If the legal ingredients were used and just fermented to below .05% why would that be a violation?
Non-alcoholic beer is almost always brewed to completion and the alcohol is then removed. Shouldn’t make a difference in terms of the purity law, though, if it’s made from the legal ingredients (the original law mentioning only hops, barley, water.)
(Although I suppose there might be some sort of distinction between “non-alcoholic malt beverage” and “non-alcoholic beer” that implies the first is made with a very quick ferment, while the latter is fermented out and the alcohol is removed, but I can’t find a source that says this is the case. I’m not entirely sure fermenting it to 0.5% and then killing the fermentation would make any sense. You’d have a syrupy sweet beverage on your hands if you did it that way. (Try something like Malta, for instance).
Nitpick: glass beer bottles are commonly recycled in the US as well. However, they’re not, typically, reused and refilled but instead sorted, melted and reformed into new bottles.
There are methods of controlling carbohydrates and thus limiting alcohol creation, but the way you describe is used the most.
What I don’t buy is from this cite that says “Amazingly, it is still possible for some people to get drunk from non-alcoholic beer”. Unless by “some people” they mean new born infants.
The legal definition of “nonalcoholic” is anything below .05%. But most near-beers are at .04%. Which means to consume the alcoholic equivalent of a can of regular beer (5%) one would have to drink 12.5 cans (150 ounces) of near beer. Considering that the adult stomach is approximately 135 ounces, and the time it would take to consume that much would allow for previous fluid to be processed, it would be practically impossible for anyone to consume enough to reach a level of intoxication.
No now they’re not. But up until about the late 80’s if you wanted beer in glass you ended up hauling bottles back to the store. 5Cents per.
Did you notice the use of the word “typically” along with the use of the present tense?
Did YOU notice the line “No now they’re not” which is an agreement to you previous post?
It’s 0.5% not 0.05%, so far as I can tell, but even so, that (getting drunk) seems unlikely to me.
The ones I drink say “made in Mexico” and “made in Jamaica” (like red stripe)
Drink Nati Ice in the can. It’s Union made in the USA so you can be sure it’s safe. Cannot vouch for flavor, but it is quite…“effective” at 5.9% ABV…no chance of glass or metal shards…
Whoops.:smack: You’re right.
Indeed. I spent a number of years as an employee of Ontario’s Beer Store sorting and preparing empties to be returned to the brewer for washing and refilling. And they were refilled; you could tell the difference between a brand-new bottle and one that had been refilled a few times (the latter developed white “wear marks” on the bottle’s shoulders).
Red Stripe and Corona?
Anybody who drinks those two beers deserves whatever happens to them.
From what I remember the article basically stated they didn’t go out of their way to mark the bottles domestic, not that they were using old German labels, just ones that look similar. Basically playing on people’s expectations of Becks still being an import.
- I reread my initial post it wasn’t very clear, I apologize for the confusion.
I’m pretty sure if you compared refillable and non-refillable bottles you’d see the refillable ones have thicker walls and bottoms.
Yeah, I guess that is true, but it seems weird seeing it on something they’re not even legally allowed to call beer.
What law says that?