CONSEQUENCES OF DRINKING "SPIRIT" BEVERAGES!

No subject seems to be irrelevant for surveys and studies by investigative scientists and journalists as reflected by the recent report that some one in the US has "discovered" that certain brands of alcoholic beverages cause more injury to the drinkers compared to others! It is least realized that drinking is not a nice habit though exercising restraint in consuming these inebriating beverage may bring some limited benefits for some people. The trouble is most people do not know how much can be consumed safely or how frequent they can be consumed without any damage to the health. According to the studies reported below malt liquor universally is responsible for more hospitalization than mild beverages like beer. Here is the gist of this report.

"According to the study, Steel Reserve Malt Liquor came in second to Budweiser, but proportionally, it blew the brand out of the water. Steel Reserve Malt Liquor makes up .8% of the beer market, but a whopping 14.7% of the ER market, only .3% less than Budweiser. Even more revealing, malt liquors as a whole make up a paltry 2.4% of the US beer trade, but a full 46% of the alcohol consumed by emergency room goers. After Steel Reserve, the third and fourth most popular ER alcohols are also malt beverages: Colt 45 and Bud Ice. Bud Light and Barton's, a discount brand of vodka, take the next two spots. So why are malt beverages so prolific in hospitals? The most obvious answer is the comparatively large amount of alcohol per drink. While a bottle Budweiser contains 5% alcohol, the highest percentage among Amerca's top five best-selling beers, it's nothing compared to Steel Reserve's 8.1% alcohol content. While the study should shed light on which brands are most correlated with injury, more research is still needed. David Jernigan, the study's director, cautioned that the study only included interviews with 105 hospital patients, and all from one hospital in Baltimore".

Whether the above study will be allowed to go unchallenged by those brands indicted here remains to be seen. Coming to such a conclusion as being done by the authors, based on a limited survey of 105 subjects is also a matter of concern. Why such studies are undertaken at the first instance is not clear. After all drinking in a country where there is no mandatory prohibition is a matter of personal preference but those who drink excessively have no right to be a public burden whether causing nuisance in the public or straining the public health system which cannot be condoned.   

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

BEER LABELING-AN UNAVOIDABLE CONTROVERSY?

Fighting for a good cause is worth the investment on such an exercise but trivial issues do not warrant waste of time and resources spending on them. The labeling tussle on beer products between the beer industry and consumer activist groups is an example of such a tug of war on a trivial matter. Every beer consumer knows that the brewed beverage is made from malted barley and other grains like wheat, rye, oats etc are also used along with. Gluten-free beer can be made from Sorghum, Rice etc but only small quantity is produced targeting at special consumer groups with wheat and gluten allergy. Since gluten allergy affects a significant number of people there are compulsory labeling regulations calling for declaration of gluten in the label of products with necessary warning for people with such allergies to avoid buying these products containing wheat as an ingredient. Here is a take on that controversy that is raging in Canada currently.

Allergy and health groups are asking the Conservative government to press ahead with new food-labelling regulations even as the beer industry asks to pull out of them. The proposed regulations, published July 2008, would require manufacturers and importers to clearly note potential allergens on labels — an important indication for those with serious or life-threatening allergies. In an open letter to the prime minister this week, those fighting for the new regulations questioned the position of brewers who are asking for an exemption. "Our organizations remain, as we always have, willing to listen," the letter said. "What we are not prepared to do, prime minister, is let this once-in-a-generation opportunity be put at risk because of the last minute interventions of a powerful, private, industry lobby." The letter was signed by eight organizations, including Anaphylaxis Canada, the Canadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation and the Canadian Celiac Association. New labels would have to list any of 10 priority allergens outlined by Health Canada, such as milk, eggs or shellfish, gluten sources, and sulphites, all over 10 parts per million. The declaration statement would read: "Allergy and Intolerance Information – Contains: …" But brewers say people with celiac disease, who are most concerned with gluten content, already know they can't drink beer. "We believe that people with celiac disease are very educated on the issue," said Andre Fortin, spokesman for Brewers Association of Canada.

There may be a point in the arguments of both the parties involved in this sparring. While the activists are pressing the government to go ahead with the new labeling regulation that calls for including allergy warning on the beer packs, the brewing industry is forcefully arguing against such an unnecessary labeling as they feel. On a similar note, one cannot help wondering whether there can be demand for compulsory allergy labeling on milk for the benefit of lactose intolerant people though every person having this affliction knows that milk does contain lactose, the component responsible for the affliction. Probably same logic may apply to beer also which is known to be made from grains like wheat containing prolamins and glutelins, the two components that make up gluten. Practically speaking it should not make any difference whether label warning is printed or not and hence this is much ado about nothing.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"CAFFEINATED" BEER-HOOKING THE YOUNGSTERS!

That Caffeine is an intoxicant is well known and its consumption by vulnerable population like children and pregnant women are universally frowned upon. Similarly alcohol consumption is restricted only to adult population in many countries because of the inebriating effect on the consumer of beverages containing alcohol. Imagine what will happen if these two intoxicants are formulated into a beverage, that too cheaper than the conventional soft drinks. Recent industry adventure into this "dangerous" area in some countries is raising all round concern regarding the repercussions on the health of younger generation.

Health advocates and others have increasingly worried in recent years about sweet malt beverages known as "alcopops," which often mask the flavor of alcohol and tend to be marketed to younger drinkers. Michael Scippa, a spokesman with the Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group, said the drinks have only become more dangerous since companies began adding stimulants such as caffeine and guarana. Scippa noted that many of these products come in 23-ounce cans that contain the equivalent of five to eight cups of coffee, are 12 percent alcohol and are sold for $1.99. A regular energy drink, by contrast, can cost $2.99, he said. "The bottom line is they create a low price point entry drink for a lot of youth that brilliantly keeps them alert and wanting to keep drinking the product," he said, adding that up to 60 percent of the caffeinated malt beverages sold in California are consumed by underage drinkers. "It's a marketer's dream, but I don't know how they sleep at night."

Serving alcohol requires age proof in many bars but these new generation drinks which mask the alcohol smell are freely available in the market attracting young consumers in hordes. It is incredible that the industry can be so irresponsible as to offer a drink which will infuse more caffeine into the consumer than that caused by several cups of coffee at one go. Such socially unacceptable behavior by one segment of the industry can bring bad name for the entire food and beverage sector in no time. It is a wake up call for this industry to exercise self restraint and discipline those who try to make a fast buck through unfair, unhealthy and unethical means.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com