Posted on 09/15/2019 2:37:38 PM PDT by rickmichaels
One of the best things about the otherwise tedious Super Bowl broadcast earlier this year was the debut of a mildly amusing, medieval-themed Bud Light beer commercial that attacked rivals Miller Lite and Coors Light over the latter two's use of corn syrup as an ingredient in their respective brewing processes.
"Bud Light," one such ad closes. "Brewed with no corn syrup."
That is, by all accounts, a true statement. But it's also one that helped spur MillerCoors, which brews (as its name implies) Miller Lite and Coors Light, to file a federal lawsuit in Wisconsin against Bud Light brewer Anheuser-Busch.
The Bud Light ad, court documents state, "claims that Miller Lite and Coors Light are 'made with' or 'brewed with' corn syrup." All parties to the lawsuit agree that MillerCoors uses corn syrup as an ingredient in brewing both Miller Lite and Coors Light.
The crux of MillerCoors's claims against Anheuser-Busch, then, is that "when viewed as a whole, [the advertisements] deceive[] consumers into believing that Miller Lite and Coors Light final products actually contain corn syrup and thus are unhealthy and inferior to Bud Light."
Corn syrup, a glucose-based sugar, has become a much-derided food ingredient. That's due to the fact it's a type of sugar but, more so, to its relation to high fructose corn syrup (also known as HFCS, a sweeter mix of glucose and fructose). Indeed, MillerCoors claims Bud Light is using the relationship to "exploit or further misconceptions about corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup."
The MillerCoors complaint also claims in part that Bud Light "fails to inform consumers" that Miller Lite and Coors Light don't brew beer with HFCS and that when consumers buy Miller Lite or Coors Light, the products they buy contain no corn syrup.
The MillerCoors complaint centers on a deceptive-advertising claim under the federal Lanham Act. The basic premise underlying the Lanham Act's application here is that if a company's communications (advertising, marketing, packaging, and the like) intentionally mislead the public in such a way that harms that company's competitor(s), then the competitor(s) may seek redress under the law.
MillerCoors has asked the court to issue an injunction and award monetary damages.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge William M. Conley granted some of what MillerCoors has sought. He issued a preliminary injunction that barred Budweiser from implying in its advertising that Miller Lite—as sold to consumers—contains corn syrup.
Now, in a brief order issued last week, Judge Conley has upped the ante, extending his injunction to Bud Light's packaging, which has included the words "no corn syrup" printed on packaging and store displays.
"With this ruling, we are holding Bud Light accountable for their actions, and we will keep holding their feet to the fire every time they intentionally mislead the American public," MillerCoors CEO Gavin Hattersley said in a statement that was reported by The New York Times last week.
Anheuser-Busch, hardly cowed, immediately appealed the ruling and debuted two new ads.
"MillerCoors has publicly acknowledged that Miller Lite and Coors Light are both brewed with corn syrup," a company spokesperson said in the wake of the ruling. "We publicly acknowledge that Bud Light is brewed with no corn syrup. These are simply the facts on which everyone agrees. Not only are we appealing this decision, we will continue providing consumers with the transparency they demand, including by informing beer drinkers that Bud Light is brewed with no corn syrup."
University of Pennsylvania Professor Yoram Wind, an expert hired by MillerCoors to study the impact of the Bud Light advertisements on consumers, noted that most of his study participants who saw an ad believed both that Miller Lite and Coors Light use corn syrup in the brewing process and that there is "corn syrup in the Miller Lite and Coors Light you drink."
Did Bud Light intentionally mislead consumers by making truthful statements? The court has said the strongest argument made by MillerCoors is that the record shows Anheuser-Busch "was both aware of and intended to exploit consumer concerns about corn syrup (and high fructose corn syrup in particular)."
Any such confusion appears to have been stoked thanks to comments made by senior Anheuser-Busch staffers. Andy Goeler, head of marketing for Bud Light, said in discussing the ad campaign that "consumers generally don't differentiate between high fructose corn syrup and corn syrup, and that it is a major triggering point in choosing brands to purchase." Another senior Anheuser-Busch official, the lawsuit states, said beer drinkers don't want to "put[] something like corn syrup, if they had a choice, into their body."
Those comments are undoubtedly disingenuous, a defect the Bud Light ad itself also suffers from. After all, other beers, ciders, and beverages produced by Anheuser-Busch do, in fact, contain corn syrup.
There's little doubt Bud Light is capitalizing on consumers' growing aversion to HFCS. But is that against the law? Why shouldn't Bud Light use truthful statements to mock its competitors if it so chooses? Sure, the cans of Miller Lite and Coors Light your dad buys contain neither HFCS nor corn syrup. But they're both brewed with the latter. That is factually true. Was the Lanham Act really intended to prohibit literally true statements, to punish those companies that make such statements, and to protect companies that feel victimized by the truth? I think not.
That's why this case borders on the preposterous. If anything, MillerCoors should direct its ire (if not its attorneys) at the senior Anheuser-Busch employees who may or may not have disparaged Miller Lite and Coors Light. Better still, MillerCoors should take its fight with Bud Light to the court of public opinion. Instead of complaining about Bud Light's ads, MillerCoors should respond with a campaign of its own. Hopefully, they'll see the lite.
The translated text:
We hereby proclaim and decree, by Authority of our Province, that henceforth in the Duchy of Bavaria, in the country as well as in the cities and marketplaces, the following rules apply to the sale of beer:
From Michaelmas to Georgi, the price for one Mass or one Kopf, is not to exceed one Pfennig Munich value, and
From Georgi to Michaelmas, the Mass shall not be sold for more than two Pfennig of the same value, the Kopf not more than three Heller.
If this not be adhered to, the punishment stated below shall be administered.
Should any person brew, or otherwise have, other beer than March beer, it is not to be sold any higher than one Pfennig per Mass.
Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that in future in all cities, market-towns and in the country, the only ingredients used for the brewing of beer must be Barley, Hops and Water. Whosoever knowingly disregards or transgresses upon this ordinance, shall be punished by the Court authorities' confiscating such barrels of beer, without fail.
Should, however, an innkeeper in the country, city or market-towns buy two or three pails of beer (containing 60 Mass) and sell it again to the common peasantry, he alone shall be permitted to charge one Heller more for the Mass or the Kopf, than mentioned above. Furthermore, should there arise a scarcity and subsequent price increase of the barley (also considering that the times of harvest differ, due to location), WE, the Bavarian Duchy, shall have the right to order curtailments for the good of all concerned.
- Bavarian Reinheitsgebot of 1516
Funny how Budweiser won’t advertise that their beer is made from rice. The cheapest grain you can get.
Don’t care - too funny. I like those Bud commercials, don’t drink the stuff though.
So Miller admits using corn syrup as an ingredient but says there is no corn syrup in the resulting beer?
Guess it’s lost during processing??
Never could drink that stuff. One bottle and have a headache—the only beer that does that. I have heard the same from many others. Budweiser also use beechwood to brew the beer, something also not in the purity law.
Wouldn't that make it sake?
If one has adverse reactions to Miller/Coors I doubt it is the corn syrup to blame.
I conducted a decades long eexperiment, and found it was the alcohol.
Some Anheuser-Busch beers use corn syrup and they make Miller and Coors’ beers.
This is smoke and mirrors.
This ruling is stupid. I couldn’t careless about either beer. But to say they can’t say “No brewed with corn syrup” is just stupid.
It’s miller’s job to educate the consumer on their products not Budweisers. They can say not made from cheap rice gain.
I read somewhere that AB was the largest purchaser of rice in the United States.
Anheuser Busch uses rice in the brewing process which yields phenolic compounds which are toxic to many people including me.
I’m a brewer and understand the chemistry if the process. Different adjuncts yield different phenolic compounds in the final product. The phenolic compounds from rice tends to make people angry and mean. I don’t know why, but it does.
Great ads, awful beer. All three. Go craft.
The Reinheitsgebot excludes ALL mass produced American beers. Though there are innumerable local breweries that follow it without advertisement.
And one national brand I am aware of (Samuel Adams).
That said, as a brewer who has won 9 ribbons at the Washington State Fair, the precise and nearly perfect brewing regimens of the big American Brewers set the world standard.
It’s process control on steroids. Biological engineering at its finest.
There is no cleaner tasting “beer” in the world, and consistently so.
10 million barrels at a time.
Want to pound 7 or 8 beers? There’s no substitute for the big American brewers.
Want to be refreshed after mowing the lawn when it’s 106 deg?
Same thing.
Both Regular Bud and Regular Coors use rice as an adjunct grain to barley. As high as 30%.
It’s much cleaner tasting than corn.
You can tell the difference when you line them up next to a can of Miller or Hamms or PBR. In those you can taste the corn.
And it tastes different. And not as clean/sweet.
Anheuser-Busch and Miller-Coors are the two largest consumers of rice in America.
Couldn’t AB run a commercial citing the court’s ruling?
Miller/Coors in the US is controlled by Molson, not the InBev/SAB Miller merged group. "SABMiller sold to Molson Coors full ownership of the Miller brand portfolio outside of the U.S. and Puerto Rico for US$12 billion. Molson Coors also retained "the rights to all of the brands currently in the MillerCoors portfolio for the U.S. and Puerto Rico" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MillerCoors
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.