Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Should Alcoholic Beverages Have Nutrition Labels?

consumerist.com — Our alcoholic uncle always swore that booze was healthy, and if the Treasury Department has its way, nutrition labels on alcoholic beverages may soon have people thinking he was right.

Bury

kilooneniner 283 days ago, made popular 282 days ago

753 diggs
digg it

136 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+41I worked in the university library during my undergrad and came across "Beer: quality, safety and nutritional aspects". There was a chapter (5) on the nutritional aspects of beer. There was a neat chart that compares beer, wine, milk and soft drinks. It amused me to no end that beer compared quite favourably with milk and was much better than soft drinks. Anyone who is interested can google the book title, you can find the table (5.1) through google book search right at the end (p99).
- kilooneniner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hey, I've always maintained that it's the breakfast of champions.
  
  On a more serious note alcohol is kind of a macronutrient anyway (in that it has calories.) There seems to be some confusion about where exactly those calories go though -- some of them appear to go missing when the body metabolizes them.
  
  But having that information on the label could be useful for people who are trying to track their nutrient intakes.
- sunroom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Pages 97-112 are not part of this book preview." :(
- Kinjiru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"pg 97-112 are not part of this book preview"
  
  seems it's not there afterall
  
  http://www.google.ca/books?id=X95O-1_x-a0C&pg=PP1&ots=uF6_tXvdlt&dq=Beer:+quality,+safety+and+nutritional+aspects&sig=wLnTeUwKkN3THnnR1S1Vv-9DlRA#PPA96,M1
- JonestownTea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Another great example is the buffalo effect. You see as a herd of buffalo go roaming about, the weaker ones are picked off by predators, thus making the stronger ones survive. Lastly, making the entire heard stronger. This also applies to brain cells and the effects of alcohol, which is why you always feel a little smarter after a few beers.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wierd... worked right before I made my post. I could get as far as 102, now it only goes to 45. technology, ain't it grand...
DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Yes
- johnhummel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I agree, but not for the "oh, noes, nanny state reason". What if there's something you're allergic to, or if your doctor has you on a diet to remove triglycerides or some such? A quick look at the label, "Cool - I can totally chug this" or "Dang - I'd better pick something else", and you're good.
  
  I don't even drink alcohol, but it seems like something logical in an age where people need data on what they put into their bodies.
  - mtwolf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1yes, but the industy should regulate this, not the all powerful state.
- mtwolf, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1They should have labels if the maker wants to put a label on them. Why do we all want to use the government to force people to do stuff? If you don't like that a beer maker doesn't put the label on the beer, then don't buy the beer. Why is that such a hard concept?
  - TheKricket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1do you even understand WHY labels are placed on food/beverage products in the first place? i think once you figure that concept out, you'll see its in EVERY consumer's best interest to have labels on EVERYTHING...
- Tonyisbad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, cause if i knew had bad a Black & Tan (Bass Ale on the bottom half and Guinness floating on the top, not mixed together) i'm sure i wouldn't drink them as heavily as i do now. Thankfully i have no real idea, i'm assuming its good for you, right? Aren't the best tasting things in life usually good for you?
CaptMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37Yes. I can't see anything wrong with helping people make an informed decision on what they consume. Some might argue that if you were worried about your health, you shouldn't be drinking alcohol, but you could say the same for soft drinks, and the tons of junkfood that have labels too.
- TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Shouldn't be drinking alcohol, or shouldn't be drinking much alcohol? My Dr. recommended that I have a glass of wine a day. A lot of healthy people still want to have a drink here and there, and I don't see why we shouldn't know what's in it when we do.
kidendless, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16what i really needed was a warning label that said "don't drink these until you pass out on a monday night". have these office lights always been this bright? jesus!
- Vurk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2This is like asking if water should have an ingredients list.
  - VictoryGin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1oddly enough, it does have to... i always thought is was ridiculous that bottled water has to have a nutrition label and ingredients listed, but alcoholic beverages didn't
quakerorts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Not only that but they should have an ingredient list so people can make informed decisions. What are they hiding?
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Dude, the ingredients of beer are not some kind of secret: malted barley, hops, water, yeast. Add fruit or anything with sugars in it, if you're into flavored brews.
  - Abscess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well unless is is terrible beer. Then you have to add rice to you list.
    Rice Brewed Beers should be Banned!
    - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3While I agree with you personally, this would devastate the brewing industry in the US. The rice is the primary way that the big breweries give us that watery, flavorless beer that most Americans love so much.
      
      I've tried giving some self-proclaimed "beer lovers" samples of some of my real beer, they can't stand it. One guy almost puked when I poured him a glass of my favorite Double IPA. All of the Bud Lights, Miller Lights, etc... have really damaged the average Americans idea of what "beer" is supposed to taste like.
    - grantmoore3d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's hilarious, because here in Canada, we have the reverse affect. Everyone drinks moderately good beer (cheap, but still decent enough, like Blue, Canadian, etc...). I've rarely ever seen anyone drink a Bud Light or these watery American beers, and most of the time when they do drink it, they are very quick to make it known how terrible it is.
  - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And generally, if there is anything other than those four ingredients it will be a prominent part of the beer's name. (Pete's Strawberry Blonde, Honey Wheat, etc....)
  - judgesuds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well they use fish extracts to make the beer clear, so a lot of beers are not suitable for vegetarians. Who knows what other ***** they put in mass produced beers to make them keep longer.
    - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That gets filtered out before bottling, it never ends up in the beer that you drink.
      
      On a side note, vegetarians are odd, odd people.
      - Hepburn82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Vegetarians could still object to the fish extract being used in the production even if they aren't directly consuming it.
        
        Plus, drink any real or cask ale in the UK and you will be consuming these extracts as they are not filtered out.
- jacobed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The beer industry is fully in support of labeling. You can see this if you read the article. The only reason they haven't done it previously is because since prohibition, the alcoholic beverage industries have largely regulated themselves to prevent federal involvement. They've abstained from obtrusive labeling of alcohol content and from claims of beer's nutritional value to avoid a federal backlash. The industry has wanted for years to tout the benefits of their product (besides being a liquid panty remover), so it's no surprise that they would back this legislation.
- signal15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, only the smaller breweries are in favor of ingredient labeling. The larger ones (Coors, A-B, and Miller) are not. Why, you ask? The larger breweries put some nasty chemicals in their beers to speed up fermentation and get a more consistent product.
  
  Of course, the people that drink that swill probably don't care.
  - RyGuyX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*****; I like Coors. (and I do care - thank you for informing me)
kalidav, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I think they should. Even if it's just the energy content.
Langford, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18As long as the label information is truthful, I don't see a problem. I can understand if a group wants to discourage alcohol use, but information deprivation is one of the worst ways to influence people.
- subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As Otto stated above, it's not exactly difficult to find out what the ingredients for beer are. The same basic recipe has been in use damn near since man stood up on two legs.
  - VictoryGin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0but what about for liquors? for gin, vodka, rum, or tequila... i mean, i know it's about 40% alcohol, but i have no idea what that other 60% is.
    - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I've never been big on liquor, so I don't know a whole lot about the stuff, but some quick googling should find you plenty of instructions for distilling your own liquor at home. (I'll leave it to you to decide your comfort level with the illegality of it.)
      
      Off the top of my head, I do know that gin gets its flavor primarily from juniper berries and coriander.
hokie47, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5All I need to know is the alcohol content

Also on a side note. I hate born on dating. Why not just tell me when I should drink it by for maximum freshness?
- Langford, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Maybe they hope to be treated like wine? "This beer, grainage 1978"
  I don't like beer, and know nothing about it's shelf-life, so I'm just pulling the idea out of the air. Still, it kinda sounds plausible if you say it just right.
  - rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The types of beer with "born on dates" unfortunately do not get better with age.
    "I don't like beer, and know nothing about it's shelf-life" Your comment is uninformed and stupid. Why are you getting diggs?
    - Langford, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You seem to have no sense of humor. Thats very sad.
- Terh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, maybe because to get maximum 'freshness' you should drink it as soon as you possibly can. Waiting doesn't increase freshness of anything.
  - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While waiting obviously doesn't increase freshness, for certain beers it definitely makes them better. Your average fizzy, yellow American Light Lager deteriorates with age, but a lot of better beers do improve.
    
    I have a batch of Double IPA and a batch of Imperial Stout in secondary fermenters that were brewed just before last Thanksgiving, and I plan to have them bottled and ready to drink by about a week before Christmas. Of course, the last hydrometer readings I took placed both of these in the 11-12% alcohol range, and they're extremely heavily hopped (hops are a natural preservative), so they're not exactly in the same league as a bottle of Bud Light.
    - matthewf01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mr. Beer home brewing kit!!
      :)
      
      been brewing dark all-malts for a long time, finally went light and hoppy with an American Premium lager with Centennial hops. Man that's hoppy!
      - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can't tell if you're joking about the Mr. Beer kit, but in the event that you're not, if you've been making your own beer for awhile and find that you enjoy it, I think you'd really find it worthwhile to invest in some proper gear. I've got about $300 invested in enough good equipment to have 3 five-gallon batches going simultaneously (plus the above mentioned "special" batches that I'm aging for over a year). On a staggered rotation, this means I'm generally bottling up around two and a half cases of beer every other week.
        
        And if you like hoppy beers, you can definitely go further than an American lager. Whip up a batch of India Pale Ale first, then if you want to go even further, try the Double IPA. The double is too bitter for a lot of people, that degree of hoppiness is definitely an acquired taste, but it leaves no doubt whatsoever that you're drinking beer!
- petebot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because if you put a "drink by" date on there, people wouldn't touch it past the date, and bars would look bad if they sold something past their "drink by" date.
- duestown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Sam Adams uses a "drink-by" date. They also buy back old beer from bars and stores that has gone past its drink-by date, and they put it in a dunk tank that the company founder sits in at a charity event every year in Boston.
  - bdurkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's ***** awesome. I had no idea how cool they are. I'm drinking more Sam.
- VSLOATHE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Born on dating is for macro brewed *****. Who drinks that stuff anyway?
  - viperman5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3College students.
profOblivion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I've seen "Nutrition Facts" on the side of pop cans (and other junk food) for quite some time now, and I'm pretty sure that nobody I know thinks soft drinks have any "nutritional value". I really don't think this danger of "implying that alcoholic beverages have some nutritional value" is legitimate. As long as it doesn't drive up the cost any more (***** LCBO...), tell me what's in my drinks.
- ASoggyWaffle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i think it would actually discourage some to see how many calories of their recommended daily value they are getting by knocking back a few beers
Dpack1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Another way of looking at it is just why shouldnt they?

Obviously you're gonna get the pro prohibition crowd up in arms when its made more public that alcohol is good for you rather then this terrible taboo that only criminals and hoodlums partake in but is that any reason NOT to add contents labels to something people are putting into thier bodies?
- mtwolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1A good reason they shouldnt....they don't want to
  
  That should be good enough. If a consumer doesn't want to buy it....they shouldn't.
  - kingpin2k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2About damn time somebody said this. Why is it assumed that government should be out there regulating every freaking aspect of every freaking commercial transaction in the country. Want nutrition labels, ask for them. Don't buy beer that doesn't have them. Rally for it with a few thousand of your friends.
    
    Please oh please don't pass any more laws!!!
  - Dpack1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, so when the guy that just turned 21 has his first beer not knowing what all the ingredients are and has a major allergic reaction to it ends up in hospital thats still cool right... cos the brewery 'didnt want to' put an informative label on thier product. Even ***** shampoo bottles list thier contents and you're only rubbing that into your hair, not digesting it.
    - kingpin2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's called personal responsibility. If I know I have major food allergies that might land me in the hospital, I probably should not consume foods whose ingredients I don't know.
      Or, clean up the gene pool...have a six pack.
    - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yep, that's perfectly cool with me.
      
      The world is not a safe place. Life would be so much simpler if people would just accept that reality and stop trying to legislate the fun out of life in the name of "safety".
neiltc13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which Treasury Department?
arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14If every single other item of food/beverages/consumables is required to have nutritional information. I have wondered for years why alcohol has been exempt from this requirement. It's a ***** double standard. People need to know and be aware of the nutritional information of every product they consume.
shutupdoodah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I recommend "The Joy of Drinking" by Barbara Holland, gives an accurate description how until recently our ancestors sought beer as a major part of their daily nutritional intake... goes so far as to say beer is part of the definition of civilization. We've only recently ruined its image.
- kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think there's a reason for that. Beer is not as good for you as it used to be. There's tons of crap like preservatives in there.
  
  So, if there's ingredients listed on the packaging (like in every other country) then maybe it'll help people choose beers with less crap in them.
JPamplin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12ANOTHER INTERESTING FACT:

Remember when beer started advertising that it was low carb? It was during the Adkins craze a few years ago. Michelob Ultra was an entire brand built around low carb.

What you may not know was that beer companies lobbied the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to reclassify a gram of alcohol as a non-carb, even though it instantly breaks down into sugars once it enters your body. This was just so they could claim that beer was a low-carb food, and to distort how many carbs were actually in alcoholic products. It's still in place to this day, and it's complete bullsh*t.

Nutrition labels, even if they are placed on these products, will STILL not tell you the truth.

JP
- Mattintosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Alcohol doesn't break down into sugars. It's made of sugar that's already broken down. As in "digested". By yeast. It's even closer to "ready for cell consumption" than sugar is. That's why you get a beer gut - there's almost no processing necessary to change maltodextrin and alcohol into the proper form of glucose needed to power your cells, and that results in excess glucose and eventually fat buildup.
mtwolf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1There are 2 issues here. 1. Should they have nutritional labels? 2. Should big brother require nutritional labels? Two separate questions...Discuss
- kevincannon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+41. Of course - people should know what they're eating. You shouldn't have to rely on guesswork.
  2. See above. This isn't big brother. It's forcing companies to provide basic information so that people can made educated choices. Empowering customers is not a bad thing.
- jacobed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'd prefer if the government didn't require labeling. I'm never in favor of federal mandates. I would, however, like the federal government to allow beverage manufacturers to truthfully advertise the nutritional contents of their brews without fear of punitive action.
  - arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I really dislike the blanket "not in favor of federal mandates" typical libertarian line. Yes, keeping the government out of our lives is a must. However, there are instances when it is necessary to have regulation. Big companies and corporations do not care about the consumer. They want money, and they do not care how they get it. There are no ethical big corporations. Every single one of them will ***** any of us over at any time to make a buck. So if it means putting horse ***** in their products and telling us it's infused with rose oil means they get an extra dollar out of you and me, they'll do it, and won't think twice. Corporations NEVER have our interestes at heart. They don't care about us, and there has to be a way to force them to.
    
    Yes, the federal government needs to say out of the lives of private citizens, but big business is allowed far too much leeway in almost every area. Forcing big business to tell us the truth, and to make sure consumers have an educated choice is paramount.
ribbleninja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I dont even want to know what kind of poison is in the Macro Brewers beers.. I'm glad I switched to all local micro brewers years ago!
- Abscess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It might scare you more if you saw the conditions some of the micro beers are made in!
  - CaitSith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Most microbreweries I've been to offer daily tours. I have seen the conditions, and they are very good.
  - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It might scare you more if you saw the conditions some of the micro beers are made in!"
    
    Actually, since beer itself (especially unfermented beer, more properly referred to as "wort") is pretty much an ideal environment for bacteria and other nasties to grow in, if the beer even tastes like beer you can rest assured that everything it came into contact with was sanitary. I'm much, much more concerned about the cleanliness of an average restaurant than I am about the sanitation practices at any micro-brewery. The fact that they were even able to produce beer is evidence enough for me that their sanitation practices are adequate.
FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I actually wish more manufacturers would have nutritional information available on their websites (specifically sugar content - I like drier beers). But I don't want to see microbreweries and craft brewers be required to clutter up their labels with a government-mandated chart. It seems wrong for some reason.
- BionicBeefpile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I could see a law requiring the information to be printed on the outer packaging of whatever the end-user product is. For instance, a 12-pack would have it on the outside of the box, a 6-pack on the cardboard carrier, and only single bottles (perhaps those sold in restaurants or specialty brews in the store) would have to actually print the information on the bottle label itself.
Aslyum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Personally it doesn't even matter, I don't care if my beer has 1000 calories or 5 calories if its good I shall drink it.
- akamrcam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Well you can have a couple 1000 calorie beers a day and end up being 500 pounds then. Unless you just have the beer, then you would be fine.
  - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or you could, I don't know.... Exercise?
    
    Crazy idea, I know.
    - VictoryGin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0so you're going to consume only beer (at 1000 calories each, you'd have little room in your diet for anything else, unless you have just one), and then go work out? let me know how that goes... (of course, this is all hypothetical...)
      - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, actually, with the workout and the additional calories, I might actually gain some weight. If I skipped the workout, I probably wouldn't. I have one of those crazy metabolisms that makes it next to impossible to gain weight. I routinely eat around double my caloric requirement and never gain a pound unless I'm also on a workout routine with the specific goal of building muscle mass.
Lucian0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think they should put nutritional labels on because if you are ingesting some beverage you have a right to know what it' s nutritional value is. Even bottled water has a nutritional facts label on it, so why not alcohol?
IsmailOo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes of course, everyone wants to know whats going in them, don't they?
slapthemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1for sure.....whats so much debatable in it by the way>?
- altgeeky1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There shouldn't be a debate - we should all know what is in our foodstuffs. I love beer and being armed with this information is unlikely to change my drinking habits.
  What's sad is that the debate will drag on once some conservative bloggers pick this up as the next liberal plot. They have to attack this, because in the past they have attacked ingredients labels on tobacco, and have attacked the original expansion of foodstuff nutritional labeling (championed by Bill Clinton).
  
  Due to big business PAC (election money) the conservative debate is going to be "burden and costs on the manufacturer... government interference... re-labeling costs in the billions". The true conservative value would be to "get this information out there so that people can decide for themselves", but I'm so old fashioned like that.
  - VictoryGin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i severely changed my drinking habits after i found out the hard way just how many calories i was consuming through alcoholic beverages... by packing on about 50 pounds in around 3 years... i've lost it all now, but i drink much less so that doesn't happen again...
trer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Anything made for human ingestion should have nutrition labels.
atbnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think it would be a good idea though I think I'd faint once I calculated the calories in all the beer, Fat subs, pizzas, and greasy cheese fries that are consumed on an average weekend at college.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1they make a sandwich they sell on a roach coach at the university of scranton called a fat bitch that puts together all 3 of those food items. add a sixer of keystone talls and you're set.
zwendkos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Direct link to "Beer: quality, safety, and nutritional aspects" :
http://books.google.com/books?id=X95O-1_x-a0C&pg=PP1&ots=uF6_tXu9lo&dq=Beer:+quality,+safety+and+nutritional+aspects&sig=ISe8UhouHqrGSr7TWPrjDXxXjUQ#PPP1,M1

I am giving up soda for beer.
jacobed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Personally, I think the world, and American in particular, would be a much more healthy and pleasant place if people put back a pint at lunch rather than 44 oz. of soda.
- lisaawesome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It would be more pleasant. I need to drink more on my lunch breaks.
- rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2As an American I agree. Unfortunately businesses and bosses only care about their "bottom line" and would never allow this sort of thing. I am not even allowed to take a cigarette break because "my time has been bought"; so instead I waste up to 5 hours a day surfing the net and commenting on Digg. HA!
- rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh yeah, I forgot to mention.... I hate being an American; this place sucks. I wish I was born in Europe or Canada.
  - JustinDavid86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I make one UK comment and I get razzed out - but you douce bags can make fun of America. Yuppie pricks.
  - givinupthefight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Good for you, then leave. Problem solved. You won't be missed.
    - rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not that simple.
digitmasher, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Am I the only one who finds irony in being health conscious while drinking alcohol?
- rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes. You suck.
stronglikedan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I cast my vote for yes. Except, Newcastle. I'd like to keep drinking that in blissful ignorance thankyouverymuch.
- subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Newcastle is an english style brown ale. The ingredients are pretty much the same as any other beer. The difference in flavors comes mostly from how the barley is malted (dark, light, etc...), the amount and type of hops added, and the type of yeast that is used.
  
  The four basic ingredients stay pretty much the same. For some beers, grains like wheat or rye are substituted for the barley, and fruit flavorings and spices are frequently used, especially in winter beers.
  
  But Newcastle? Just the basic four ingredients.
  - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Correction to the above....
    
    I meant "roasted" where I said "malted". Two entirely different processes.
ashwinashwin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i think they should... athough itll probably turn people off those sugary liquors. goldschlager is pretty much just sugar syrup mixed with alcohol and cinnamon flavor.
iRoy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2The labels should read, "POISON". Alcohol sucks.

Legalize Marijuana and put some labels on that instead.
- aiten, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4let me be the first to say, shut up.
- JustinDavid86, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Can I be the second?
darkkosmos, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Beer or any other alchohol are a mild poisens not food XD anyone who thinks that is probably drunk or acts like it.
akira117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"that the nutrition labels might imply that alcoholic beverages have some nutritional value." Those people probably can't read anyways :P
diggtomanjeri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The reason for labels are two-fold, to display nutritional value and ingredients. I could see brewers not wanting the ingredient list, but, they could probably get away with just the major ingredients which would be the same among all beers. Beer doesn't have much in the way of nutritional value (wine a bit more, hard liquor less), some Phosphorous, Folate a lot of Carbs (Sugar) and that's about it, trace elements of a bunch of other things. The only thing unhealthy about it is the alcohol really which is bad for your liver and the calories if you don't burn them off.

nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
- lk167, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would like to see ingredients and alcohol content at least. Being a sufferer of allergies and respectful to my body always makes me want to know what i am putting in there. I also believe you are right on with the ingredients list being fairly simple. The hope would be that the non-standard ingredients would be there, letting us separate the beer from the beer-like. An exert from the German Beer Purity Laws:
  
  "use only barley, hops and water for the beer, knowledgeably simmer it and add nothing else nor allow anyone else to add anything."
  
  In regards to the secrecy of a formula: Brewing is a very old tradition and the ingredients, at its purest state, are simple. Brew masters are aptly named as the process is difficult and requires the experiences of years of trial and error. These traditions and experience are usually passed down throughout generations. Put my home brewed beer next to any brew master's using the exact same ingredients and I'm sure my bottles will still be full at the end of the day.
  
  In regards to the 'only thing unhealthy about it is the alcohol": The process of fermentation can produce a number of interesting chemicals, especially when non-standard ingredients are used in brewing. Alcohol is a waste product of the fermentation process. When done improperly, all sorts of horrible, headache causing chemicals can come out. An experienced, well informed beer drinker can usually sit down at a brew pub and smell a bad brew. It'd be nice to quantify this information on a label so that the folks that haven't spent years tasting and reading about beer the same options.
  
  That being said, perhaps an ingredient list is only part of the solution. Beer is chemically different than its ingredients and does not represent the contents of a bottle the same way that the Wheat Thins ingredients relate the the product in the box.
  
  Lastly, maybe that would force some of the American large scale brewers to admit they use corn! They finally admitted to using rice...
wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"500mg of Awesomeness (10% Daily value) and 800mg of Sex Vitamins (300% Daily Value)"
griz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4DUGG because Guiness IS good for you!!
yunus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I do wish alcohol content labeling was mandatory. I like to know if I'm drinking 3.2% or 5% beer.
- xcoastie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Drink 'Natty Ice" it says 5.9% right on the can. After a few you don't even notice it tastes bad.
  - yunus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I used to drink Bud Ice and Natural Ice but now I cant start out with one. I need something good on my taste buds (Yuengling, Killians, Sam Adams)for the first beer. After that its less important.
jason469, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't see why not. I'd like to know what I'm putting in my body and before some retard comes in and says "who cares, it's made to get you trashed" I care and I don't get trashed, I get buzzed, so please spare those of us who actually care.
toolboxnj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Can't even enjoy a beer anymore without the government .. eh
Matsky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But, they ARE good for you! I refute any other claims as heresy. All hail Gambrinus!
liuite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2next on Mythbuster - can you survive on "liquid bread" aka beer
knetworx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think it'd be good just so I know how much exercise I need to get once the hangover's gone.

Just for ***** and giggles, I'm going to suggest an extended set of nutrition facts on cigarettes (not calories, sugars, etc., but how much faster you're going to die, what kinds of chemicals you're putting into your lungs, etc.)

I think the inevitable comment ***** this starts will be well worth getting buried. Hehehehe......
lordmike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes! I just started Weight Watchers again, yesterday (amazing how the weight all comes back when you get off of it), and I really could use the calorie info for beer. Right now, I have to guess and rely on third party sources. If soda pop can have nutrition labels, why not beer. Now we'll see how "light" lite beer is?
modex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Every manufactured consumable should have a nutrition label.
JustinDavid86, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Dude, if you're drinking a beer, you're probably not worried about the intake.

Should condom's have directions?
- rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Condoms do have directions. Been a while?
  - JustinDavid86, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Since I've used a condom? Yes. Your Mom is allergic to latex.
    
    And BTW condoms tell you how to put them on, not how to use them.
DejectedRobot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Anyone who says beer is more nutritional than milk, is just plain retarded. Beer is full of empty calories and has little to no nutritional value. Plus it slows down your metabolism, slows protein synthesis, and lowers testosterone levels, all while dehydrating your body. Sounds very nutritional to me.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy drinking some cold ones, every now and then. But I am on a strict diet for losing body fat. I am at 8% body fat, and I do not plan on letting that percentage rise.
- iamafatguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Anyone who says milk is more nutritious than beer is just plain retarded.
  /Sorry, couldn't help it.
  
  Leaving the whole "milk is crap for you" discussion for another thread, let's compare milk to beer:
  
  Whole Milk
  Amount Per 1 cup
  Calories 149.92
  Calories from Fat 73.35
  
  % Daily Value *
  Total Fat 8.15g 13%
  Saturated Fat 5.07g 25%
  Polyunsaturated Fat 0.303g
  Monounsaturated Fat 2.35g
  Cholesterol 33.18mg 11%
  Sodium 119.56mg 5%
  Potassium 369.66mg 11%
  Total Carbohydrate 11.37g 4%
  Dietary Fiber 0g 0%
  Protein 8.03g 16%
  Alcohol 0g
  
  Vitamin A 6 % Vitamin C 4 %
  Calcium 29 % Iron 1 %
  Vitamin D 24 % Vitamin E 1 %
  Thiamin 5 % Riboflavin 20 %
  Niacin 1 % Folate 3 %
  Vitamin B-6 5 % Vitamin B-12 15 %
  Phosphorus 23 % Magnesium 8 %
  Zinc 6 % Copper 1 %
  
  Whole Beer:
  Amount Per 12 fl oz
  Calories 147.6
  Calories from Fat 0
  
  % Daily Value *
  Total Fat 0g 0%
  Saturated Fat 0g 0%
  Polyunsaturated Fat 0g
  Monounsaturated Fat 0g
  Cholesterol 0mg 0%
  Sodium 18mg 1%
  Potassium 90mg 3%
  Total Carbohydrate 13.32g 4%
  Dietary Fiber 0.72g 3%
  Protein 1.08g 2%
  Alcohol 12.96g
  
  Vitamin A 0 % Vitamin C 0 %
  Calcium 2 % Iron 1 %
  Vitamin D 0 % Vitamin E 0 %
  Thiamin 1 % Riboflavin 5 %
  Niacin 8 % Folate 5 %
  Vitamin B-6 9 % Vitamin B-12 1 %
  Phosphorus 4 % Magnesium 5 %
  Zinc 0 % Copper 2 %
  
  Beer vs Milk:
  
  147.6 cal vs 149.9 - I call that a draw
  0 fat vs 8.15g - Beer wins (The body does need fat. But that's another thread.)
  0 cholesterol vs 33.18mg - Beer wins
  18mg sodium vs 119.56 - Winner depends on your sodium consumption. Me? I don't care.
  1.08g f protien vs 8.03 - Milk wins
  12.96g Alcohol vs 0g - Beer wins - N.A. Beer is pointless.
  Vitamins: Milk clearly has more vitamins. Beer wins because drinking beer for vitamins is pointless.
  
  So, by my clearly unscientific reasoning, I have shown that beer is more nutritious than milk.
  
  /all nutritional data gathered by fastidiously searching the internets and then just going to fitday.com
- FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm sorry, I can't help myself in saying this, but you're really gay.
cwestside, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes i think they should use nutrition labels mainly to show the alcohol content so everyone can tell what the strongest beer is and get messed up quicker if they want
fhscomtech3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wait a minute, "The alcoholic beverage industry vigorously supports the rule, but some advocacy organizations are concerned that the nutrition labels might imply that alcoholic beverages have some nutritional value." If the industry supports this, why doesn't it have labels on it's products already? It's not like there is a rule 'against' putting the labels on..
in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They should definitely have labels because they aren't good for you to be drinking....its just one of those things out of sight out of mind for most individuals
theamazingkort, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you look on the side of any Budweiser product there's nutrition facts. Look hard, they're there.
YamaLlama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I SUPPORT THIS!
skippersoda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Sure why not? It wouldn't hurt to know what you're putting in your body.
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Should Alcoholic Beverages Have Nutrition Labels?

Login or register to add a comment