me, the issue is the bottle. I like drinking my suds from a cold bottle. Period.

Put it in a glass, and the experience just isn’t the same.

Wow. I’ve found my complete opposite. I won’t drink beer in a bottle or can, but insist on a glass. I’m frankly quite glad the experience isn’t the same, how could it be? Beer in a glass is so much better that I’m continually amazed that people really will drink directly from a bottle or can and now here’s someone who only does what I find abhorrent and refuse to do. Of course, I do this for a reason. Much of beer’s aroma, an integral component of its overall taste, is locked in the bottle and is released through the head when it’s poured into a glass. That’s not just my opinion, but is backed up by at least a century of scientific research, not to mention the experience of billions throughout history. It also releases excess carbon dioxide and makes your beer much less gassy and filling, too. Then, of course, there’s the pleasure of enjoying a beer from its proper glass, all lost on Dlugosch.

Naturally, Dlugosch is entitled to his opinion but I’m so weary of such ignorance being passed off as expertise. His opinion is obviously the by-product of living in a society that has commodified beer as one thing, interchangeable but for brand names differentiated by marketing and advertising. And, but for a few exceptions, his statement about beer being pretty much the same might have been correct 35-40 years ago, at least with regard to American beer. But saying so today, with over 1500 breweries making craft beer in a myriad of styles and unique compositions, makes Dlugosch a doofus. Period.