Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by WesKBob
Wow, whoever wrote this is one really terrible reporter. Didn’t even bother to read what the bill says.
Under this new law, coffee beers are still good. The early version of the bill could have been construed to include those that used coffee, chocolate, etc. But it was amended during the process to apply only to "Beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient."
FWIW, here’s a link to the text of the new law.
Everyone can relax. Coffee stouts are still OK.
really?
To me that reads as Speedway Stout for instance being proscribed by this bill for adding caffeine as a separate ingredient in the form of espresso.
If the language were to be unambiguous, it should have read "alcoholic beverages to which caffeine in a purified form has been added". "A separate ingredient" can still mean coffee, cocoa, etc. to any lawyer worth his salt.
Can you imagine if the same interpretation were allowed for the active agent in marijuana? "Well hey, we didn’t add THC as a separate ingredient, we just added cannabis and the THC got there incidentally."
What if MSG were outlawed? "Well we just added autolyzed yeast as a separate ingredient. The MSG got there incidentally."
Something tells me this may fly as optimists suggest.
I would consider adding coffee as being an indirect addition of caffeine. It costs more to add coffee than it does to add purified coffee, I’m guessing that’s the reason that most four loko doesn’t just use coffee. I also think this explicitly refers to the fact that caffeine would have to be listed as an ingredient. This isn’t the case if it is coffee. I’m guessing that alcoholic coffee beverages in a can would probably still be legal... |
Originally posted by joet
really?
To me that reads as Speedway Stout for instance being proscribed by this bill for adding caffeine as a separate ingredient in the form of espresso.
If the language were to be unambiguous, it should have read "alcoholic beverages to which caffeine in a purified form has been added". "A separate ingredient" can still mean coffee, cocoa, etc. to any lawyer worth his salt.
Can you imagine if the same interpretation were allowed for the active agent in marijuana? "Well hey, we didn’t add THC as a separate ingredient, we just added cannabis and the THC got there incidentally."
What if MSG were outlawed? "Well we just added autolyzed yeast as a separate ingredient. The MSG got there incidentally."
Something tells me this may fly as optimists suggest.
Joe, I think you’re off on this. Caffeine can be extracted and be an ingredient on its own. Espresso is an ingredient that happens to contain caffeine. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the law is saying you can’t directly add caffeine, but its not saying caffeine cannot be present in a beer.
Your THC analogy is a good one, but your presentation of it is flawed. Whether it came from cannabis or THC extract, the law is THC (in any form) is not allowed. This law is saying that the extracted caffeine is not allowed as an ingredient, but is not outlawing caffeine.
|
I would expect nothing less from the "great" state of California.
 |
|
|
"(a) Beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a
separate ingredient shall not be imported into this state, produced,
manufactured, or distributed within this state, or sold by a licensed
retailer within this state."
|
On another California beer related note, Governor Brown has also signed a law that will make it easier for small brewers to open tasting rooms on premises.
Under the old law, breweries were held to the same costly health regulations as restaurants. Under the new law, breweries that don’t serve food are exempted from those regulations, the same way that wineries are treated now.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/01/lighter-beer-tasting-rules-on-tap/ |
Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by WesKBob
Wow, whoever wrote this is one really terrible reporter. Didn’t even bother to read what the bill says.
Under this new law, coffee beers are still good. The early version of the bill could have been construed to include those that used coffee, chocolate, etc. But it was amended during the process to apply only to "Beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient."
FWIW, here’s a link to the text of the new law.
Everyone can relax. Coffee stouts are still OK.
really?
To me that reads as Speedway Stout for instance being proscribed by this bill for adding caffeine as a separate ingredient in the form of espresso.
If the language were to be unambiguous, it should have read "alcoholic beverages to which caffeine in a purified form has been added". "A separate ingredient" can still mean coffee, cocoa, etc. to any lawyer worth his salt.
Can you imagine if the same interpretation were allowed for the active agent in marijuana? "Well hey, we didn’t add THC as a separate ingredient, we just added cannabis and the THC got there incidentally."
What if MSG were outlawed? "Well we just added autolyzed yeast as a separate ingredient. The MSG got there incidentally."
Something tells me this may fly as optimists suggest.
The bill was re-worded a couple of months back to include the "Beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient." language. It was explained to us at the California Brewers Guild meeting that we were all safe with our coffee stouts and that the law was aimed at the energy drinks and malternatives with alcohol sector. |
Originally posted by WesKBob
On another California beer related note, Governor Brown has also signed a law that will make it easier for small brewers to open tasting rooms on premises.
Under the old law, breweries were held to the same costly health regulations as restaurants. Under the new law, breweries that don’t serve food are exempted from those regulations, the same way that wineries are treated now.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/01/lighter-beer-tasting-rules-on-tap/
I thought that changed a year or two ago with the Lost Abbey fiasco? |
|
|
Originally posted by OldNumbskull
Originally posted by joet
Originally posted by WesKBob
Wow, whoever wrote this is one really terrible reporter. Didn’t even bother to read what the bill says.
Under this new law, coffee beers are still good. The early version of the bill could have been construed to include those that used coffee, chocolate, etc. But it was amended during the process to apply only to "Beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient."
FWIW, here’s a link to the text of the new law.
Everyone can relax. Coffee stouts are still OK.
really?
To me that reads as Speedway Stout for instance being proscribed by this bill for adding caffeine as a separate ingredient in the form of espresso.
If the language were to be unambiguous, it should have read "alcoholic beverages to which caffeine in a purified form has been added". "A separate ingredient" can still mean coffee, cocoa, etc. to any lawyer worth his salt.
Can you imagine if the same interpretation were allowed for the active agent in marijuana? "Well hey, we didn’t add THC as a separate ingredient, we just added cannabis and the THC got there incidentally."
What if MSG were outlawed? "Well we just added autolyzed yeast as a separate ingredient. The MSG got there incidentally."
Something tells me this may fly as optimists suggest.
The bill was re-worded a couple of months back to include the "Beer to which caffeine has been directly added as a separate ingredient." language. It was explained to us at the California Brewers Guild meeting that we were all safe with our coffee stouts and that the law was aimed at the energy drinks and malternatives with alcohol sector.
This is good to know as the spirit of the law. The letter of the law however is still quite ambiguous.
Levi’s example above fairly clearly describes wording which could have disambiguated the language of the bill.
My hunch is that this merely puts off the inevitable...
The California market is large enough that producers would find it worthwhile to look into a "guarana extract concentrate" (which would be caffeine plus several hundred other compounds) that could very easily exploit the bill’s language. In fact, the manufacturer of the pure caffeine currently in Four Loko may be able to lend some help with the language so that their product can be simply re-labeled and redeployed. |
Originally posted by joet
The California market is large enough that producers would find it worthwhile to look into a "guarana extract concentrate" (which would be caffeine plus several hundred other compounds) that could very easily exploit the bill’s language. In fact, the manufacturer of the pure caffeine currently in Four Loko may be able to lend some help with the language so that their product can be simply re-labeled and redeployed.
If one were the tin-foil-hat-wearing type, then one could argue this ambiguity may have been done on purpose: Producers have a loop hole and the "think of the children!" types get a law passed that makes them feel safer. Everybody/nobody wins.  |
So can FLOKO make some sort of coffee based mega energy 14% booze drink using condensed coffee?
ISO  |
