But you are still allowed to drink your Miller/Coors in one of these steins...
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.
I am of the belief that some food and drink additives definitely mess with people.
For the most part I’ve never liked rice and generally avoid it.
Glad there may be another reason than me being picky.
“I’ve noticed that women wine drinkers tend to become mean when they drink.”
Yeah. Duh.
Yeast eats sugar and makes alcohol and CO2. It doesn’t care if it’s rice sugar or corn sugar. The ads are great, however.
Clydesdale Piss vs. "Making Love in a Canoe"
Make mine Smithwicks, or Scotch.
Beechwood.... phew.... one twig in how many gallons of brew?
I saw a local brew brewer who advertised that his beer was aged in oak barrels. A true statement. The oak barrel was in the pipeline from the fermenting vat to the bottling line. Time in barrel for the brew was microseconds.
As long as the oak barrel did not fail, the lawyers and marketing honchos were good to go.
Try saki, rice wine and see what happens.
I brew as well and just had a conversation today about the amazing consistency of the mega-brewers. Terrible beer but great engineering. Regarding the German purity law.
I love many German beers, but have a special place in my heart for Belgian beers. They frequently stray from the strict water, malt, good, and yeast regimen with fine results.
Any person who knows the qualities of oak aging will not be fooled. There are oak tannins and residual bourbon tastes added.
I once lost a 52 gallon oak barrel of zinfandel wine to barrel contamination. After that I added roasted oak sawdust to the wine in stainless steel containers.
I too love the Belgians. Six times I went to Brussels for the Beerfest in the Grand Plas. 300 Belgian beers for 3 days.
Judge William M. Conley is a Barack Obama appointee. What else did you expect?
"Beechwood Aging" means that beechwood chips are added to attract yeast as a coating, thereby allowing more yeast to be in contact with with beer (wort?), rather than pooling at the bottom, during fermentation.
Beechwood does not add any flavor to the brew.
Popsicle sticks are beechwood.
I've heard that aluminum pellets can accomplish the same thing as beechwood, but from taking up bread making recently, all the texts frown on the use of metal and yeast for kneading and proofing, at least sourdough yeast and non-stainless metal.
Largest American brewery now is Sam Adams, fwiw.
I asked the owner why the plumbing went in one of the barrel and out the other.
What a shock... “aged in oak.”
Oh well, drink beer and enjoy life.
A couple of ~30sec Hebrew National commercials. They “answer to a higher authority”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2j-YzZRAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsthRP1pjs
Reminds me years ago of Fosters ads which had numerous images of Australia plastered on billboards with the word Imported prominently displayed. When you actually read the fine print on a can it said brewed in Canada. :)
The Belgian Ales are as far away from the Purity Law as American Lagers.
They all taste like a spoiled barley wine or triple bock to me.
With notes of rubber and copper and bleach.
In addition to yeast, they allow whatever bacteria is floating in the night air to contaminate the beer...through open fermentation.
Please, feel free to take my share.
Perhaps the phenolics are why RUM makes me mean, but most other alcohols I’m just a happy drunk?
A friend of mine and I won a silver medal at the Santa Clara county fair in 92 or 93 for a light bodied dark porter.
We called it ‘piranha porter’(because it’s killer) and had a great label.
Imagine a crisp NW style ale with a hint of coffee & chocolate....but light on the pallet.
Every one loved it.
Still make that one every couple of years, perfect for the winter holidays.
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.