MillerCoors adopts first (voluntary) US beer nutritional labeling

Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by LeRose, Feb 25, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LeRose

    LeRose Meyvn (1,420) Nov 24, 2011 Massachusetts
    Society

    I suppose it was inevitable that someone would take this leap, but I think it sets a potentially dangerous precedent. Nutrition labeling for alcoholic beverages is voluntary and seems of questionable value to the consumer, in my opinion. If Big Brother thinks this a great idea and makes it mandatory, how would the "little guys" be able to comply? They are going to "try it out" on Miller 64 and "see how consumers respond" - I'm thinking it won't make a bit of a difference so hopefully this dies a quick death.

    http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Packaging/MillerCoors-adopts-first-US-beer-nutritional-labelling/

    I don't see what they have to gain - is the consumer of this type of product going to switch to M-64 just because it now carries the nutritional panel that the others don't? I can't make out the picture well enough to see if the panel also carries an ingredient statement - again, adding little value.

    Play nice...this one isn't about the beer.
     
  2. KS1297

    KS1297 Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2013 Wisconsin

    All labeling for everything should be voluntary.
     
    5thOhio, Dope and Bones10 like this.
  3. offthelevel_bytheplumb

    offthelevel_bytheplumb Devotee (409) Aug 19, 2013 Illinois

    I think that cheap wine and spirit makers need to be more concerned with this than micro brewers. They mentioned in the article that light beer drinkers may be more concerned with calorie counts. I don't think us cats on BA really count the calories in each of our beers, but some of the lads my age that drink Yellow Tail and Captain Morgan do. It would come as a great shock to them if they saw how many calories were in a serving of their cheap wine and spirits.
     
    Shroud0fdoom and absyrd1 like this.
  4. Johnny_Muir

    Johnny_Muir Initiate (0) Jan 8, 2014 New Jersey

    BMC has an long standing inherent policy: Make changes to the packaging, not the beer.
     
  5. jesskidden

    jesskidden Poo-Bah (1,867) Aug 10, 2005 New Jersey
    Society Trader

  6. TheNightwatchman

    TheNightwatchman Devotee (483) Mar 28, 2009 Pennsylvania

    I care, to an extent, about the calories I consume. Not to mention sugar as well. I'd like to know what I'm getting from each beer I drink.
     
    denver10, Roguer, maximum12 and 3 others like this.
  7. Hop-Droppen-Roll

    Hop-Droppen-Roll Initiate (0) Nov 5, 2013 Minnesota

    I'm with TheNightwatchman - I DO want to know what's in there. I won't stop drinking good beer, but I do want to be aware of caloric value. This could also be a boon to advocates as craft beers don't generally contain corn syrup or GMOs like the big guys do.
     
    denver10, Roguer, Ericness and 2 others like this.
  8. KS1297

    KS1297 Initiate (0) Apr 14, 2013 Wisconsin

    What do you mean by inherent?
     
  9. GCBrewery

    GCBrewery Initiate (0) Jan 18, 2014 Connecticut

    I think that this is actually long overdue, and the fact that beer isn't regulated by the FDA seems to defy any common sense. I could care less about calories, but I think people should have the right to know what they are ingesting (high fructose corn syrup, artificial colors and flavors, even msg). I dislike red tape as much as anyone, and future legislation may strain the little guys a bit more, but if more people actually saw what crap goes into larger beers they may be persuaded to try out some of the less artificial alternatives (most craft brews).
     
  10. Johnny_Muir

    Johnny_Muir Initiate (0) Jan 8, 2014 New Jersey

    I mean it basically comes standard with being as gigantic as the BMC organizations are. Its almost a sin for them to make their beer better, but the packaging has undergone (from the top of my head only): Widemouth can, cold activated can, air vent can, vortex bottle, born on dating, and god knows what else, all to market better to dummies. Yea, because its so hard for me to tell when my beer is cold without technological assistance.
     
  11. markdrinksbeer

    markdrinksbeer Initiate (0) Nov 14, 2013 Massachusetts

    "nutrional value" isn't important to me one bit when drinking a beer (fat, carbs, sodium,cholesterol, and protein). The amount of calories and alcohol is (both for separate reasons).

    I am conscience of the calories I consume, so I just do a quick math to give a ballpark figure in a 12 ounce serving (31 x abv) and that works well enough for me.
     
    Spikester likes this.
  12. markdrinksbeer

    markdrinksbeer Initiate (0) Nov 14, 2013 Massachusetts

    do you ever get tired of crusading against BMC? Has't it already been beaten to death?
     
    Feel_the_Darkness likes this.
  13. juliusseizure

    juliusseizure Aspirant (280) Feb 11, 2009 New York

    Is that per 12oz?
     
  14. juliusseizure

    juliusseizure Aspirant (280) Feb 11, 2009 New York

    I see this as a good thing even if from BMC. I really don't care about all the detail but would welcome total calories on every beer package or even a useful approximate range if exact numbers would be expensive for small brewers.
     
  15. markdrinksbeer

    markdrinksbeer Initiate (0) Nov 14, 2013 Massachusetts

    Yes. I edited my post to reflect that now.

    5% abv = 31x5 = ~150 calories
    12% abv = 31x12 = ~372 calories

    (close enough for hand grenades)
     
  16. juliusseizure

    juliusseizure Aspirant (280) Feb 11, 2009 New York

    Damn a bomber of imperial anything is murder.
     
  17. ONovoMexicano

    ONovoMexicano Poo-Bah (2,831) Jun 14, 2012 New Mexico

    I'm not one for Big Brother or senseless regulation or policies, but I too would appreciate getting a little more information on my beers.

    I really like that Jester King lists the ingredients on their bottles and use organic ingredients. I try to eat healthy and purchase foods from good sources and I've always felt I shouldn't be hypocritical and pretend beer is somehow different and thus not something for which I should be concerned about sourcing and ingredients.
     
    WTKeene likes this.
  18. TheNightwatchman

    TheNightwatchman Devotee (483) Mar 28, 2009 Pennsylvania


    You realize they have no desire to make the beer better, right? They sell a boatload of it the way it is. Why change the recipe? While some of those can/bottle "innovations" are pointless, they also aren't hurting anything. They're competing with other light beers, so they need to distinguish themselves from the handful of other popular options.

    Plus, why mention born on dates? That seems like a good thing to me. I'd love all beer to have a born on date, or a best by date. In fact, born on is better. At least then I know how old a beer is before buying it.
     
  19. Hop-Droppen-Roll

    Hop-Droppen-Roll Initiate (0) Nov 5, 2013 Minnesota

    Not to mention to package design year, after year, after year... consistency is the enemy when your target market has the attention span of a toddler. That's what happens when Candy Crush becomes the new jerking off.
     
    Johnny_Muir likes this.
  20. Johnny_Muir

    Johnny_Muir Initiate (0) Jan 8, 2014 New Jersey

    Which is interesting because in most the BMC threads here, everyone equates consistency with quality. So its a weird mix. The beer is terribly consistent, but everything else about it changes endlessly.

    Nope. Not as long as I see my local liquor store selling the crap stuff in the fridges and the good stuff on the shelves. Its that attitude that wrinkles me.
     
  21. gshak

    gshak Zealot (506) Feb 20, 2011 Texas

    I welcome this change. Yes, I may be in the minority, but I'd like to know what I'm putting into my body so I can make a conscientious and educated decision in my beer purchases and enjoyment.
     
    Providence and charlzm like this.
  22. Hop-Droppen-Roll

    Hop-Droppen-Roll Initiate (0) Nov 5, 2013 Minnesota

    Looks like they'll be listing a lot of info but NOT the ingredients (last paragraph in article) looks like this is just another sheepskin over the eyes of consumers.
     
  23. ne0m00re

    ne0m00re Initiate (0) Feb 19, 2008 Ohio

    Energy content per serving of a dry alcoholic beverage is essentially proportional to alcohol content. Miller 64 has 64 calories because it's only 2.8% ABV. To give you some perspective, SNPA has twice the alcohol per serving at 175 calories. Drinking an equivalent serving of Miler 64 would only reduce your calories by 27%. Flying Dog Horn Dog is 10.2% ABV at 314 calories; drinking an equivalent amount of Miller 64 would only reduce your calories by 25%. I don't see anything to gain from listing the calories.
    I'm very much in favor of mandated listing of ingredients. I don't think it would be at all difficult for even the smallest breweries to comply, and I think it would be very informative for the consumer.
     
    mfnmbvp likes this.
  24. ChuckHardslab

    ChuckHardslab Disciple (336) Jan 25, 2012 Texas

    For everybody that's saying they'd like to know what's going into their beer, the article mentions nothing about listing ingredients on the label. They mention nutritional value - calories, fat, protein, etc. and ABV. I don't think you'll ever see what actually went into the brew.
     
    Spikester likes this.
  25. AlcahueteJ

    AlcahueteJ Meyvn (1,101) Dec 4, 2004 Massachusetts

    ONLY 27% and 25%? If I have 4 Miller 64's and 2 Sierra Nevada Pale Ales, that's a difference of almost 100 calories. And that's IF I only have two Sierra Nevada Pale Ales.

    In the case of Flying Dog Horn Dog, that would be 58 calories more. Again, that's if that's the only drink I'm having for the evening. Sure, alcohol is the biggest culprit in terms of calories in beer, but there are differences. And those small differences can add up.
     
  26. papat444

    papat444 Initiate (0) Dec 28, 2006 Quebec (Canada)

    Except #freshbeer info!
     
    JT99125 and raffels like this.
  27. willbm3

    willbm3 Initiate (0) Feb 19, 2010 Massachusetts

    It seems obvious that the only reason they're doing it is to "show off" how low calorie their beer is. I could care less if people want to include this info, but there's no reason for it to be mandatory. It's only going to increase costs that get passed on to the consumer. It also has the potential to adversely affect the craft beer movement when people realize all the 500 calorie bottles of imperial stouts and DIPAs they've been drinking
     
    5thOhio and Bones10 like this.
  28. charlzm

    charlzm Poo-Bah (2,151) Sep 3, 2007 California

    If it's a consumable, I think the nutritional info should be available to the consumer. This includes ingredients. Put me down as "for it".
     
  29. charlzm

    charlzm Poo-Bah (2,151) Sep 3, 2007 California

    Wouldn't the amount of unfermented sugars and any adjuncts also factor into the calorie total?
     
  30. mfnmbvp

    mfnmbvp Poo-Bah (2,388) Nov 28, 2012 Illinois

    ^ This.
     
  31. RblWthACoz

    RblWthACoz Initiate (0) Aug 19, 2006 Pennsylvania

    The big boys must be running out of marketing gimmicks if this is what it's coming to.
     
    Abra likes this.
  32. LKFH

    LKFH Disciple (301) Apr 9, 2007 California

    If you are Type I diabetic (like me), knowing the carbohydrate content of a bottle of beer would be very useful. It would remove the (often poor) guesswork involved in injecting insulin while drinking.
     
  33. Dope

    Dope Poo-Bah (2,555) Oct 5, 2010 Massachusetts

    A dangerous precedent? It's a welcome precedent I think. Why does food have to have nutritional labels but beer doesn't? I would LOVE to know the nutritional content of all of my beers. Right now it's just an approximate guess, which isn't good enough. I'm sure it will be mandatory sooner or later. Can't come soon enough.

    Edit: for that matter, freshness/bottled on/expiration/whatever date should be mandatory too. Every food item that I buy has some sort of date on it, it seems. But 90% of beer doesn't. At least I can tell if bread is stale or moldy, but I have no way of knowing if this IPA is 3 years old until I open it and find I have wasted my money. This unfortunately happens wayyyy too often.

    Dope
     
    #33 Dope, Feb 25, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014
    willpedalforbeer and Rekrule like this.
  34. otispdriftwood

    otispdriftwood Initiate (0) Dec 9, 2011 Colorado

    It doesn't matter what the label says if you don't read it. [And how many BMC drinkers read labels, other than to see if it's Bud, Miller or Coors].

    Personally, I only read craft labels if they have something interesting to say, like Stone bottles or Lagunitas labels. Do I need a list of Ingredients? Well, I know there's Water, malt, hops and yeast. I drink craft beer and presume there are fewer bad ingredients in it. I care about calories during the week when I don't drink so I need a break from counting. It's beer and I like it - that's all that matters to me.
     
  35. WTKeene

    WTKeene Initiate (0) Jul 13, 2013 New Mexico

    What I'm most concerned about is when BMC eventually starts lobbying Congress to require all this nutritional info on all beers, which is a serious burden on the small business craft brewers that BMC would like to see squashed.
     
    elchicodelgado and 5thOhio like this.
  36. Redneckwine

    Redneckwine Disciple (304) Dec 3, 2013 Washington

    If I worked for BMC marketing, I'd want to put nutrition labels on their beer too. Why? It makes BMC look VERY compelling to those watching their calorie intake. Compared to (most) craft offerings, BMC beers are probably lower cal all the way around.
     
  37. CassinoNorth

    CassinoNorth Disciple (314) Apr 5, 2013 New Jersey

    Nice little ballpark figure for sure.

    I'm all for this as well. Though I can guesstimate, it's nice when on a cut to be able to know exactly how many calories each beer is.
     
  38. DelMontiac

    DelMontiac Defender (657) Oct 22, 2010 Oklahoma

    Put it on the label...unless you're scared.
     
    RVigz likes this.
  39. NHhomebrewguy

    NHhomebrewguy Zealot (548) Apr 9, 2012 New Hampshire
    Trader

    No shit, how about you list the crap you're putting in there!? I don't care about the calories or the carbs or the sugar. I care about the appearance, smell, taste, mouthfeel and overall impression! Tell me what the ingredients are NOT the nutritional value! Is my beer a real beer or is it something that comes off an ice train in an advertisement I have to watch 15 fucking times while I watch a football game! If I cared about the calories I would drink water! Enough with the damn gimmicks already!!
     
    toedpakn and GCBrewery like this.
  40. markdrinksbeer

    markdrinksbeer Initiate (0) Nov 14, 2013 Massachusetts

    If The Breury, or The Alchemist or Russian River were the first to do this, everyone would be lauding their efforts. When a BMC does it... well, this thread happens.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.