Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Greenpeace Asserts GE Rice Used in Bud

By

budweiser
Greenpeace today released the results of an independent analysis of rice at an Arkansas mill which supplies rice to Anheuser-Busch for use in their beer. The lab found genetically engineered rice in 75% of the samples. From the press release:

An independent laboratory, commissioned by Greenpeace, detected the presence of GE rice (Bayer LL601) in three out of four samples taken at the mill. The experimental GE rice is one of three rice varieties that were first found in 2006 to have contaminated rice stocks in the US. Since then, GE contamination has been found in approximately 30 per cent of US rice stocks. This has had a massive negative impact on the US rice industry as foreign markets, where GE rice has not been approved, have been closed to US rice.

“Anheuser-Busch must make a clear statement about the level of GE contamination of the rice used to brew Budweiser in the US and spell out what measures are in place to ensure this beer does not reach the company’s export markets,” said Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International GE Campaigner.

“US beer drinkers need Anheuser-Busch to explain why it is not preventing use of this genetically-engineered rice in the US. If, as the company has informed Greenpeace, all of the Budweiser exported from the US or manufactured outside of the US is guaranteed GE free then Anheuser-Busch needs to state this publicly, and explain the double standard,” said Stabinsky.

Greenpeace informed Anheuser-Busch of the test results prior to their release and sought clear information from the company on the extent of contamination and its global policy on the use of GE ingredients. Anheuser-Busch responded that the rice is approved in the US and is not used in brewing Budweiser destined for export. The full extent of the contamination remains unclear, however.

LL601 GE rice was retroactively granted approval by the US Dept of Agriculture in an effort to reduce public concern and company liability despite 15,000 public objections. The European Food Safety Authority stated that there was insufficient data to make a finding of safety. Greenpeace says that US consumers have a right to know if this GE rice is used to make Budweiser. This GE rice is not approved outside the US so the Budweiser brewed with it could not be sold abroad.

Anheuser-Busch is the largest single rice buyer in the US, buying 6-10 per cent of the annual US rice crop. Budweiser is one of only a few beers having rice as an ingredient. The brand is found in around 60 countries through a mix of exports and local brewing arrangements.

I recently did an article on green breweries and interviewed the Senior Group Director of Environmental, Health and Safety for A-B. I was pleasantly surprised at just how many things they were doing to be “green” so it seems surprising that they’d overlook genetically engineered rice being used in the beer itself. One thing you can say about Anheuser-Busch is that they do care about their public perception, so it will be interesting to see their reaction to this revelation.

bud-gerice

Doug Muhleman, Anheuser-Busch’s Group Vice President of Brewing, Operations and Technology, released a statement yesterday which I think suggests that Greenpeace is not the virtuous one in this story. On closer examination, this may be more about international politics than beer. Here’s Muhleman’s statement:

Greenpeace’s statements regarding our beer brands are false and defamatory. All of our products are made according to the highest quality standards and in complete compliance with the laws in each country where we sell our beers.

We stand in support of U.S. farmers, who are partners with us in the quality of our products. Greenpeace recently asked us to join their advocacy campaign on genetically modified crops. We refused their calls to boycott U.S. farmers, and they are now retaliating.

The use of genetically modified crops in the United States is not new. The vast majority of the commercial corn and soybean supply in the United States contains genetically modified versions that are certified to be safe for human consumption by the U.S. Government.

We use U.S. rice for brewing our products for U.S. consumption. U.S.-grown long-grained rice that may have micro levels of Liberty Link proteins present is fully approved by the U.S. Government, having determined that it is perfectly safe for human consumption. Moreover, the Liberty Link protein, like all proteins, is substantially removed or destroyed by the brewing process. Liberty Link has not been found in any of our tests of our beers brewed in the United States.

We fully comply with all international regulatory standards on the use or presence of genetically modified ingredients wherever our beers are sold internationally, as well. Neither Anheuser-Busch, nor our international licensed brewing partners use genetically modified ingredients, including genetically modified rice, in brewing products sold in any country with legal restrictions.

We talked with Greenpeace, hoping to help them understand the facts. We are disappointed that they instead chose to pursue pressure tactics.

Now I’m no fan of GMO’s, but they have been used here for many years and, like it or not, they’re a part of our massive food system. Short of pulling out every crop in the country and starting over, I’m not exactly sure what would satisfy Greenpeace. Certainly the way Greenpeace is seeking to sensationalize this seems more bullying than anything. I confess I was alarmed when I first read the story but having looked at it more closely in the interim I’m not sure their tactics are entirely warranted.

ab-muhleman
Me with Doug Muhleman at an A-B reception at GABF last year.

Alcohol Education Reduces Binge Drinking

By

CNN’s Health section has an interesting little item called Letting Kids Drink Early Reduces Binging in which Stanton Peele, psychologist and author of “Addiction-Proof Your Child,” suggests that educating your children about drinking by introducing it in the home is a timeworn tradition that will reduce binge drinking later in life.

From the article:

He says many of the programs set up to stop alcohol abuse contribute to the teen binge-drinking crisis. Any program that tells kids flatly not to drink creates temptation, he says. “Preparing your child to drink at home lessens the likelihood that they are going to binge drink,” he says. “Not sharing alcohol with your child is a risk factor for binge drinking.”

Missing the point, of course, Drug Free America Foundation director Calvina Fay equated Peele’s philosophy with “giving permission to your children to do harmful things.” (Though why Fay’s commenting at all is a mystery since her foundation has almost nothing to do with alcohol.) At any rate, cultures around the world have been teaching their children about drinking in the home for centuries without harming their offspring. I’d certainly be curious to know why she thinks that teaching your kids to drink responsibly could in any way be “harmful?” But I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, most of these groups seem to take an all or nothing approach. They don’t see degrees. They see alcohol (and drugs) as all bad, not just bad in excess or if consumed irresponsibly. It almost seems like a failure of imagination. If you think all drinking is bad, then it would be impossible to understand how teaching your progeny moderate and responsible drinking for enjoyment would be valuable to them when as young adults they are faced with peer pressure and have to make their own decisions. And as Peele suggests — and I think he’s quite correct — the neo-prohibitionist’s absolutist policy of no education and just saying no is making the problem of underage and binge drinking far worse than it needs to be. There’s an old adage, “a little education goes a long way” but I guess in the mind of the neo-prohibitionist that doesn’t include alcohol education. Until it does, it’s hard to swallow that they really care at all about curbing underage drinking or stopping binging.

 

Still More Beer Health Claims

By

While reading over the text of the latest study showing a decreased risk of kidney cancer for moderate beer drinkers, I noticed in the References a couple of older studies that showed that beer and/or alcohol had both specific and general health benefits. Most of the 37 academic papers listed as references were about renal cell cancer (a.k.a. kidney cancer), but these two, both from 2000, were about other health benefits of beer consumption.

The first, Beer increases plasma antioxidant capacity in humans, was published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. Here is the PubMed abstract:

The positive association of a moderate intake of alcoholic beverages with a low risk for cardiovascular disease, in addition to ethanol itself, may be linked to their polyphenol content. This article describes the effect of acute ingestion of beer, dealcoholized beer, and ethanol (4.5% v/v) on the total plasma antioxidant status of subjects, and the change in the high performance liquid chromatography profile of some selected phenolic acids (caffeic, sinapic, syringic, and vanillic acids) in 14 healthy humans. Plasma was collected at various times: before (T0), 1 hour after (T1), and 2 hours after (T2) drinking. The study is part of a larger research planned to identify both the impact of brewing on minor components potentially present in beer and their metabolic fate in humans. Beer was able to induce a significant (P < 0.05) increase in plasma antioxidant capacity at T1 (mean +/- SD: T0 1,353 +/- 320 microM; T1 1,578 +/- 282 microM), returning close to basal values at T2. All phenolic acids measured in plasma tended to increase after beer intake (20% at T1, 40% at T2). Syringic and sinapic acid reached statistical significance (P < 0.05 by one-way analysis of variance-Fisher’s test) at T1 and T2, respectively. Plasma metabolic parameters (glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and uric acid) and plasma antioxidants (alpha-tocopherol and glutathione) remained unchanged. Ethanol removal impaired the absorption of phenolic acids, which did not change over the time of the experiment, accounting for the low (and not statistically significant) increase in plasma antioxidant capacity after dealcoholized beer drinking. Ethanol alone did not affect plasma antioxidant capacity or any of the antioxidant and metabolic parameters measured.

The second one, Nutritional and Health Benefits of Beer, was published in the November 2000 issue of The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. Here is the PubMed abstract:

Physicians should be aware of the growing evidence supporting the nutritional and health benefits of moderate consumption of alcohol as part of a healthy lifestyle. The recently approved voluntary label on wine (“the proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption”) implies that physicians should promote wine as the preferred source of dietary alcohol. However, studies evaluating the relative benefits of wine versus beer versus spirits suggest that moderate consumption of any alcoholic beverage is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease. From a nutritional standpoint, beer contains more protein and B vitamins than wine. The antioxidant content of beer is equivalent to that of wine, but the specific antioxidants are different because the barley and hops used in the production of beer contain flavonoids different from those in the grapes used in the production of wine. The benefits of moderate alcohol consumption have not been generally endorsed by physicians for fear that heavy consumers may consider any message as a permissive license to drink in excess. Discussions with patients regarding alcohol consumption should be made in the context of a general medical examination. There is no evidence to support endorsement of one type of alcoholic beverage over another. The physician should define moderate drinking (1 drink per day for women and 2 drinks per day for men) for the patient and should review consumption patterns associated with high risk.

Interesting stuff and not terribly surprising given that recent years have seen a growing body of such findings. What’s perhaps more curious is how silent the neo-prohibitionist groups are about all of the health benefits of moderate consumption. It’s getting harder and harder for them to maintain their shrill evils of alcohol position in light of these generally unbiased scientific findings. What’s perhaps more troubling is that their very inflexibility, especially their refusal to entertain lowering the drinking age or allow reasonable alcohol education, are actually causing the problems associated with immoderate drinking to increase. By forcing kids to drink underground, without benefit of parental or adult supervision or example, today’s generation seems far less equipped to learn moderation.

Take for example, the neo-prohibitionist position undertaken by government studies that defines binge drinking as five drinks in one session. If physicians in many other studies suggest that two drinks per days is considered to be the definition of moderate drinking, then the distance between healthy drinker to problem drinker seems fantastically small. That makes one or both standards all but meaningless. But since it would be hard to argue that the standard of two drinks per day is too high then it seems to me a prima facie conclusion that it’s the binge drinking standard that is out of whack.

But these groups with government collusion continue to demonize alcohol and refuse, where possible, to allow parents to teach their children about how to drink, with the predictable result that newly freed college students binge at the first opportunity. As former Middlebury College president John M. McCardell Jr. — and the founder of Choose Responsibility — asks, has making the drinking age 21 stopped kids from drinking? The answer is quite obviously “no,” which suggests that this approach does not work as intended. And with the growing body of health benefits associated with moderate drinking, aren’t these prohibitions simply doing more harm than good? I think an argument can be made that by not allowing alcohol education and making alcohol a forbidden taboo, neo-prohibitionist groups are actually causing more binge drinking and keeping young people from realizing the health benefits of moderation.
 

Drink Up, Your Kidneys Will Thank You

By

According to a study published in the British Journal of Cancer last month entitled Alcoholic beverages and risk of renal cell cancer, moderate consumption of alcohol — ideally strong beer or red and white wine — may lower the risk of renal cell cancer, better known as kidney cancer. The study concluded that your odds of getting kidney cancer was reduced around 40% by drinking approximately two glasses of wine or two bottles or beer per week. Curiously, while strong beer, red wine and white wine had this positive effect, light beer, medium-strong beer, strong wine, or hard liquor had virtually no effect.

The study’s authors speculated on the reasons for this in their concluding remarks.

A reduced risk associated with consumption of wine and beer might be due to the phenolics they contain as these possess antioxidant and antimutagenic properties (Elattar and Virji, 1999; Denke, 2000) or increase plasma antioxidant capacity in human (Ghiselli et al, 2000). However, the lower risk that we observed for three different alcoholic beverages and total ethanol intake suggests that alcohol itself rather than a particular type of drink is responsible for the reduction in risk. However, it is unclear why we observed an inverse association only for strong beer and not for medium-strong, or light beer, although this might be due to the lower ethanol content of light (1.8%) and medium-strong (2.8%) beer compared to strong beer (4.5%).

 

Drinking Slows Dementia

By

There was an item in the “Raw Data” section of my newly arrived September issue of Playboy magazine (yes, I read the articles, too) about the moderate drinking of alcohol helping to stave off or slow the onset of dementia. Here it is in its entirety:

For people suffering from cognitive decline, having up to one drink a day over a three-year period may slow the development of full-blown dementia by 85%.

A drink a day, eh? Well, I’m certainly willing to give it a go in my golden years. How did I miss this one?

A quick search reveals that there was an item at Future Pundit a few years back about women and a daily drink and Science Daily had a similar article in January of 2005. But those were strictly talking about women, whereas the Playboy assertion appears more gender neutral. Clearly more digging is necessary. Here’s what I found.

As early as 2001, Healthnotes Newswire mentioned a study published in Stroke, a medical journal, that reached the same conclusion. A page at Alcohol Problems and Solutions also appears to make the same claim, based on a study published in Aging Health, which said:

There is some evidence to suggest that light-to-moderate alcohol consumption (up to three alcoholic drinks a day, or between one and seven drinks a week) may reduce the risk of cognitive impairment in the elderly compared with those who abstain. Drinking in moderation may contribute to some brain atrophy, but it may also reduce the number of silent infarcts in the brain, a known risk factor for cognitive impairment. In addition, light drinking may reduce blood clotting and blood serum lipid levels, as well as stimulate acetylcholine production in the brain

In addition, two later separate studies seem to confirm those findings. The first was published in Neuroepidemiology in October 2006. The second, in the journal Neurology seems to reach much the same conclusion, as reported by Daily News Central in May of this year.

I didn’t find the 85% figure that was in Playboy, or the study it was based on, but there does seem to be a lot of support for the general idea that moderate drinking can delay my going balmy when I’m a senior citizen. Could this mean that in my old age, there may be fewer lucid neo-prohibitionists to annoy me? Now that would a silver lining … a silver bullet lining.

 

Researchers Target Beer As Binge Drink of Choice

By

There’s more nonsense coming from the CDC, the Center for Disease Control (the same government yahoos who refuse to acknowledge mercury’s role in my son Porter’s autism, as well as millions of other children) who is publishing a study in next month’s American Journal of Preventive Medicine suggesting people are more likely to binge on beer than other types of alcoholic drinks. The CDC apparently surveyed 14,000 binge drinkers in 18 states who told them that they like beer best. Of those surveyed, 67% preferred beer, 22% liked spirits and 11% were winos with a taste for the grape or premixed drinks (don’t ask me why they lumped those two types of drinks together) with 74% of “binge drinkers” having beer either exclusively or in combination.

Of course, it all comes down to your definition of binge drinking, which they define as “five or more drinks in a row.” Now let’s just think this through for a moment. Beer has an average alcohol content of maybe 4.5% abv. Wine has around 14% and spirits, while harder to pin down, has as alcohol percentage far above wine or beer. So of those three types of drinks, which one is it most possible for the greatest number of people to drink five or more of in a single sitting? Anyone, anyone? Bueller, Bueller? Even if you don’t compare equal amounts of liquid consumed but just typical servings it’s considerably easier to down a six-pack of beer than six glasses of wine, six shots of whisky or even six mixed drinks. So it shouldn’t take a genius or even a doctorate to predict that the lowest alcoholic drink would be consumed more often by people on a binge. After all, it’s not really much of a binge if you pass out in under an hour. Not to mention beer outsells wine 4 to 1 and spirits by a considerable margin, too, so why wouldn’t you expect that to remain consistent among “binge drinkers,” too?

Why blame the drink? What is the point of this ridiculous exercise? Should beer be treated differently because more people abuse it, but keep wine and spirits untouched, since their drinkers are among the sophisticated upper class? With beer being more popular why wouldn’t it be proportionally involved in instances of abuse. You would expect that to be the case. I can’t help but thinking “yeah … and … so what.” Once alcohol enters your bloodstream your body doesn’t discriminate between what form it originally came in — inside you alcohol is just alcohol — a chemical compound: C2H5OH. It’s merely societal features that determine which drink people choose.

So what possible policy changes might flow from this study? It just doesn’t make any sense. This seems like a case where the statistics don’t really mean anything useful. All the study appears to do is confirm what you’d expect would be the case if you think about it for a few seconds. Good thing our tax dollars were channeled into something anyone with a high school diploma should have been able to figure out. Is the CDC setting up conditions for neo-prohibitionists to promote making beer harder to access than wine and spirits, the way the state of Tennessee recently did? Heaven forbid we suggest ways to reduce “binge drinking” that involves lowering the drinking age in line with the rest of the civilized world or allow parents to educate their children on how to drink responsibly by introducing it in the home. Those kinds of ideas — which should be taken for granted — are rarely, if ever, even discussed by policymakers and politicians.

An article in Forbes, via HealthDay News, stated that the “study also found that beer was the primary choice of binge drinkers who were most likely to cause alcohol-related harm, such as drinking and driving.” Of course, that could just as easily be that someone with five beers in them is in much better shape to drive (not that I’m saying that they should drive) than someone with five glasses of wine or five glasses of vodka. It’s as if they’re targeting beer precisely because it’s not impairing people enough.

The Forbes piece continues:

“This study isn’t looking at alcohol consumed by people drinking responsibly, or moderately; this is alcohol consumed by people drinking five or more drinks in a sitting, so almost all of them are going to be impaired — if not overtly intoxicated,” Naimi said in a prepared statement. “This is exactly the kind of drinking behavior that leads to so many deaths and secondhand problems that inflict real pain and costs on society, not just the drinker.”

What that statement ignores is what it means to “drink responsibly, or moderately.” That idea has changed over the years. People’s attitudes towards drinking — and driving — used to be much more tolerant. Have lives been saved by changes to the law and to its more statutory enforcement? Possibly, but I remain somewhat skeptical of what statistics have been offered and continue to believe that even if that is indeed the case, that the price that our society has paid as a whole is too high. Education and altered attitudes quite possibly could have done the same thing, without the draconian measures MADD undertook creating a world where people are literally afraid to have a good time.

When I was first old enough to drive (and then drink) five beers over a few hours would not have made me impaired by the then standard of 0.10% blood alcohol level (BAC). By my weight, I could consume seven drinks in one hour and still be under that BAC level. Even under our present standard of 0.08% BAC I can theoretically still have six drinks in one hour and be legally able to drive. That means even if I decided to become a “binge drinker” I could legally do so, and possibly even drive. But most binges involve greater periods of time and thus could conceivably involve even more drinks. I would much rather have my five drinks over several hours of conversation, food or games than quaff it down as fast as possible. But that’s what education and being a responsible adult can do for you. I find it highly insulting that if I have five pints of beer over the course of an evening’s enjoyment that I am branded a “binge drinker,” with all the derogatory associations that entails. I hold down two jobs (one paid, the other a labor of love), pay my taxes, am involved in my community and my children’s schools. I vote, I support local businesses and frequent my local library. But for some I’ll always be an unrepentant deviant because on occasion I drink a half dozen pints in one day? Bullshit.

In the modern, post-MADD, world, the bar for drinking responsibly is growing lower and lower and it is quite clear the neo-prohibitionists will not be satisfied until all alcohol is again removed from society. In a recent story (sent in by Seth. Thanks Seth.) from the San Francisco Chronicle, MADD doesn’t even want people drinking on Amtrak trains, even though there’s no driving involved. Is this study more fuel for the neo-probs? If so it’s more than a little unsettling that my government is helping the cause of another prohibition with my tax dollars. After all, it’s my country, too. Love it or drown your sorrows.
 

NOTE: Davis on Draft also has a nice rant on a different version of this story, his was from MSNBC.

 

Beer Is Healthy Food

By

I’m not exactly sure who PS Prakasa Rao is. The best I can figure is he’s a scientist or doctor from India who frequently writes for his local newspaper. At any rate, he’s got an editorial piece titled “Beer Is Healthy Food” in today’s Central Chronicle from India.

In today’s editorial, he goes against conventional thinking and outlines how beneficial beer can be, stating that he believes beer to be “better than Milk.”

From the article:

Unless we have a tendency towards abuse, believe it or not, taken in moderation, Beer is actually a very healthy food. It’s full of vitamins and minerals that are good for nerve production, help you concentrate, increase blood circulation, and stimulate the metabolism. The hops, low alcohol content, and carbonation help relax the body.

He goes on to outline additional health benefits and, naturally, caution against binge drinking, along with a list of certain types of people who probably shouldn’t drink. I certainly prefer that to the neo-prohibitionist agenda that if one person can’t handle alcohol, no one else should be allowed to either. Way to go, Doc.

Homemade Beer Shampoo

By

I’ve always heard that beer is good for your hair and can be used as a shampoo, but I’ve never actually tested that theory. But I recently stumbled across this fairly easy-to-make recipe for making your own beer shampoo a health food blog, the Natural Holistic Health Blog. Dr. Dee claims that the beer “coats the hair,” helping to repair damaged hair and give it “wonderful body.” The doc also claims there are proteins in both malt and hops which are good for your hair. Here’s the recipe in its entirety.

Take a 3/4 cup of beer — any cheap brand will do — plus one cup of inexpensive shampoo. Boil the beer until it reduces to 1/4 cup. Cool the beer and add it to the 1 cup of inexpensive shampoo.

That’s it. Lather up. Rinse. Repeat.

Hay Fever Symptoms Lessened By Drinking Beer

By

According to Dr. Daniel More, a new study of persons with pollen allergies shows a decrease in sneezing (60%), runny nose (55%) as well as allergy symptoms generally from drinking Sapporo beer.

From Sapporo:

Sapporo Breweries Ltd, the company that makes Sapporo beer, has found that their beer is useful in treating allergic rhinitis symptoms because of the presence of hop flavonol glycosides, a natural anti-histamine. The company plans to also study the effects of beer on allergy symptoms related to dust exposure.

33 Things

By

The magazine Men’s Health has an interesting list of 32 Things You Can Do With Beer.

Here’s the list, but you’ll need to read the article to get their explanation for each.

  1. Bathe in it
  2. Put out a fire
  3. Marinate Meat
  4. Polish pots
  5. Make a beer barbecue sauce
  6. shampoo hair
  7. Loosen rusty bolts
  8. Clear up brown spots on your lawn
  9. Steam clams or mussels
  10. Pass a kidney stone
  11. Boil shrimp
  12. Kill Slugs
  13. Find due north
  14. Sooth tired feet
  15. Make a beer slide
  16. Lower your blood pressure
  17. Trick a cheap landlord
  18. Bake beer bread
  19. Catch mice
  20. Tie a fly
  21. Cure insomnia
  22. Massage yourself
  23. Calm an upset stomach
  24. Build your next home
  25. Cook rice
  26. Stop snoring
  27. Build a plane
  28. Roast chicken
  29. Ice a hamstring
  30. Build delightful patio furniture
  31. Tame a wild hair
  32. Scale fish

Notice the list has only 32 on it, the 33rd thing, of course, is using it as intended. There are some interesting non-intuitive ideas here, such as “loosening rusty bolts” or “clearing up brown spots on your lawn.” I’m going to give that one a try this morning. But several of them seem the same, in a way, like the seven cooking with beer suggestions. Isn’t that just one suggestions in seven different guises? And stopping snoring by tying a beer bottle to your back so you won’t sleep on it seems just plain silly, especially since it’s not really the beer but the package you’re using. You could use almost anything for that. That’s true of a few others, too, where it’s the bottle cap that you’re using rather than the beer itself. And frankly, I’m not sure beer suffers from not being versatile enough that we necessarily need to find more uses for it. Even if it’s only purpose was to drink it, wouldn’t that be enough for most of us?