What is Digg?136 Comments
- 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).
- 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.
- DiggsOnlyNeoCon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Yes
- 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.
- 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!
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- trer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Anything made for human ingestion should have nutrition labels.
- 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 - 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.
- 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.
- johnhummel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I 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. - 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.
- kalidav, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I think they should. Even if it's just the energy content.
- 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.
- VSLOATHE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Born on dating is for macro brewed pisswater. Who drinks that stuff anyway?
- bdurkin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's ***** awesome. I had no idea how cool they are. I'm drinking more Sam.
- 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.
- 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.
- inactive, 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! - 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.
- 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? - 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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? - 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. - griz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4DUGG because Guiness IS good for you!!
- 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.
- wildfire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"500mg of Awesomeness (10% Daily value) and 800mg of Sex Vitamins (300% Daily Value)"
- 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.
- 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....)
- aiten, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4let me be the first to say, shut up.
- 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. - 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. - rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yes. You suck.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - viperman5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3College students.
- 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/+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". - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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/ - 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.
- rebopper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Condoms do have directions. Been a while?
- liuite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2next on Mythbuster - can you survive on "liquid bread" aka beer
-
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is