Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the overarmed-and-overreaching dept.

Beer 397

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "The aficionados of beer and distilled spirits could be in for a major price-shock, if proposals by the Food and Drug Administration come to pass. Currently, breweries are allowed to sell unprocessed brewing by-products to feed farm animals. Farmers prize the nutritious, low-cost feed. But, new rules proposed by the FDA could force brewers to implement costly processing facilities or dump the by-products as waste. As one brewer put it, "Beer prices would go up for everybody to cover the cost of the equipment and installation.""

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So - who's in love with the government again? (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 months ago | (#46795533)

No, really... this is getting nuts.

I get the whole general protection of the average citizen from crimes, but we really need to shrink the reach and scope of these bastards.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795593)

No, really... this is getting nuts.

I get the whole general protection of the average citizen from crimes, but we really need to shrink the reach and scope of these bastards.

You make an interesting complaint but you provide no argument or evidence that the government doesn't have a good reason to propose this rule... Note the word propose... Doesn't mean it will actually get implemented. Don't let facts get in the way of your libertarian fantasy, though.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795641)

It's pretty difficult to argue with them when they haven't provided a reason for why we need to keep a safe, nutritious, low-cost food out of the hands of farmers.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795643)

Because they themselves admitted they have no reason to believe this is actually harmful at the moment. They're preemptively banning things, which should be considered unacceptable in any truly free country.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 6 months ago | (#46795663)

You make an interesting complaint but you provide no argument or evidence that the government doesn't have a good reason to propose this rule.

But you see that is exactly his point, he should not have to present anything in order to prevent the government enacting a new rule. It should be up to the government to present an argument or evidence that this proposed rule is not only a good idea, but necessary. When the government proposes a new rule, the first reaction of a free people should be, "Not until you convince me that it is necessary for this branch of government to implement this rule."

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (4, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | about 6 months ago | (#46795833)

And, "not until you've tested it on a small scale and put in a sunset clause in case it doesn't work as expected."

So I was all "Social contract, move to Somalia"... (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about 6 months ago | (#46795891)

They have elections every four years. If the people find this untolerable, that's the time to choose some-one whose platform is to deregulate.

(I know. That would be a memorable day in the annals of porcine aviation.)

Re:So I was all "Social contract, move to Somalia" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795941)

not with a 90% reelection rate in the US.

Re:So I was all "Social contract, move to Somalia" (4, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | about 6 months ago | (#46795955)

And how many people will consider beer waste handling as an important enough issue to vote out someone? None. They're going to be more interested in big ticket items like gay rights or abortion. This is how the government stealthes in an array of regulations that eventually consume our every moment.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (4, Insightful)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 6 months ago | (#46795903)

You make an interesting complaint but you provide no argument or evidence that the government doesn't have a good reason to propose this rule.

But you see that is exactly his point, he should not have to present anything in order to prevent the government enacting a new rule.

Umm, but his posting on Slashdot is not intended "to prevent the government enacting a new rule." His post here is presumably to participate in a reasonable discussion or debate about the subject in question. Ideally, many of us come here to read insightful and informed comments that elucidate some elements of the TFA. With this in mind, it would be more helpful to give a few details or arguments along with your rant.

You're right that government should be required to have a strong justification for action, and this particular rule has some questionable qualities.

But GGP is not arguing with the government here. He's participating in a discussion -- and many of us would like to understand WHY this rule might not make any sense (as well as why it might). As far as I can tell, GGP's post was simply a rant about government regulation in general -- perhaps a justified one -- as is yours.

But it would be more on topic and actually lead to an interesting and informed discussion HERE to have posts that "provide argument of evidence" (in the GP's words) about why this rule may be good (i.e., why it was proposed in the first place) AND what it may be bad... rather than just a standard Slashdot pile-on of "Get 'dat dag-gone gub'ment outa' my life!" I have libertarian tendencies too, but reading crap like this without any further substance can get boring.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (5, Insightful)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#46795883)

Uhm. According to the article brewers and farmers have been doing this for a 100 years. If this was inherently unsafe, we would know by now.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46795911)

how about this. Instead of us having to prove why we dont need to grow the government, How about the government prove to us that the things is does have a point to them.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795623)

About half of the remaining Slashdot posters seem to be raving Commies these days. They'll be along in a minute to tell you how wonderful it is that government is forcing companies to throw away perfectly good animal feed so everyone will have to pay more for the things they buy.

Particularly beer, Comrade, because drunkenness is bad for the health of The Glorious People's State.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (2)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#46795841)

Funny thing. I am very much to the left of where we are today, but I oppose the FDA implementing this proposal. The FDA in general needs to be curbed. They have made a pattern of expanding regulation without showing cause while at the same time neglecting and failing at their core mission.

Yea, I mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795631)

They basically listen in on all our conversations, but when they raise the price of beer, that's when we've had enough!

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (5, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about 6 months ago | (#46795763)

Reading this on ethanol made me lose any hope in the government being anything but Oligarchy run:
http://www.mossmotors.com/Site... [mossmotors.com]

AFAIK, putting 10% ethanol in gas drops the mpg of cars more than 10%. At least according to a Consumer Reports article I read years ago and they went by rule experience. Basically it means that if they took all the ethanol out of the gas, and gave you 0.9 gallons pure gas instead of 1 gallon adulterated, you as a driver would be better off.

So the entire industry is completely taxpayer supported bullshit. We're carrying an industry that has no use. And this in an era where water table is decreasing (corn is unbelievably thirsty), food prices and meat rising astronomically, etc.

I have friends in the corn states. The corn farmers (and usually farm corps) are well off... at the expense of everyone else.

And there are hundreds of other examples like that. For every 1 good thing the government does, it seems there are 4-5 examples of overreach which costs everyone and only benefits a small segment.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (4, Informative)

capedgirardeau (531367) | about 6 months ago | (#46795775)

I like my government to help make sure things are safe for eating and drinking.

And I especially like when the government responds to criticisms by saying they didn't understand this issue when they made their rules and will take comments from the industry and revise their proposed rules as they have done in this case.

I know it is not as fun for the anti-government types, but even the linked to article mentions it at the very bottom of the story:

The FDA will open up the rule to comments again this summer and then revise the proposal, which is due to be finalized by August, 2015.

So this is already a non issue, they have agreed to revise the rules so there are not the dire consequences the article was using to stir everyone up.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#46795895)

Great so they make a rule to ban a 100 year old practice, based on no evidence that it is unsafe--gee after 100 years. Then take comments to adjust the rule great.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795959)

"Then take comments to adjust the great rule."

No, the comment period ended March 31, 2014. Due to the comments they are adjusting the rule and then must have another comment period. That's how the system works. Just to make things clear:

Congress passes law (FDA Food Safety Modernization Act)
Congress delegates rule making authority to FDA to carry out law within the FSMA
FDA talks to the industry and accepts bribes, I mean, lobbying advice or something
FDA drafts rule and publishes it in Federal Register
Comment period begins
FDA responds to comments which in this case is to rewrite the rule
New rule is published in Federal Register
comment period begins
and so on until the rule is finalized.

There is nothing new here, this is how notice-and-comment rulemaking works. There is no "then take comments." The FDA already took comments and is responding to those comments.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46795951)

but it IS an issue because while they are wasting time on this, spending money on this, they could be putting resources in places that actually need them

The problem with Political Correctness (2)

hessian (467078) | about 6 months ago | (#46795779)

I get the whole general protection of the average citizen from crimes, but we really need to shrink the reach and scope of these bastards.

That's the reason for political correctness: to expand the scope of government past immediate risks to ideological risks. It's a power grab.

The correct way to deal with this is not to be anti-politically correct, but to stop being politically correct. That deprives government of its justification for its new powers.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#46795783)

Yeah go ahead and vote the big R and then wonder how all these H1B1 Visas are taking your job away. Unless you are a CEO they are not on your side and do not care about you.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 6 months ago | (#46795899)

I don't see Democrats rushing out to stop H1B's. In fact Obam and Clonton have both pushed for more Visas.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795839)

but we really need to shrink the reach and scope of these bastards

Sounds like a great idea, we can stop the government from telling people what to do with their wheat and big gulps, so it can get back to its job of telling people who they can have sex with and what kind of plants they can smoke.

-- average Tea "keep gubbamint out of my Medicare" Party member.

Good luck getting any headway on that.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (1, Insightful)

stephenmac7 (2700151) | about 6 months ago | (#46795855)

There is an obvious reason the government has such a large reach: they think they can fix everything with just the right laws, programs, and agencies. For the most part, it seems most citizens agree with them. Think about any government program or agency and there will be someone who doesn't want it to be cut. It's easier to add more things to make people happy than to remove some and anger people. It seems that the longer a government exists, the more bloating it will become, which would probably be why most countries only last for about a maximum of three hundred years. Seems the United States is past it's expiration date.

Re:So - who's in love with the government again? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795919)

Data? Facts? What is your analysis of the feed proposals?

Oh. you're just another Right wing Anti-science nut.

OK. next?

Don't worry Americans... (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46795549)

You can count on us Canadians to provide you with quality beer that isn't watered down and has actual kick to it! Though you will have to occasionally deal with Molson, and perhaps some weird off-brands, or something oddly flavored for the trendy folks at the centre-of-the-univerise(Toronto).

Re:Don't worry Americans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795585)

Damn right Toronto is the centre of the universe:P Now if only I could afford to move there...

Re:Don't worry Americans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795605)

Call me when Canada gets some real beers. Of course the Leafs will probably win a cup before that. In the mean time we invite you hosers to come over and try some real American beers.

http://www.stonebrew.com
http://www.rogue.com
http://terrapinbeer.com
http://lefthandbrewing.com
http://www.stbcbeer.com
http://www.newglarusbrewing.com
http://www.ommegang.com
http://www.newbelgium.com/Home.aspx
http://www.sierranevada.com
http://brooklynbrewery.com/verify
http://lazymagnolia.com
http://avondalebrewing.com
http://www.straighttoale.com
http://www.bluepantsbrew.com
http://hereticbrewing.com
http://www.dogfish.com
http://oskarblues.com
https://abita.com
http://www.surlybrewing.com
http://liftbridgebrewery.com
http://www.flyingbisonbrewing.com

Re:Don't worry Americans... (5, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46795733)

Guess you have not been to Canada in the past 20 years.
Swans [swanshotel.com]
Spinnakers [spinnakers.com]
Canoe Club [canoebrewpub.com]
Philips Beer [phillipsbeer.com]
Vancouver Island Brewing [vanislandbrewery.com]
Moon Under Water [moonunderwater.ca]
Lighthouse Brewing [lighthousebrewing.com]
Hoyne Brewing [hoynebrewing.ca]
That is just in Victoria BC a small city of 300k. There are many more across Canada. By the way the craft brewing trend started in Canada and spread to the US. American craft beers have improved over the last ten years as have Canadian craft beers. Lets not get into a pissing match. That could be a long battle with all the beer involved.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795781)

+1, Genial

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46795805)

Quite true, my city(funny how in Canada we call a city with ~35k people a city), we have 2 micro breweries. They're not well known by any stretch of the imagination but they're known well enough that the people who run them make money to keep them in operation and run a "brew your own" business on the side.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795817)

By the way the craft brewing trend started in Canada and spread to the US.

WRONG [brewersassociation.org]
Craft beer started in the United States in 1849 [anchorbrewing.com]

Re:Don't worry Americans... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795627)

But I heards that Canooks are Commie Pinko Muslimlovin Terrists, dats rite.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 6 months ago | (#46795651)

*contemplatively sips Guinness*

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795655)

*contemplatively sips Guinness*

Guinness is ok if you like your beers watered down. Try a real stout.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | about 6 months ago | (#46795719)

I'm told that it is not nearly as lame on the other side of the Atlantic, but I have my doubts.

It is one of the most amazing looking beers out there, and yet tastes alarmingly close to water. So sad.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795767)

I'm told that it is not nearly as lame on the other side of the Atlantic, but I have my doubts.

It is one of the most amazing looking beers out there, and yet tastes alarmingly close to water. So sad.

They sell it in the Americas as Extra Foreign stout [beeradvocate.com] . American [beeradvocate.com] produces stuff [beeradvocate.com] that is far better [beeradvocate.com] .

Re:Don't worry Americans... (2, Interesting)

Lando242 (1322757) | about 6 months ago | (#46795769)

Don't drink it cold. Only tasteless pisswater is meant to be served cold. Beer with flavor is served at room temperature so you can taste it. When you chill beer you mute its flavors. Sure, cold beer may be more "refreshing" than room temperature beer, but if your drinking it to be "refreshed" you don't care what it tastes like anyway.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795697)

With the way you Canadians tax the fuck out of your alcohol? It's no surprise that many of you end up brewing your own batch. Now, I don't care how you guys handle your taxes, that is your business and none of mine, but I really don't think you could end up selling much down here with those prices.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 6 months ago | (#46795843)

With the way you Canadians tax the fuck out of your alcohol? It's no surprise that many of you end up brewing your own batch. Now, I don't care how you guys handle your taxes, that is your business and none of mine, but I really don't think you could end up selling much down here with those prices.

Funny enough, that's because in places like Ontario the booze is controlled by a provincially mandated cartel. In Ontario's case beer is "run" by Brewers Retail AKA the beer companies themselves, and the LCBO(the provincial government). And sadly in Ontario's case, it isn't the tax that you're getting screwed over on, you're paying a indulgence tax. And instead of leveraging their buying power, everyone gets screwed over. There's actually a rather massive dustup right now over selling booze at corner stores/grocery like they do in the US right now. With the brewers retailers trying to go with the "but your teenagers will be drunken heathens!!!!eleventyone!!!!11111!" In a place like Alberta, the government buys the booze, but anyone can apply for a license and open their own shop to sell, providing they can pass the requirements to do so.

But funny enough, you can buy Canuck made beer and spirits cheaper in the US than you can in Canada.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795837)

Canadian beer is crap. In general, Canadian macrobrew is better than American macrobrew for sure. But that's like comparing turds.

Canada's microbrew scene is pretty abysmal. I had far better beer travelling through New Zealand for three weeks than I've had living in Canada for 30 years.

Re:Don't worry Americans... (1)

umafuckit (2980809) | about 6 months ago | (#46795917)

I've been to Montreal. The local beer, which was mostly lager, sucked. The Canadian IPAs I tried also sucked. In the US, the big-brand lagers suck too but the hundreds of beers produced by the multitude of US micro-breweries do not suck at all. They're easily some of the best beers in the world.

not bad news for the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795559)

Not everyone drinks regularly and not everyone is living in America -- the rest of us deserve a world without acidified oceans.

Re:not bad news for the rest of us (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46795583)

So, not feeding the beer by-products to cows will acidify the oceans???

Who knew?

Re:not bad news for the rest of us (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 6 months ago | (#46795613)

How does recycling beer-brewing waste as a cheap, nutritious animal feed instead of burying it in a landfill contribute to ocean acidification?

Re:not bad news for the rest of us (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 6 months ago | (#46795945)

Less beer-brewing waste recycling means less efficient beer breweries, which means less beer breweries, which means less beer produced, which means less drunken brawls in washrooms, which means less broken sinks and urinals, which means less ceramics being thrown into the oceans, which means less acid being absorbed, which means less pH (more acidic) oceans.

Re:not bad news for the rest of us (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46795815)

Not everyone drinks regularly and not everyone is living in America -- the rest of us deserve a world without acidified oceans.

And the rest of us deserve some of whatever it is you're smoking. Or drinking.

Milk/Beef prices as well? (5, Insightful)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 6 months ago | (#46795561)

Wouldn't eliminating a source of cheap feed also increase milk and beef prices?

Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 6 months ago | (#46795571)

says so in the article, but haha who would read that, its slashdot

Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 6 months ago | (#46795581)

I don't make the rules.

Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795591)

Possibly, but it will also drive up Corn prices as cattle farmers replace their cheap food.

The Corn lobby wins again!

Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 6 months ago | (#46795607)

Maybe the /. community doesn't give a fuck about those.
Oh well, maybe beef.

Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 6 months ago | (#46795621)

Quite so, and they mention just that in the article.

Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795915)

Yes, and that is why the Republicans are supporting it. They want minorities and the poor to starve. They are doing everything they can to make sure people can't afford food.

Also, the vast majority of them are prohibitionists. They can't outlaw alcohol again, but they can make it so expensive that no one can afford to drink. Here in Seattle the conservatives have increased alcohol taxes so much that none of my friends drink any longer.

Cui bono (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46795599)

Nothing else to say...

Bullshit (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 6 months ago | (#46795611)

Brewers get $30 a ton for the waste from beer manufacturing. Per can/bottle of beer, that's negligible.

Brewers can continue to sell this as animal feed. They just have to follow the same rules as everybody else who sells animal feed, like Purina Chows and Cargill. The big plants will have to do a little more processing and testing. The "craft brewers" don't produce that much waste, and it's biodegradable.

Re:Bullshit (2, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 6 months ago | (#46795683)

Brewers get $30 a ton for the waste from beer manufacturing. Per can/bottle of beer, that's negligible.

You're the one that's full of shit. From the article:

The equipment and set up to do that would cost about $13 million per facility

Why don't you tell us how that $13,000,000 cost per brewing facility will be paid off by that $30/ton "profit" and thus be a negligible cost.
Also, what of the costs to your beef, which will also go up due to the loss or increased cost of feed?

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795723)

You've got to be kidding me. The breweries are not going to set up their own facilities. That's like me setting up my own garbage dump. Instead of getting $30/ton they'll pay $30/ton (or maybe even nothing considering the processor will turn around and sell it). There might be cost increases to the brewer, but the 13 million number is just FUD.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#46795731)

Because the brewers will just dump it. They'll lose $30/ton + about $15 per ton to dump it at the local landfill unless they find another buyer. 1 ton of grain probably makes over a thousand gallons of beer. So $45/1000 = .0045 or 5 cents per gallon of beer. This is not even taking into account that the landfills probably closer and they don't find another buyer.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795797)

They'll probably add a regulation against putting brewery waste in a landfill. Violators will get 20 years in jail

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795745)

The article is sensationalism. You don't have to install at each brewery. Someone builds one processor, and inserts it between the many breweries and the many farms.

Re:Bullshit (1, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46795795)

The article is sensationalism. You don't have to install at each brewery. Someone builds one processor, and inserts it between the many breweries and the many farms.

So now you want the breweries to pay to have it sent to a processor, and have the cost go up dramatically, even though this stuff is food which was approved for human consumption and it's been boiled, so there's just no reason for that to happen. The breweries can legally make it into bread on the premises and sell it to humans but you don't want it to be fed to animals.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795847)

Unless your doing decoction mashing [braukaiser.com] , your grains never are boiled. Even in a decoction mash not all of your grains are boiled either. You need to keep the mash under ~160 or you denature the enzymes and fail to break down complex sugar into fermentable sugars.

The wort [wikipedia.org] is what gets boiled. But that's not a waste product.

Re:Bullshit (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 6 months ago | (#46795751)

Why don't you tell us how that $13,000,000 cost per brewing facility will be paid off by that $30/ton "profit" and thus be a negligible cost.

It won't be. That's the point.

Brewers are either giving this stuff away for free or making as little as $30/ton so that they don't have to deal with it. They simply won't spend the $13M, since they have no reason to do so, and will instead landfill all of this stuff for cheap. Thus, this whole "beer price crisis" is a fictional event that will never occur.

If that equipment is going to be purchased, it will be purchased for the beer industry by the livestock industry, since they are the ones who stand to lose from this stuff going to landfills, but the article makes it pretty clear that most of them don't rely on this stuff. It's simply a nice addition, but hardly needed, for the vast majority of them. Some hobbyist ranchers will lose their hobby, but none of the serious ones are in any danger of going broke.

Re:Bullshit (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 6 months ago | (#46795823)

You're missing the point. The point is, right now they make a relatively small amount of money by selling off what would otherwise be waste. The regulation doesn't force them to do anything unless they're selling that "waste" as animal feed. If the testing and equipment make it unprofitable, they can simply dispose of the waste, losing an income of $30/ton. Relative to their profits from their actual core business, that's negligible. Beer will not suddenly double in price - beer is roughly $1000/ton (based on a 150lb keg costing about $75). You're looking at maybe a 5% rise in cost.

You misrepresent his point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795825)

His point is that the moment the brewer are getting next to nothing they are just giving up waste and getting 30$ per tonne, so it is an infinitesimal part of the beer price. The question is only, how much it would cost them per ton to get ride of the waste. Here around it is about 200 to 400 euro per tons of fully biodegradable waste without toxic inside, which I think would be the case for the waste mentionned. I doubt it will be much higher in the US. And when you reach tons of waste you are not doing " a few beer".

Re:Bullshit (1)

laird (2705) | about 6 months ago | (#46795875)

The maximum possible rational impact would be $30/ton, because if the cost of processing were more than the cost of selling the material, they would stop selling it, which would cost them $30/ton. So it's impossible for the impact of this on a bottle of beer to be more than $30/the number of bottles produced making a ton of this feed.

If it cost $13M to outfit a facility with processing equipment, they would only spend that money if selling the feed were profitable after the cost, in which case the "cost" would by definition be less than $30/ton.

Re:Bullshit (3, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46795893)

Brewers get $30 a ton for the waste from beer manufacturing.

The lost revenue is not the issue. The breweries could just put it in a landfill and the beer prices would hardly be effected. The costs would come in the equipment and manpower needed to comply with the new regulations. Letting perfectly good animal feed go to waste because a bad regulation is prohibiting the sale is a bad idea.

They just have to follow the same rules as everybody else who sells animal feed, like Purina Chows and Cargill.

Every farmer who sells hay does not have to package that hay in closed sanitized containers. There are different regulations for different kinds of feed. Another issue is that the transport is very different. Most large feed manufacturers have large plants that ship feed over a wide area. This feed can sit around for weeks or months before it is used. In that time there is a very good probability that any small contamination could grow into something serious. Spent grain is sanitized during manufacture, shipped extremely short distances and used within a few days of production. There is very little possibility of contamination in that time. Comparing spent grain from small breweries to Cargill is like comparing a weekend bake sale to Mr. Christie [snackworks.ca]

I am not against regulations as I see them as protection but bad regulation is just stupid.

Interstate Commerce Clause (3, Insightful)

Baldrson (78598) | about 6 months ago | (#46795637)

OK, so tell me where in the Constitution I should look for Federal power to regulate beer that doesn't cross state lines.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46795673)

Look in the same place you would find federal power to regulate weed.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (3, Informative)

Baldrson (78598) | about 6 months ago | (#46795741)

Weed that doesn't cross state lines you mean.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795699)

It's in the same place that allows the Feds to regulate education, health care, and marijuana. Try looking into some deep, filthy assholes - that's the place. You'll know you're in the right spot by the amount of politicians' heads wedged all up in there.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795791)

Interstate commerce clause under the substantial impact doctrine. Beer is fungible therefore the impact is considered in light of a totality of the circumstances not per bottle. The first case outlaying this aspect of the clause was Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824. However, it must be noted, that the president at that time was James Monroe who probably didn't know shit about what anything in the constitution meant.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (1)

c5402dc53929211e1efb (3084201) | about 6 months ago | (#46795827)

i propose a time limit for all "precedent". back then slavery was still legal and they didn't even have the internet. who cares what some old judge thought back then?

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46795897)

This is a story about regulating animal feed and not beer.

Re:Interstate Commerce Clause (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 6 months ago | (#46795935)

Do any of the animal products raised on this fuel cross state lines? Is public safety an issue?

Follow the money (4, Interesting)

chthon (580889) | about 6 months ago | (#46795647)

We should try to follow the money more when such rules are implemented.

Who benefits the most from this? Big, big breweries who feel probably threatened by people who brew good beer (as a Dutch colleague of me said, they make Heineken by pumping the Maas water into the bottles).

This is a US problem. What company bought (more or less recently) a US brewery? Those Brasilian pump-and-dumpers do not know anything about beer, only about making money by selling something that resembles beer and manipulating the stock market, and since it is rather easy in the US to bribe officials, this really looks a move from their side.

We are not here to decide if we are paranoid, but to decide if we are paranoid enough.

Re:Follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795901)

We should try to follow the money more when such rules are implemented.

Exactly. The next question to ask is how (not if) those people are connected to members of Congress who are members of committees that have some form of oversight to the FDA or are themselves connected directly to the current administration.

As described, this seems rather random (2)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 6 months ago | (#46795653)

I love to know exactly what kind of pathogen they're envisioning - something that infects the mash (which admittedly is a rich culture, and if it starts out sterile it's not going to stay that way for long) and then infects the cows in a way that will be a problem for humans. E. coli is already in the cows (hence the regulations concerning the use of fresh manure on crops likely to be eaten raw) and cows will do a lot of their own processing. Milk products are generally pasteurized anyway. Somehow I'm not exactly seeing a spent grain prion vector...

I'm doubting this will go through. Now, if they're really worried, funding a small study to look at whether it's a likely vector might make sense.

(Not that I'd be sad to see more spent-grain bread. Tasty, that.)

Accountability (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795657)

The article details how this is a preventative measure for food poisoning. It isn't requiring brewers to throw away spent grain, but it hypothesizes that will happen. What it does require is that brewers properly pack the spent grain as animal feed so that it can be tested to prevent food poisoning or tracked in the case of an outbreak.

The article says that there are no known problems, but there is no mechanism in place to find any. All other feed producers for animals need to be accountable for their product.

Also, on the cost side, it's bullshit. Brewers barely get any revenue from this (one gets $30 a ton), and they always have the option of throwing away the spent grain. While I'm not happy about the waste, it won't result in any price increase.

Re:Accountability (1)

tylikcat (1578365) | about 6 months ago | (#46795713)

It describes that it is a preventative measure for food poisoning, not so much how.

What can you do? (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 6 months ago | (#46795659)

Clowns on the left want to over-regulate, jokers on the right want to under-regulate, stuck in the middle without brew.

Fuck the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795661)

All they ever do is try to make food prices higher to starve the poor and minorities. This artificial increase in the cost of feed for animals will mean more children will not get the food they need. That is what their party stands for. The death of children.

Re:Fuck the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795675)

Naturally, because those children don't vote Republican.

Re:Fuck the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795785)

Um, you might want to look at the party that is attempting to implement this.

Hint: It's not the Republicans.

Re:Fuck the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795813)

There's a difference between the parties?

What about the animals? (3, Interesting)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 6 months ago | (#46795667)

Forget the beer price...think of the cows! No more 'brewing by-products.' That's gotta be a whole lot better than what the replacement will be.

Jew nation-wreckers at it again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795707)

Who runs your government? Who do ALL of Congress (bar Ron Paul) bow down to? JEWS.
Aahh... the poor little Jews are having fun ruining the lives of millions of people, and then whining when people call them out on their crimes...

Try taking The Hitler Test before trying to silence dissent...

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=83879

Repent Sinners! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795709)

Beer after beer is sin after sin. I support any and all taxes on sinners. You are all going to hell anyway so you may as well pay it backward.

Re:Repent Sinners! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795735)

Drink more Blood of Christ! It's the pious thing to do.

Have anyone run a bussiness? (1)

fermion (181285) | about 6 months ago | (#46795717)

I once worked at a place where we produced a lot of waste contaminated lubricant. We securely set this barrels, and a nice guy would come by and pump it out and reprocess it and sell for whatever it could be used for. It cost the firm a bit in storage costs, but also save us a bit in waste disposal.

If you RTFA, and even the headline, there is no problem here for the brewers, except for the one example in which the waste was sold to a broker. In this case the waste would be worth less so they might not be able to get any money, so the extra $30 might be amortized over the ton of beer. This, by my calculation would add a penny or two per beer.

So the problem is the farmer. If there is demand,and assuming that giving away the waste to a broker is cheaper than landfilling it, which in my experience it is, then there will be a marginal additional cost to the farmer. For the small farmer, who can just go to the brewery and collect the waste, the cost will just be transportation and labor. We used to do this for the cash crops we grew, collect waste, bring it to the farm, compost it, and use it for free.

For bigger operations, they will have to pay a broker and processor. This is a consequence of mass produced food. We have to have extra precautions because when something does happen, no one is really held responsible.

Re:Have anyone run a bussiness? (1)

hax4bux (209237) | about 6 months ago | (#46795835)

You are making way too much sense. Are you lost?

Re:Have anyone run a bussiness? (2)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 6 months ago | (#46795873)

I once worked at a place where we produced a lot of waste contaminated lubricant. We securely set this barrels, and a nice guy would come by and pump it out and reprocess it and sell for whatever it could be used for.

Ron Jeremy?

Good for Craft Breweries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795789)

The only beer worth drinking :P

FDA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795819)

why do unconstitutional agencies like the FDA, run by unelected beurocrats, get to make up "rules" that have the force of law? how is this a representative democracy anymore? can we limit howm any levels of indrection are allowed between my "representative" and some bureaucrat who has the ability to make up pseudo-laws on his own?

Beef already high and dairy is climbing (2)

Arakageeta (671142) | about 6 months ago | (#46795877)

Recent CNN report on the prices of beef and dairy: http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/1... [cnn.com]

This will increase the cost to farmers too. That gets passed on to consumers. But perhaps we're all just commenting on the obvious: Production cost of X increases. The production cost of any product Y directly (or transitively) dependent upon X will also increase (or the value/quality of Y may decrease to compensate).

Always a silver lining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46795929)

The positive is that Congressmen from districts with large breweries will receive a flood of contributions to stop the new rule.

Anybody here know how to brew your own beer? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46795931)

Even pre-industrial humanity had that one figured out. Hell, even pre-historical humanity had it figured out.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?