This article points out a misnomer on beer bottles:

I was out running a leisurely pace the other day when, not surprisingly, I sighted a beer bottle discarded onto the verdant nicety … I angled over to the amber-to-tobacco-brown beer bottle … being a long-ago guzzling beer drinker and still curious about beers, my favorite chug-a-lug drink, I glanced at the label. I do make a habit of reading labels …

There stamped on the Budweiser beer bottle was the beer's "born on" date, which I thought was a pretty silly marketing ploy. And worse than that was the misuse of a word …

Beer is not "born." That is a ridiculous notion and not even a concept. Neither ale nor beer is "brought forth" like a child out of the womb and does not, to quote the Oxford Universal Dictionary, simply "come into existence" as does life. … Beer and ale are brewed, and brew is a good old Old English-Middle English word …

Budweiser bottles ...

The article was rather flat and lukewarm. Setting aside all invective contra US Budweiser, saying a beer is born seems a legitimate metaphor to me. As a marketing slogan it's rather tame.

shu: I'd incline to agree with zm. Actually after a few years' experience on the wordboards I'm considering turning in my pre- credentials and trading them for de-

I would have to agree with the author of the article. While I can understand some people considering it an metaphor, it's too far of a reach for me.

Can't see it as a problem myself. Would people have a problem with

The Birth of a Nation
The cradle of civilization
The aviation industry was born when Wilbur and Orville first took to the skies
My ambition to travel was born when I first realised that the whole world wasn't just like Bilston.

Like Kalleh (and unlike zmj, Dale and Bob) I don't find the "birth of a beer" an appropriate metaphor. But I couldn't put my finger on why, until Bob's examples crystallized the point for me.

quote:

The Birth of a Nation
The cradle of civilization
The aviation industry was born ...
My ambition to travel was born ...

To me birth implies something of momententous, special significance. (So it is fair, as Bob notes, to speak of the "birth" of a nation, a civilization, a major industry, or a life's defining ambition.) Perhaps birth also implies both extended gestation and a continuing significance (not just an event which, however major, is quickly over and done: volcanic eruption, earthquake, avalanche).

By that standard "birth" is a fine metaphor for Bob's examples, but not for a bottle of beer marching off the assembly line amid thousands of identical bottles day after day. Bud's "birth" metaphor would be an attempt to attach special cachet to a prosaic, mass-produced product.

I understand the Egyptians brewed something like beer, and so I suppose that was its gestation. But it was the Germans who added hops, bless them, and thus was born beer

quote:

Originally posted by Hic et ubique:
Bud's "birth" metaphor would be an attempt to attach special cachet to a prosaic, mass-produced product.

Which is exactly the job of advertising. Hence "The King of Beers" which is, when you stop to consider it, just as ludicrous a metaphor - given the specific product in question perhaps and even more ludicrous one.

I understand the Egyptians brewed something like beer

While nobody knows who invented brewing, the Sumerians, as I've posted elsewhere, were the first to write about it.

quote:

nobody knows who invented brewing

That's simply not true. As is well known, Charlie Mopps, God bless him, is the man who invented beer. A toast to him. <hic!>

quote:

To me birth implies something of momententous, special significance.

Yes, I agree with you. There is a huge difference between "the birth of a nation" and "the birth of Bud."

In the great scheme of things, if we equate the birth of beer itself to its first brewing in Sumer or wherever, the production of a bottle of Bud is like the production of a toenail cell. Probably a cancerous one at that. (Can toenails become cancerous?)

Dudweiser use the "born on" expression as part of their ploy to ensure early consumption of their drink. The longer it sits around in warehouses, kegs and bottles the longer it is before they get paid.

Their apology for beer is manufactured in such a way as to be drinkable (I use that term in its loosest possible way) as quickly as possible. Indeed, the substance has little staying power in any case and will last just a few weeks.

All fine beers and wines will last for many months or even years (and the very finest don't reach their best until considerable time has passed). Storage of fine drinks is costly and that is one reason why they will never be as cheap as rubbish drinks could be (but often aren't since the costs saved go straight into additional profit for their manufacturers).

Having just been in Spain for a week and having nothing closer to beer than Heiniken and St Miguel to drink I am feeling especially annoyed at the like of A-B whose intention is to get the world drinking their nasty fizzy rubbish.

When this baby was born, did they burp the baby?

Rich thanks for that. Puts me in mind of the time I purchased in an otherwise reputable liquor store a vessel of the brew but in an unfamiliar bottle. Steamed if off and Fwded it to the brewer, who informed me it was four years old

Strange aromas are often attributable to aging; hence there ought to be a law, that the birth of a draft be clearly labeled

Please pass this ide along. There is a principle that everyone in the world is connected by no more than six links and so if you cooperate I have grat hope this message will eventually reach a concerned legilator

What is that principle called

quote:

hence there ought to be a law, that the birth of a draft be clearly labeled

There is no need to pass the message along so far as the UK is concerned. In England it has been the Law for many years that all foodstuffs must have their "best before" date clearly shown. Foodstuffs consumed after this date will probably be quite palatable but may not be at their best. In the case of good beers (like Fuller's 1845) the best before date will be around a year after bottling. In the case of rubbish beers the date will be as short as a couple of months.

All preserved foodstuffs sold in England (apart from alcoholic drinks) must also have a full list of ingredients shown on their container.

Neither requirement yet prevails in the USA so far as I am aware.

AFAIK, the expiration date, nutrional information, and list of ingredients are required on on foodstuffs, except alcoholic beverages by the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration).

The reason why the makers of alcoholic beverages obtained exemption from the need for showing ingredients was that the fermentation process caused the ingredients to change (i.e. the sugar changed to alcohol and thus the amount of sugar would reduce). This is a completely spurious argument and was created by the mega-brewers to disguise the fact that many use all sorts of suspicious addititives in their nasty concoctions.

In fact, good brewers (and to their credit A-B) do show their ingredients on their bottles - which is why I am always surprised that so few people realise that Dudweiser is made from rice (it's on the bottle).

However, the "best before" date has to be on all foodstuffs, including beer, although I suspect that this is still not the case in the USA (I've not seen it on any US beer bottles in the USA)

However, the "best before" date has to be on all foodstuffs, including beer, although I suspect that this is still not the case in the USA (I've not seen it on any US beer bottles in the USA)

That is why I said all foodstuffs, except alcoholic beverages.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Although the ingredients do not have to be listed on alcoholic drinks in the UK (as in the USA it seems), the "best before" date does have to be shown on beer.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Although the ingredients do not have to be listed on alcoholic drinks in the UK (as in the USA it seems), the "best before" date does have to be shown on beer.

You had made a statement about US policy, and I was trying to clarify. Sorry I didn't succeed. Let's try again. Foodstuffs, in the US, must have a list of ingredients, standardized nutritional information (do British foodstuffs have that?), and a "best by" date. Alcoholic beverages are exempted from this, probably because of vigurous lobbying by beer and wine manufacturers [sic]. I remember a big flap recently, in France, about Bordeaux wine producers putting tannin into their wines. The French do not list ingredients on their wines. They do have a kind of "best by" date, though its more of a "best after" date, if the wine has a vintage. I hope that I was clear this time, and that you understood.

quote:

Alcoholic beverages are exempted from this,

In the UK they are exempted from the need to list ingredients but not from the requirement to list a "best before" date - on beer at any rate.

zm: You are absolutely right about that. When dating food was first suggested the Establishment fought it vigorously, as they did with the 911 emergency number and God knows how many other such proposals

One of the principal puyrposes of the Establishment is to exploit the little guy (me) and so they will mercilessly fight any proposal to improve the world, except if there's a profit thereby

This is not a left-wing political diatribe but merely a statement of historical fact. The Left is just as much a member of the Establishment as the Right

Exactly what is the Establishment, then?