Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Societal Costs vs. Personal Costs For Alcohol

By

cdc
At first glance I thought my pals at Alcohol Justice (AJ) got their hooks in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), because I don’t know anyone better at making up behaviors that cry out for personal responsibility that are ascribed to society (for the cost) and business (for the fault). Their absurd “charge for harm” campaign, which seeks to make alcohol companies, the businesses that sell their products, and the communities that they live in wholly responsible for the personal decisions and behavior of a minority of people who abuse alcohol, seems to have been swallowed whole in a new study, apparently by the CDC, that was recently published in the American Journal for Preventative Medicine. That study, not surprisingly, was the subject of a recent AJ press release, CDC Releases New Cost Study: Excessive Alcohol Use Cost the U.S. $223.5 Billion in 2006, which they summarize:

Of the total costs, 72.2% ($161 billion dollars) is attributed to lost productivity in the workforce. The remaining costs are attributed to healthcare (11%), criminal justice (9.4%), and effects such as property damage (7.5%). While the CDC has had strong data on premature deaths caused by alcohol consumption (79,000 annually, with an estimated 2.3 million years of potential life lost each year), it last performed an economic cost analysis in 1998, when the annual cost was estimated to be $184.6 billion.

While $223.5 billion dollars is a massive number — almost 3 times what the federal government spent on pre-primary through secondary education in 2010 — the authors of the study believe that it is a substantial understatement of the true costs of alcohol use in the United States. They recommend “effective interventions to reduce excessive alcohol consumption—including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, maintaining and enforcing the minimum legal drinking age of 21 years, screening and counseling for alcohol misuse, and specific countermeasures for alcohol- impaired driving such as sobriety checkpoints.” With the national cost of alcohol consumption ringing in at nearly $2 per drink, we could not agree more.

Of course they couldn’t agree more, it’s catnip to their agenda and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a closer link to the study that has not been disclosed since it seems so much like a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own propaganda with conclusions that so closely mirror their own proposals to “fix” alcohol abuse at the expense of the majority of responsible drinkers and local craft brewers who positively affect their local economies and communities. And my instinct turns out to be true, though not with AJ, but because this study “was supported by generous grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the CDC Foundation.” For me, that’s the smoking gun. If you don’t know who the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is, they’re the mother of all neo-prohibitionist groups, and they fund most of the other ones, setting the agenda for a majority of other anti-alcohol organizations nationwide. Supposedly, AJ no longer accepts donations from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, though when I asked when they stopped receiving support from them, I never got an answer.

But a closer look at the study reveals that the charges it ascribes to “society” are not actually borne by society at large, at least to my way of thinking, but instead are paid privately by the individuals who supposedly abused alcohol or the private companies that employ them. To me, that makes them false statistics because they say one thing that turns out to not actually be true. So let’s look as those numbers of societal “costs.” Here’s the breakdowns, according to AJ’s press release:

  1. 72.2%: Lost productivity in the workforce
  2. 11%: Healthcare
  3. 9.4%: Criminal justice
  4. 7.5%: Property damage

Okay, the biggest expense blamed on alcohol abuse is “lost productivity in the workforce,” accounting for nearly three-quarters of the total, or about $161 billion. But unless they work for the government (and there’s no data on what percentage might) the costs, it seems to me, would be paid by the private companies they work for. And if they continually show up late, hungover or so they can’t do their job, how many would remain employed for an extended period of time? However you slice it, that’s not me or society paying for the poor performance of that binge-drinking employee. I suppose you could argue that a company filled with such people might result in higher prices passed along to consumers, but any such company that doesn’t weed out employees who don’t perform their jobs well is most likely going to go out of business for other reasons, as well.

The other lost productivity category is early mortality by alcohol-abusers. These people apparently selfishly die before they can do enough work to be considered to have paid their debt to be a member of society. But if you drink yourself into an early grave, your unfinished work or debt to society has got to be the least of your troubles. It’s more likely that the reasons for your early demise have multiple causes, many of which were probably not addressed by the society who was as responsible for you as they claim you were to country, state, community and family. I honestly can’t see how you can total dollar amounts for work undone by one individual, when undoubtedly another person stepped in and did it instead. I don’t mean to sound cold, but with unemployment so high, when a position becomes available under such circumstances, I feel confident that there will be someone to take that job and get the work done. So how does that cost society anything?

But let’s also look at the number itself, $161 billion. GDP at the end of 2006 (the same timeframe as this study) was $13.58 trillion. That makes this “cost to society” 1.19% of GDP. Not only is that a pretty small percentage though, even if true, nothing in their reasoning suggests it’s anything close to the truth.

The next highest cost is from healthcare. But again, unless the binge drinker has no health insurance and doesn’t pay his own medical bills, how is society paying? For those with insurance, their policy pays their medical bills, and whatever isn’t covered under their policy they become personally responsible for. I admit that it’s more likely that a person who abuses alcohol, and may not be able to keep down a job, might not have health insurance, but in the only civilized nation without universal healthcare I would argue that’s more a failure of our society than a cost to it. Whoever ends up paying for the medical care of binge drinkers, it seems more likely it will be insurance companies first, responsible individuals second, and, if at all, society last.

Third, criminal justice apparently accounts for 9.5%. What is meant by “criminal justice” includes $73 billion, of which “43.8% came from crash-related costs from driving under the influence, 17.2% came from corrections costs, and 15.1% came from lost productivity associated with homicide. Other categories include fire loss, crime victim property damage and “special education” about “fetal alcohol syndrome.” In the full text of the study, Table 2 lists who they think is responsible for all these costs, whether the government, the drinker and his family or society (though I should point out how that was arrived upon is completely absent from the study). Given that the entire study supposedly claims the “cost of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States in 2006 reached $223.5 billion,” you’d think that the personal costs even they admit to would not be a part of the total at all. Even by the CDC study’s own admission, 41% of the costs they claim are to society, are actually “paid” by the individual drinker (and his family). That’s almost half that don’t appear to be a cost to society as a whole. How does that not call into question their methodology and/or their conclusions?

But many of these other categories seem plain silly. Fire loss and property damage? Those are crimes, whether or not the person perpetrating them was drinking or not. To say it’s alcohol-related if they had a drink before they robbed someone seems as ludicrous as including a car accident in which the passenger was drinking in drunk driving statistics (which actually has been routinely done). And corrections? If you’re in jail for a crime you committed, yes that’s a cost to society, but that’s a cost we’ve all agreed is supposed to be borne by society, like the police and fire departments. It’s not like there’s some special jails that don’t count or count double if the criminal had a drinking problem. It’s really just a way to inflate the numbers and, as usual, make the problem with alcohol abuse seem far worse than it is.

And while I’m on that subject, let’s briefly mention how absurd the very definition of a “binge drinker” is in compiling these statistics, too. I’ve written about this many times, such as in Inflating Binge Drinking Statistics, Son of Binge Drinking Statistics Inconsistencies and Inventing Binge Drinking.

Lastly, “property damage,” which is really “other effects,” is listed as 7.5% of the harm blamed on alcohol. This is very confusing, because in the study’s Table 1, “criminal justice” is actually listed under “other effects” so I’m not sure what AJ is up to with their list. So I’ve actually addressed property damage above here, though Table 1 also includes a separate column for “crime-related” so the row for “criminal justice” is 100% “crime-related” so I’m not sure what’s being doubled-up on, but surely something is odd, if not intentionally.

The other factors not accounted for, as usual, are any positive effects of alcohol. Although both the study and AJ makes a big deal about what negative effects they couldn’t quantify, they’re completely unconcerned about any omitted positive ones. Certainly there are economic benefits for local communities as well as society at large. But even ignoring those, this “study” undoubtedly does not take into account how total mortality is improved by moderate, responsible drinking as set forth in the most recent FDA dietary guidelines, as well as a number of scientific studies and meta-studies that have shown the same thing. How many people who do drink moderately as part of a healthy lifestyle actually save society money because of their responsible behavior, which includes a drink or two daily?

It also doesn’t take into account how many crimes are prevented or stress relieved which might otherwise have led to “costs to society” because a person had a drink or two and calmed down, relaxed and decided not to do something rash, stupid or illegal. Given that the majority of people who drink alcohol do so responsibly and do not cost society anything, even by these absurd standards, it seems likely a lot more “costs” are actually prevented by moderate alcohol consumption. So where’s the balance? As even this “study” admits, “[m]ost of the costs were due to binge drinking — it’s the subtitle of the CDC’s press release — although the CDC claims “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption, or heavy drinking, is defined as consuming an average of more than one alcoholic beverage per day for women, and an average of more than two alcoholic beverages per day for men, and any drinking by pregnant women or underage youth.”

Of course, that’s at odds with the most recent dietary guidelines that the FDA released, which “defines ‘low-risk’ drinking as no more than 14 drinks a week for men and 7 drinks a week for women with no more than 4 drinks on any given day for men and 3 drinks a day for women.” But the anti-alcohol groups didn’t like that definition, and they gave the money for this study to be done, so they can safely ignore anything that doesn’t fit the conclusion they paid for. Why the government is so hot to be in bed with anti-alcohol factions is a bit trickier, but I feel confident money and control are at the root. The CDC’s handling of autism research has made me more than a little suspect of their motives and their ties to the medical industry and academic institutions.

But the larger picture is the question of Societal Costs vs. Personal Costs for alcohol. Few other products sold in America are as demonized as alcohol and it remains one of the few that continues to be blamed en masse for the actions of a minority of people who abuse it. Whatever harm they do personally is writ large across the entire spectrum of consumption, as if everybody who drinks is a bad person costing society its moral compass and leading us down the mother of all bad roads. We are becoming the scapegoats for all of society’s ills. Make no mistake about it, there are people who want a return to prohibition and the groundwork is being laid as we speak to try it again. And we know how well it turned out the last time. But we should be honest about it. Everything we do costs society something, but only alcohol is singled out to pay for the small number of people who abuse it. It’s a question of weighing the good with the bad and what’s best for a majority of people. Given that the vast majority of people are responsible drinkers who enjoy both drinking alcohol and the rituals that go along with it, I’d say that society has always been better off when its populace could have a beer. And that’s good both for the individual and society as a whole.

American Dietetic Ass’n Toasts Beer For Good Health During American Heart Month

By

eat-right-ada
The Anti-Alcohol wingnuts of the world tend to go apoplectic anytime it’s suggested that alcohol might have any health benefits. It just doesn’t fit their world view. I’ve seen it happen. Oh, some of the comments I’ve gotten. But, of course, myriad studies have shown just that and even our government acknowledged that fact in the recent dietary recommendations. That didn’t stop the wingnuts from a letter writing campaign because they just couldn’t stand the idea of the Fed’s recommendation that it’s safe to drink more than two drinks a day, even on occasion. Oh, the horror! Believe it or not, it’s illegal for beer labels to make health claims, even if they’re true.

So I took great pleasure when I saw the American Dietetic Association today sent out a press release about an article that was published in their ADA Times extolling the benefits of beer, and its numerous nutrition and health benefits for American Heart Month, which is February.

From the press release:

While red wine is often touted as the heart-healthy libation, more evidence is showing beer has a great deal of nutrition and health-promoting qualities as well, according to an article published in the Winter 2011 issue of the American Dietetic Association’s member publication, ADA Times.

“Red wine enjoys a reputation for sophistication and health benefits, but as interest in artisan brewing gains momentum and emerging research reveals unique nutrition properties, beer is finding redemption not only as a classy libation with deep roots in many cultures, but as a beverage with benefits,” writes registered dietitian and ADA Spokesperson Andrea Giancoli.

February is American Heart Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness of the leading cause of death in the U.S. — cardiovascular disease. One in three adults has some form of heart/cardiovascular disease. Many of these deaths and risk factors are preventable and food choices have a big impact on your heart’s health, even if you have other risk factors.

Moderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage, including beer, has been shown to increase HDL cholesterol, lower LDL cholesterol and reduce the risk of blood clotting, Giancoli writes in ADA Times. Moderate alcohol consumption has also been associated with a lower incidence of gallstones, decreased risk of type 2 diabetes and improved cognitive function in older adults.

“Beer specifically has been associated with additional health outcomes, including lowering the risk of kidney stones in men compared to other alcoholic beverages, possibly due to its high water content and diuretic effect,” Giancoli writes. “Compounds in hops may also slow the release of calcium from bone that is implicated in kidney stones. Additionally, beer drinkers seem to have a more protective effect towards greater bone mineral density due to the high content of silicone in beer.”

Like wine, beer is fat free. Carbohydrates, which make up about one-third of the calories in beer, mostly come from partially broken down starch. Protein, which is nearly non-existent in wine, is present in small amounts in beer — about 4 percent of the total calories.

Most beers are between 3 percent and 6 percent alcohol by volume, although some beers can contain as much as 10 percent alcohol, “and some are much higher.” Giancoli writes. “Wines are between 12 percent and 14 percent ABV. Because the average beer has a lower ABV and more than two and half times as much water, it contributes to fluid intake more so than wine.”

Although the USDA Nutrient Database lists beer’s fiber content as zero grams recent studies have shown lager contains up to 2 grams of soluble fiber per liter, while dark beers can contain up to 3.5 grams. “Although wine and beer are neck-and-neck when it comes to mineral composition, each providing some potassium, magnesium, phosphorus and fluoride (the latter presumably contributed through the water source), beer is the winner when it comes to selenium and silicon,” Giancoli writes.

Here’s a chart from the article comparing what’s in beer and wine.

beer-vs-wine-nutri

And here’s some more from the article itself:

A recent report from global research group Mintel shows that 33 percent of all beer drinkers in the U.S. are consuming less imported beer because they’re opting for domestic craft beer instead. in addition, nearly 60 percent of beer drinkers say they like to try craft or microbrew beers, and 51 percent would try more if they knew more about them, suggesting consumer education is the key to cultivating growth in the artisan beer market.

And about micronutrients:

Beer Outshines Wine with Many Micronutrients
One 12-ounce regular beer contributes folate, vitamin B6, niacin, pantothenic acid and riboflavin. Beer is also a plant source of vitamin B12, supplying about 3 percent of the recommended daily amount for adults, according to the USDA Nutrient database (although other sources claim higher B12 contents in beer).

So drink a toast to a healthy heart this month. And make sure it’s beer.

Nubian Antibiotic Beer

By

nubians
For reasons passing understanding, apart from anti-alcohol propaganda, beer is forbidden from advertising its many recognized health benefits. For people against alcohol, saying beer is good for you, or at least isn’t bad for you (in moderation), is apparently the same as saying “drink up.” And for goodness sake, we’d never want to tell people to do something that might be good for their health, especially if a small minority can’t handle the truth … er, the beer.

But despite our peculiar inability to be reasonable regarding alcohol, beer and health have been inextricably linked since the beginning of civilization when drinking beer was safer than the water. But there may have been at least one more medicinal use of beer, at least in the variety brewed by ancient Nubians, “an ethnic group originally from northern Sudan, and southern Egypt now inhabiting East Africa and some parts of Northeast Africa.” And for a time, they even ruled over ancient Egypt, beginning in the 25th Dynasty.

Conventional wisdom has it that the use of antibiotics is a modern invention, thought to be no more than eighty years old, but archeologists have found in the bones of ancient Nubian skeletons traces of tetracycline, “a broad-spectrum polyketide antibiotic produced by the Streptomyces genus of Actinobacteria, indicated for use against many bacterial infections.” This suggests that the use of antibiotics may be 2,000 years older than previously thought.

From Discovery News’ coverage:

Some of the first people to use antibiotics, according to the research, may have lived along the shores of the Nile in Sudanese Nubia, which spans the border of modern Egypt and Sudan.

“Given the amount of tetracycline there, they had to know what they were doing,” said co-author George Armelagos, a biological anthropologist at Emory University in Atlanta. “They may not have known what tetracycline was, but they certainly knew something was making them feel better.”

Armelagos was part of a group of anthropologists that excavated the mummies in 1963. His original goal was to study osteoporosis in the Nubians, who lived between about 350 and 550 A.D. But while looking through a microscope at samples of the ancient bone under ultraviolet light, he saw what looked like tetracycline — an antibiotic that was not officially patented in modern times until 1950.

And Physorg.com adds this, from Emory anthropologist George Armelagos and medicinal chemist Mark Nelson of Paratek Pharmaceuticals:

“We tend to associate drugs that cure diseases with modern medicine,” Armelagos says. “But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this prehistoric population was using empirical evidence to develop therapeutic agents. I have no doubt that they knew what they were doing.”

Armelagos is a bioarcheologist and an expert on prehistoric diets. In 1980, he discovered what appeared to be traces of tetracycline in human bones from Nubia dated between A.D. 350 and 550. The ancient Nubian kingdom was located in present-day Sudan, south of ancient Egypt.

Armelagos and his fellow researchers later tied the source of the antibiotic to the Nubian beer. The grain used to make the fermented gruel contained the soil bacteria streptomyces, which produces tetracycline. A key question was whether only occasional batches of the ancient beer contained tetracycline, which would indicate accidental contamination with the bacteria.

Their results were published in the September issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology Here’s the abstract:

Histological evidence of tetracycline use has been reported in an ancient X-Group population (350–550 CE) from Sudanese Nubia (Bassett et al., 1980). When bone samples were examined by fluorescent microscopy under UV light at 490 Å yellow–green fluorophore deposition bands, similar to those produced by tetracycline, were observed, suggesting significant exposure of the population to the antibiotic. These reports were met skeptically with claims that the fluorescence was the result of postmortem taphonomic infiltration of bacteria and fungi. Herein, we report the acid extraction and mass spectroscopic characterization of the antibiotic tetracycline from these samples. The bone samples were demineralized in anhydrous hydrogen fluoride which dissolved the bone-complexed tetracycline, followed by isolation by solid phase extraction on reverse-phase media. Chemical characterization by high pressure liquid chromatography mass-spectroscopic procedures showed that the retention times and mass spectra of the bone extract were identical to tetracycline when treated similarly. These results indicate that a natural product tetracycline was detectable within the sampled bone and was converted to the acid-stable form, anhydrotetracycline, with a mass + H of 427.1 amu. Our findings show that the bone sampled is labeled by the antibiotic tetracycline, and that the NAX population ingested and were exposed to tetracycline-containing materials in their dietary regime.

As they discovered, the most likely source of their “dietary regime” that included the antibiotic was Nubian beer. Back in 2000, Armelagos figured out it was most likely the beer, and he published his findings in the magazine Natural History, in an articled entitled Take Two Beers and Call Me in 1,600 Years.

But back to Discovery News:

His team’s first report about the finding, bolstered by even more evidence and published in Science in 1980, was met with lots of skepticism. For the new study, he got help dissolving bone samples and extracting tetracycline from them, clearly showing that the antibiotic was deposited into and embedded within the bone, not a result of contamination from the environment.

The analyses also showed that ancient Nubians were consuming large doses of tetracycline — more than is commonly prescribed today as a daily dose for controlling infections from bad acne. The team, including chemist Mark Nelson of Paratek Pharmaceuticals, reported their results in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

They were also able to trace the antibiotic to its source: Grain that was contaminated with a type of mold-like bacteria called Streptomyces. Common in soil, Strep bacteria produce tetracycline antibiotics to kill off other, competing bacteria.

Grains that are stored underground can easily become moldy with Streptomyces contamination, though these bacteria would only produce small amounts of tetracycline on their own when left to sit or baked into bread. Only when people fermented the grain would tetracycline production explode. Nubians both ate the fermented grains as gruel and used it to make beer.

The scientists are working now to figure out exactly how much tetracycline Nubians were getting, but it appears that doses were high that consumption was consistent, and that drinking started early. Analyses of the bones showed that babies got some tetracycline through their mother’s milk.

Then, between ages two and six, there was a big spike in antibiotics deposited in the bone, Armelagos said, suggesting that fermented grains were used as a weaning food.

Today, most beer is pasteurized to kill Strep and other bacteria, so there should be no antibiotics in the ale you order at a bar, said Dennis Vangerven, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

But Armelagos has challenged his students to home-brew beer like the Nubians did, including the addition of Strep bacteria. The resulting brew contains tetracycline, tastes sour but drinkable, and gives off a greenish hue.

Maybe that could be used for St. Patrick’s Day? As for the antibiotics, they’re not even the only medicinal uses of beer in ancient in times, according to Armelagos:

The first of the modern day tetracyclines was discovered in 1948. It was given the name auereomycin, after the Latin word “aerous,” which means containing gold. “Streptomyces produce a golden colony of bacteria, and if it was floating on a batch of beer, it must have look pretty impressive to ancient people who revered gold,” Nelson theorizes.

The ancient Egyptians and Jordanians used beer to treat gum disease and other ailments, Armelagos says, adding that the complex art of fermenting antibiotics was probably widespread in ancient times, and handed down through generations.

Pretty fascinating stuff. It’s too bad you can’t get antibiotics today by the case … or keg.

egyptian-beer-party

Calories In Beer: Can We Please Stop, Part 2

By

diet-beer
Here’s part two of some nonsense that began last week, with Calories In Beer: Can We Please Stop?, in which I analyzed a very weird list where the Daily Beast created what they called the unhealthiest beers, under the title the 50 Most Fattening Beers.

Using an impenetrable combination of calories, carbohydrates and alcohol that ultimately showed no patterns, it ended up just being a list that made no sense, and provided no real guidelines that could be considered useful. Here’s what I said last week.

So the reality is that there’s not that much difference between most beers in terms of calories, and carbs too for that matter. Since drinking in moderation is the goal, 2-4 beers per day, then you should never choose a beer the beer with the least flavor. And that’s pretty easy to do since most are within a fairly narrow range by the numbers. It’s never enough to sacrifice what the beer tastes like for some meaningless number, be it carbohydrates or calories. And perhaps most importantly, you should never take advice from someone telling you what not to drink, not even me. Decide for yourself what to drink — not what not to drink — and let flavor be your guide.

This week, the Daily Beast has released a new list, this time The 50 Healthiest Beers, Ranked by Carbs and Calories.

Unfortunately they start with this premise. “How can you drink beer but avoid the belly?” Except that the beer belly is a myth and recent studies have essentially completely discredited it.

They’re also behind the times when they say “drink more than two per day, and the [health] benefits disappear.” The latest dietary guidelines from the FDA now recommends that a man can remain healthy if he consumes four drinks a day, so long as he doesn’t exceed the weekly maximum recommendation of 14 drinks. And another study recently found drinking six beers a day could lead to a healthier heart.

Instead, they focused again on “alcoholic punch” as a determining factor, which is unfortunate. This is what they calculate as “the best beers for your buzz.” Here’s the nuts and bolts of how they compiled the list:

To ensure a wide range of beers were considered, we looked at the offerings of the largest 15 domestic breweries and the largest five international breweries based on import volume to the U.S. Our final list was whittled further so that no more than three variations of brews from a single brand of beer were included in the top 50. We used data from the manufacturers when available, using reliable third-party databases if necessary.

But perhaps the lowest point of the exercise comes when they claim their list proves “that beer lovers don’t necessarily have to sacrifice taste for health.” The list includes 24 low-calorie light beers (48%), 8 ice beers (16%), 5 adjunct lagers (10%) and 10 malt liquors (20%). That’s 46 (or 92%) [1 beer is both an ice beer and a light beer] in styles I wouldn’t drink with a ten-foot straw. So much for diversity. The remaining four beers include a European lager, a blonde ale, a stout and an IPA. But as with the last list, there doesn’t seem to be any discernible pattern. There’s two, maybe three, beers on the list that I’d willingly order. Now maybe that’s just my own pickiness, what do you think? How many of them are beers you’d drink, regardless of their supposed healthy nature?

Like the last list, I don’t find the criteria here very good for finding good beers to drink. All the number crunching avoids the more important intangibles like aroma, taste and flavor. That’s the best reason to choose one beer over another. That, and other intangible factors like context, food, weather, etc. In the end, if the beers on this list are really the healthy beers, I don’t don’t want to be healthy. Better to actually enjoy what I’m drinking.

The Beast’s 50 Healthiest Beers

KEY: Brewery Beer: calories per 12 oz. / carbohydrates / a.b.v.

  1. Pittsburgh Brewing I.C. Light: 95 / 2.8 / 4.15%
  2. Michelob Ultra: 95 / 2.6 / 4.1%
  3. Anheuser-Busch Natural Light: 95 / 3.2 / 4.2%
  4. Anheuser-Busch Budweiser Select: 99 / 3.1 / 4.3%
  5. MillerCoors Miller Lite: 96 / 3.2 / 4.2%
  6. Anheuser-Busch Select 55: 55 / 1.9 / 2.4%
  7. Anheuser-Busch Busch Light: 95 / 3.2 / 4.1%
  8. MillerCoors MGD 64: 64 / 2.4 / 2.8%
  9. Grupo Modelo Modelo Especial: 145 / 4 / 6%
  10. MillerCoors Milwaukee’s Best Light: 98 / 3.5 / 4.2%
  11. Michelob ULTRA Amber: 95 / 3.2 / 4%
  12. MillerCoors Miller Chill: 100 / 4 / 4.2%
  13. MillerCoors Keystone Ice: 142 / 5.9 / 5.9%
  14. Grupo Modelo Corona Light: 109 / 5 / 4.5%
  15. MillerCoors Coors Light: 102 / 5 / 4.2%
  16. Anheuser-Busch Bud Ice: 123 / 8.9 / 5.5%
  17. MillerCoors Milwaukee’s Best Ice: 144 / 7.3 / 5.9%
  18. Michelob ULTRA Lime Cactus: 95 / 5.5 / 4%
  19. MillerCoors Icehouse Light: 123 / 6.6 / 5%
  20. MillerCoors Southpaw Light: 123 / 6.6 / 5%
  21. MillerCoors Keystone Light: 104 / 5 / 4.1%
  22. Anheuser-Busch Bud Light: 110 / 6.6 / 4.5%
  23. MillerCoors Keystone Premium: 111 / 5.8 / 4.4%
  24. Guinness Foreign Extra Stout: 176 / 14 / 7.5%
  25. Leinenkugel Light: 155 / 15 / 4.8%
  26. Anheuser-Busch Natural Ice: 157 / 16 / 4.9%
  27. Yuengling Light: 98 / 6.6 / 3.8%
  28. MillerCoors Miller High Life Light: 110 / 7 / 4.2%
  29. Grolsch Light Lager: 97 / 5.7 / 3.6%
  30. MillerCoors Molson XXX: 201 / 10.9 / 7.3%
  31. MillerCoors Icehouse 5.0: 132 / 8.7 / 5%
  32. MillerCoors Steel Six: 160 / 11 / 6%
  33. MillerCoors Olde English 800 7.5%: 202 / 13.4 / 7.5%
  34. MillerCoors Icehouse 5.5: 149 / 9.8 / 5.5%
  35. MillerCoors Olde English 800 5.9%: 160 / 10.5 / 5.9%
  36. MillerCoors Olde English High Gravity 800: 220 / 14.6 / 8%
  37. MillerCoors Mickey’s Ice: 157 / 11.8 / 5.8%
  38. MillerCoors Steel Reserve High Gravity: 222 / 16 / 8.1%
  39. MillerCoors Steel Reserve Triple Export 8.10%: 222 / 16 / 8.1%
  40. MillerCoors Molson Golden: 133 / 10.9 / 5%
  41. MillerCoors Hamm’s Special Light: 110 / 7.3 / 3.9%
  42. Heineken Light: 99 / 6.8 / 3.5%
  43. MillerCoors Magnum Malt Liquor: 157 / 11.2 / 5.6%
  44. MillerCoors Mickey’s: 157 / 11.2 / 5.6%
  45. MillerCoors Tyskie: 153 / 10.6 / 5.4%
  46. MillerCoors Molson Canadian: 136 / 11.1 / 5%
  47. Yuengling Light Lager: 96 / 8.5 / 3.6%
  48. Redhook Long Hammer IPA: 188 / 12.66 / 6.5%
  49. Genesee Ice: 156 / 14.5 / 5.9%
  50. Beck’s St. Pauli Girl Lager : 148 / 8.7 / 4.9%

Beer In Ads #215: Meister Brau Lite

By

ad-billboard
Wednesday’s ad is for one of the first low-calorie light beers from 1969. Notice the spelling of “Lite” for Meister Brau Lite. That’s significant because Miller bought the brand in part to create Miller Lite, which they later introduced in 1973 I love that Mesiter Brau is trying to link their low-calorie beer to sex from the get go, where refer to it as “Lite … a lusty, full strength premium beer with 1/3 less calories.”

Meister-Brau-Lite-1969

Calories In Beer: Can We Please Stop?

By

diet-beer
This is one of those things that just drives me crazy: diet beer, low-calorie beer, low carbohydrate beer. That these things are so popular defies logic and common sense and is one of the best examples of just how effective advertising and marketing can be. In today’s Daily Beast there’s yet another list of the unhealthiest beers called the 50 Most Fattening Beers.

Here was their rationale. “The Daily Beast decided to determine which beers may not be the best for the buzz. Specifically, the beers were ranked based on which packed the most calories and carbohydrates for the least amount of alcoholic punch.” More particularly:

To ensure a wide range of beers were considered, we looked at the offerings of the largest 15 domestic breweries and the largest five international breweries based on import volume to the U.S. Our final list was whittled further so that no more than three variations of brews from a single brand of beer was included in the top 50. We used data from the manufacturers when available, using reliable third party databases if necessary.

So they went through this complicated process and applied some weird calculation that took into account calories, carbohydrates and alcohol content to tell you what beers you shouldn’t drink. Why? The calculations, as far as I can tell, seems to actually discourage drinking low-alcohol beers just because their caloric content is the same or more than other higher alcoholic beers. It seems incredibly wrong-headed to me to take into account high alcohol as a positive attribute just because it gives the beer more “punch.”

So using their calculation the worst beer in the world is Leinenkugel Berry Weiss just because it doesn’t have enough alcohol to balance the calories and carbs. In the real world that should be applauded; a full-flavored beer that’s low in alcohol is a great beer. That’s a session beer. It’s what you’ll find in the average British pub.

Looking at the list, it’s pretty hard to see any real patterns. I took the list from the slideshow the Beast has online. As far as I can tell, they’re meant to be in that particular order though it’s hard to see how they arrived at that order. It’s certainly not the reason that I won’t drink some of the beers on this list, which has to do with a far more important factor than this pointless numbers game: flavor. I touched on this before in Read This, Not That

If it’s just calories that are bad, there are plenty of beers that are over 300 and same deal with carbs, too. But so what? None of that really matters because those beers are meant to be sipped and, more importantly, shared. And for most of the beers below 300 calories, the majority are actually pretty close in range. Look over Bob Skilnik’s Does My Butt Look Big in This Beer? — which lists the nutritional values of 2,000 beers — and you’ll see that almost all of them are between 100 and 200 calories. Even in the Beast’s list, the lowest is 120 calories and the highest is 330, but the majority are below 200. In fact, only five are 200 or above. 90% are below 200. And actually three of the high five are just at the edge — 200, 205 and 207 — meaning it’s really more like 96% are in the same narrow range.

So the reality is that there’s not that much difference between most beers in terms of calories, and carbs too for that matter. Since drinking in moderation is the goal, 2-4 beers per day, then you should never choose a beer the beer with the least flavor. And that’s pretty easy to do since most are within a fairly narrow range by the numbers. It’s never enough to sacrifice what the beer tastes like for some meaningless number, be it carbohydrates or calories. And perhaps most importantly, you should never take advice from someone telling you what not to drink, not even me. Decide for yourself what to drink — not what not to drink — and let flavor be your guide.

The Beast’s Worst 50 Beers

KEY: Brewery Beer: calories per 12 oz. / carbohydrates / a.b.v.

  1. Leinenkugel Berry Weiss: 207 / 28 / 4.8%
  2. Grolsch Blonde Lager: 120 / 15.8 / 2.8% (though on the can it clearly states 4% a.b.v.)
  3. New Belgium 1554: 205 / 25 / 5.6%
  4. Sierra Nevada Stout: 225 / 22.3 / 5.8%
  5. Budweiser Budweiser & Clamato Chelada: 186 / 20.3 / 5%
  6. Leinenkugel 1888 Bock: 194 / 18 / 5.1%
  7. Michelob Honey Wheat: 175 / 17.9 / 4.9%
  8. Pilsner Urquell: 156 / 16 / 4.4%
  9. Sam Adams Boston Lager: 160 / 18 / 4.75%
  10. Sam Adams Boston Ale: 160 / 19.9 / 4.94%
  11. MillerCoors Frederick Miller Classic Chocolate Lager: 195 / 18.4 / 5.5%
  12. Leinenkugel Creamy Dark: 170 / 16.8 / 4.9%
  13. Boulevard Brewing Unfiltered Wheat Beer : 155 / 15 / 4.4%
  14. Budweiser American Ale: 182 / 18.1 / 5.3%
  15. Sierra Nevada Kellerweis: 168 / 15.6 / 4.8%
  16. Michelob Irish Red: 196 / 19.2 / 5.7%
  17. Sierra Nevada Bigfoot Ale: 330 / 32.1 / 9.6%
  18. Red Stripe: 153 / 17 / 4.7%
  19. Michelob Pale Ale: 200 / 19.3 / 5.9%
  20. Smithwick’s Ale: 150 / 15 / 4.5%
  21. Yuengling Porter: 150 / 14 / 4.5%
  22. Yuengling Black & Tan: 150 / 14 / 4.5%
  23. Henry Weinhard Classic Dark Lager: 164 / 16 / 5%
  24. Coors Winterfest: 185 / 17.4 / 5.6%
  25. New Belgium Mothership Wit: 155 / 15 / 4.8%
  26. Genesee Brewing Premium Beer: 148 / 13.5 / 4.8%
  27. Anchor Steam Beer: 153 / 16 / 4.9%
  28. Grupo Modelo Corona Extra: 148 / 14 / 4.6%
  29. George Killian’s Irish Red: 162 / 14.8 / 5%
  30. Shiner Bock: 142 / 12.9 / 4.4%
  31. Blue Moon Full Moon Winter Ale: 180 / 15.3 / 5.5%
  32. Redhook Nut Brown Ale: 181 / 16 / 5.6%
  33. Genesee Cream Ale: 162 / 15 / 5.1%
  34. Harp Lager: 153 / 13 / 4.7%
  35. Henry Weinhard Blue Boar: 147 / 13 / 4.6%
  36. Henry Weinhard Summer Ale: 155 / 14.5 / 4.95%
  37. Shiner Blonde: 140 / 12.4 / 4.4%
  38. Shiner Hefeweizen: 174 / 14.3 / 5.4%
  39. Rolling Rock Extra Pale: 142 / 13.2 / 4.6%
  40. New Belgium Fat Tire: 160 / 15 / 5.2%
  41. Aguila: 122 / 10.4 / 3.88%
  42. Genesee Red: 148 / 14 / 4.9%
  43. MillerCoors Miller Genuine Draft: 143 / 13.1 / 4.7%
  44. MillerCoors Miller High Life: 143 / 13.1 / 4.7%
  45. Grupo Modelo Negra Modelo: 165 / 14 / 5.3%
  46. Yuengling Lager: 135 / 12 / 4.4%
  47. Schlitz Beer: 146 / 12.1 / 4.7%
  48. Schaefer Beer: 142 / 12 / 4.6%
  49. Guinness Draught: 125 / 10 / 4%
  50. Blue Moon Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale: 180 / 14.7 / 5.8%

Son of Binge Drinking Statistics Inconsistencies

By

binge-modern
If you read my previous post about Inflating Binge Drinking Statistics, you’ve seen how data can be manipulated and essentially bent to any purpose. Today a second news item in U.S. News & World Report, 1 in 4 U.S. Teens and Young Adults Binge Drink, presents yet another portrait of reality using binge drinking data from the CDC.

This one focused more on underage drinking, declaring that 1 in 4 U.S. teens and young adults are binge drinkers. According to CDC director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, “[n]inety percent of the alcohol consumed by high school students is consumed in the course of binge drinking.” Frieden goes on to say that “[a]mong drinkers, one-third of adults and two-thirds of high school kids binge drink, but doesn’t that contradict the 1 in 4 statistic and the 90% declaration? Which is it: 25%, 66% or 90%?

Beyond the fuzzy math, that high school students binge drink is a bit of a duh statistic, they don’t exactly have much choice under the circumstances. That’s because all underage drinking is done underground, none of it is out in the open. So any time they do get a chance to drink it’s without supervision. And that’s a direct result of the minimum age being 21 instead of 18 and also because not only is education not available, but is even considered criminal in some states. It was not unusual when I was a teenager for parties where alcohol was served to be chaperoned by parents with the full knowledge of other parents, too. Today, that would be cause in many places for arrests and jail time. But as a result of adult supervision, I never witnessed any problems at those parties and they were very safe. But thanks to zealotry and a no tolerance policy such safe environments are now impossible.

Another discrepancy is that in the U.S. News & World Report, the CDC claims that “more than 33 million adults have reported binge drinking in the past year.” That’s in contrast to the NPR story, in which the CDC claims that “half of all alcohol consumed by adults in the US is binge drinking.” Then on the CDC’s website there’s a map of the U.S. showing binge drinking averages by state, with the lowest state being Tennessee (with 6.8%) and the highest being Wisconsin (23.9%).

Inflating Binge Drinking Statistics

By

binge-barney
The biggest problem with binge drinking statistics is that the definition keeps changing. Over the last few decades it’s gone from somewhat vague to an increasingly narrow definition. Each change in the definition increases the number of binge drinkers. It’s not that more people are binge drinking necessarily, but that more people fall under the definition as they lower it and lower it.

At the bottom of an NPR story, Binge Drinking: A Big Problem, Especially For The Prosperous, there’s a strange little video about binge drinking put together by the CDC. In it, they reveal some disturbing ways of looking at what it means to binge drink.

The most recent way our government defines binge drinking is “[f]our or more drinks within a few hours for a woman and five or more for a man.” That actually narrows yet again, as recently as the last few years it’s been “five or more drinks in a row,” which tends to imply more speed. Adding “within a few hours” means even drinking at a leisurely pace makes you a binge drinker. I wrote more about this shift last year in a post, Inventing Binge Drinking.

The CDC video further claims that “half of all alcohol consumed by adults in the US is binge drinking.” Wow, that’s pretty remarkable, especially if you consider that according to the DOJ only 54% of adults drink alcohol. We’re now a nation of binge drinkers. You’d think a society where 1 in 2 people drinking is on a bender would be more noticeable. But look out your door or window and unless there’s a car alarm going off, it’s more likely you’ll hear crickets and birds chirping, not the devastation implied by that alarming factoid.

They also claim “1.5 billion episodes of binge drinking” take place each year in the U.S. That’s 5 for every man, woman and child in the country, or 6.25 times for every adult. If we assume the DOJ’s statistic that 46% of adults don’t drink alcohol, then that’s 11.6 for every adult who does imbibe, or nearly once a month. That’s a lot of benders. Or is it? Is having five drinks less than once a month really an alarming societal problem? I go to a beer dinner probably at least once a month and most are at least five courses. That makes me a binge drinker, but I’m hardly a danger to society because of it. Clearly, for some individuals persistent binge drinking is a serious problem, but the people who fall into that category represent a very small minority of all drinkers.

Toward the end of the NPR article, they have this to add.

The problem, though bad, isn’t a lot worse than it used to be. In 1993, the CDC says, about 14 percent of adults had gone on drinking binges. But as Dr. Thomas Frieden, head of the CDC put it, “Because binge drinking is not recognized as a problem, it has not decreased in 15 years.”

That’s a pretty glaring inconsistency. On one hand, the CDC claims that “half of all alcohol consumed by adults in the US is binge drinking” but only “14 percent of adults had gone on drinking binges.” But my favorite howler is the statement that “binge drinking is not recognized as a problem.” What planet is he living on, because neo-prohibitionists and the health, university and government research communities, not to mention all the treatment and addiction businesses that stand to make more money if the problem keeps increasing, have been screaming about the perils of binge drinking as long as I’ve been an adult, and probably longer. And the hue and cry has only increased in recent decades. But this just serves to prove that binge drinkers aren’t born, they’re created … by statistics.

But wait, it gets worse. According to the CDC video, the NIAAA now defines binge drinking as “consumption that raises blood-alcohol content to .08%.” That’s right folks “binge drinking” and being “drunk” are now exactly the same! Then they go on to say that binge drinkers are “14 times more likely to drive drunk.” Duh, if you define binge drinking as getting drunk, then that’s a self-fulfilling statistic, isn’t it? But it’s pretty alarming that a government agency’s standard for binge drinking is simply drinking enough to raise your BAC to 0.08%.

Other interesting tidbits include that statistic that 70% of binge drinkers are 26 or older and that 80% of binge drinkers are not alcoholics. Of course they’re not alcoholics if all they have to do to binge drink is get drunk once. And if most are legal adults, why the insistence later in the video to maintain 21 as the minimum age of consumption?

Naturally, they propose all the same old chestnuts to “fix” the problems they just created by inflating the statistics. Nothing new is ever proposed. Of course, none of the proposals ever work, either, wherever they’ve been implemented. Here’s the CDC recommendations.

  1. Increase alcohol taxes
  2. Close places that sell alcohol, reducing their number
  3. Close the remaining outlets earlier
  4. Enforce the laws that prohibit underage drinking

But by continually widening the net and artificially adding to the number of people that are considered binge drinkers, it lessens the chances of actually helping the people who truly do need help. All they do is increasingly demonize alcohol manufacturers and criminalize law-abiding people. It’s as if all of the organizations that are anti-alcohol or who make their money from addiction, be it through treatment, medications or whatever, need to keep the issue a dangerous one and have to keep it just bad enough so the money keeps flowing. So it becomes a game of creating the perception of effectiveness while the problem remains perpetually, and conveniently, elusive.

Original AA Bible More Religious

By

bible
I’ve been somewhat suspicious of Alcoholics Anonymous for many years. I grew up with an alcoholic stepfather, and had some experience with AA when I was younger, which you can read about in an earlier post. One of my big issues has been the idea of powerlessness and giving yourself over to a “higher power.” Though AA has been careful to use the non-denominational “higher power,” it always felt like a thinly veiled religious god, and more specifically one of the monotheistic sky-gods (of Christianity, Islam and Judaism).

But the idea that you can’t rely on yourself, your own will, has always troubled me. I know it seems to work for a lot of people, but it never felt like a cure, just a lifelong band-aid over a wound that never heals because the wound itself is never even treated. And I know I’m not the only one. There are treatment centers in Japan whose patients are able to drink in moderation without immediately becoming “alcoholics” after one sip. And a controversial book last year by Harvard psychology professor Gene M. Heyman, Addiction: A Disorder of Choice, punched further holes in AA’s insistence of powerlessness in alcoholics.

Why that matters, I think, is for this reason. As Science-Based Medicine reminds us, that makes AA a faith-based treatment, not a scientifically sound method of treating anyone. They write: “Alcoholics Anonymous is the most widely used treatment for alcoholism. It is mandated by the courts, accepted by mainstream medicine, and required by insurance companies. AA is generally assumed to be the most effective treatment for alcoholism, or at least “an” effective treatment. That assumption is wrong.”

And there are plenty of other critics out there, such as Sober Without Gods, Stinkin’ Thinkin’ and this particularly interesting essay, I Was An AA Nazi, at When they tell you to ‘Keep Coming Back’, run for your life!!! Escape from Alcoholics Anonymous. And there’s at least two Yahoo groups, Escaping the Cult of AA and 12-Step Free. And that, I assume, just skims the surface. Reading some of those, AA comes off more like a cult than anything else. As many of its critics also point out, many former alcoholics replace their addiction to booze with an addition to AA or religion more generally. I realize many people will argue that the latter is safer and healthier than the former, but isn’t obvious that trading one addiction for another is no cure and does nothing to address any underlying causes?

Now, more evidence is coming to light that even the “higher power” dodge in AA wasn’t always there. As a recent article in the Washington Post reported, founder Bill Wilson’s original manuscript from before 1939, which is being published for the first time, shows that the original document was nakedly Christian in its tone. But before it was published, Wilson had a number of people help him edit his manuscript, and how to characterize religion in it became a hotly debated topic. Eventually all references to a specific god were generalized and changed so they could be essentially anything. That was a calculated decision.

According to the Post, “AA historians [whatever that means] and treatment experts say” claim the edits were made to “adopt a more inclusive tone was enormously important in making the deeply spiritual text accessible to the non-religious and non-Christian.” Frankly, that sounds like apologetics. The changes were largely semantical, the tone of the program remained deeply religious, only the names were changed so it could be claimed it was not. That allowed it to be spread farther and wider than if it had remained true to its roots, and I’m even willing to believe that in 1939 their heart was in the right place. The idea of religious freedom has been in our Constitution almost since the beginning, but we’ve been a mostly-Christian nation for the majority of our history. It’s really only been in recent decades that the promise of the First Amendment is beginning to be addressed and enforced.

But in 1939, they decided not to address the role of religion in treating addiction, instead opting to essentially try to hide its “spirituality” or at least tried to couch it in non-denominational platitudes.

But the crossed-out phrases and scribbles make clear that the words easily could have read differently. And the edits embody a debate that continues today: How should the role of spirituality and religion be handled in addiction treatment?

They also take readers back to an era when churches and society generally stigmatized alcohol addicts as immoral rather than ill. The AA movement’s reframing of addiction as having a physical component (the “doctor’s opinion” that opens the book calls it “a kind of allergy”) was revolutionary, experts say.

Maybe, but today AA’s Big Book (a.k.a. its “Bible”) has changed little since those initial edits. It’s remained almost exactly the same, only a few of the stories have been updated. But the world has not stayed the same as it was in 1939. People’s approach to religion has changed dramatically. We’re a more diverse nation spiritually than we were then, I’d wager, and more tolerant (I continue to hope) of other points of view. I’m sure AA seemed revolutionary at the time, 70+ years ago, but remaining the same while the world changed around it has turned it into an antiquated cult. Not to mention, much more has been learned about addiction, much of contradicting AA’s original premises and methods. And while some claim AA has incorporated these newer insights into the program, it seems to me it’s remained largely unchanged at its core. Certainly its bible has remained the same, as religious as the day it started.

aa-2nd-ed

The 4th edition of AA’s Big Book, which is the most current, is available online.