CAMRA chairman angry at BA magazine article

Reads 24593 • Replies 192 • Started Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:15:27 AM CT

The forums you're viewing are the static, archived version. You won't be able to post or reply here.
Our new, modern forums are here:
RateBeer Forums

Thread Frozen
 
FatPhil
beers 23236 º places 845 º 14:00 Wed 6/1/2011

Originally posted by chriso
I remember a bit of a furore a few years back when it emerged that the carbonation in Perrier water was tinkered with between coming out of the ground and being bottled, but that may have been as much to do with misleading marketing as the actual process itself.


So the carcinogenic benzene never had anything to do with it after all?

 
FatPhil
beers 23236 º places 845 º 14:14 Wed 6/1/2011

Originally posted by SamGamgee
Originally posted by FatPhil
{stuff}


Cost is not the main reason beer gas mixes are used. They are used because they are the only way to balance a long-draw draught system. You need a certain amount of pressure in the system to overcome the resistance of the beer lines. In long-draw systems, this amount of pressure increases to the point that if you used pure CO2 you would over-carbonate the beer in relatively short order. Nitrogen is used as a blend with CO2 because is it much less soluble in beer and will therefore allow you to achieve the proper system pressure while maintaining the proper amount of CO2 in order to keep the beer from either going over flat of getting too carbonated.


This is indeed very true, thank you for chipping in. It’s similar to the gas mixtures used in SCUBA - neutrality and lack of solubility is a positive feature, compared to a pure sample of what you actually want/need to deliver.

 
chriso
beers 7540 º places 736 º 07:20 Thu 6/2/2011

Originally posted by FatPhil
Originally posted by chriso
I remember a bit of a furore a few years back when it emerged that the carbonation in Perrier water was tinkered with between coming out of the ground and being bottled, but that may have been as much to do with misleading marketing as the actual process itself.


So the carcinogenic benzene never had anything to do with it after all?


Think the benzene thing came some time after the revelation that the carbonation was tinkered with. Or perhaps it was some other fizzy water I was thinking of. Definitely in the 80s anyway.

 
Tandleman
00:50 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by Gazza
As for the attack on Tim Webb

Despite the fact that Mr Valentine may regard Tim Webb as "once respected", it is interesting to note that he is on the "CAMRA’s Top 40 Campaigners" shortlist.
http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=338374
So, although I know you aren’t a member any more Gazza, perhaps those of us who are might consider casting their votes in Tim’s direction. I already have.


Well I think you should vote for me too. I think I said what I have to say in my article in Beer Magazine on the opposite side to Tim, but you know, in the end, members will decide what CAMRA does, not Colin. It is a democracy, so don’t like it? Vote it out.

PS Some rather good stuff written here on this subject. Mostly thoughtful and helpful.

 
Erlangernick
beers 6 º places 2 º 01:44 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by Tandleman
Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by Gazza
As for the attack on Tim Webb

Despite the fact that Mr Valentine may regard Tim Webb as "once respected", it is interesting to note that he is on the "CAMRA’s Top 40 Campaigners" shortlist.
http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=338374
So, although I know you aren’t a member any more Gazza, perhaps those of us who are might consider casting their votes in Tim’s direction. I already have.


Well I think you should vote for me too. I think I said what I have to say in my article in Beer Magazine on the opposite side to Tim, but you know, in the end, members will decide what CAMRA does, not Colin. It is a democracy, so don’t like it? Vote it out.

PS Some rather good stuff written here on this subject. Mostly thoughtful and helpful.


Not voting until I get an answer on where you lot are holing up in München!

 
SilkTork
beers 7343 º places 109 º 01:48 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by SamGamgee


And on the subject of capturing CO2 from fermentation that someone else touched on, I’m surprised to hear of a small brewer doing that. The equipment is very expensive and I’ve heard that brewers have to be relatively large in order for the investment to pay off.


What I remember of his equipment was that it consisted of a collapsible bag that captured the gas from the fermenting vessel, and was then attached to the keg for serving. He had quite a few of these bags. I don’t remember any additional equipment, but it’s a few years now since I saw it, and it was an impromptu invitation - I hadn’t gone there pre-planned. I got talking to David the brewer while I was having a meal there with Chrissie, and he offered to show me the brewery. She remembers the incident well because I just jumped up and abandoned her.

 
SilkTork
beers 7343 º places 109 º 02:34 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by tdtm82
Originally posted by traPISSED
It’s funny, there is an Irish beer consumer group called Beoir and as far as I can see, they couldn’t care how a beer is conditioned or dispensed. All they want is a well made quality beer that tastes good. This is how it should be in my opinion.




+1 and this is an organisation I want to join. Should be about , not shit cask or keg beer. I don’t care how they despense it as long as it’s good. Evin can give me a beer on a plate and I’d strill drink it ’cos I know it’s good


The point is how do you define "quality good beer". All you are saying is that there is beer you enjoy, and the beer you enjoy is to you "quality good beer". But, clearly, without a means to define what you saying, you are just going round in circles. The point about CAMRA’s stance is that they have defined a process that is more likely to lead to beer that their members enjoy.

This thread is now at the point where it is felt that CAMRA’s definitions need updating, and that the definition of "craft beer" (same as "quality beer " or "good beer") is inadequate.

Where do we go from here? Is it a question of updating CAMRA’s definition? Or abandoning CAMRA altogether as an organisation too moribund (lacking in energy), and starting up a new organisation?

Is it about the marketing and promotion of beer, or about looking at production methods?

Some people are very excited about the idea of getting the marketing and imagery right. The notion of "craft beer" excites them, as the image is vibrant and positive, rather than CAMRA’s wooly and bearded and conservative image.

I have long held that a significant part of the pleasure of beer is in the image. I think this is true for many foodstuffs, but particularly so for beer. Drinkers invest a lot in the heritage, culture, history, social aspects of beer. Some drinkers are extremely brand loyal - to an extent only normally found among sport followers. Some drinkers feel that what a brand stands for is important, and in a sense defines them as human beings: "I drink craft beer because I am independent, radical and modern." "I drink American/British beer because I am loyal to my country." "I drink foreign lager from the bottle because I am trendy."

Wanting an appropriate image for beer is part of beer culture, and is not to be despised. Though I feel that going just for the image would be a mistake, and would open the road for brewers to use production methods which do not ensure a flavoursome product as long as the brewer was part of the popular image.

Brewers are business people who have for hundreds of years very successfully exploited imagery/marketing to sell less than ideal beer.

CAMRA was the first organisation to make an effective stand against this business approach, and they continue to have an influence.

I am very wary of supporting any approach which fails to appreciate or understand what CAMRA have done, and to get swept up in focussing solely on the image. I think that is a route which simply hands control of beer quality to the marketing people.

Improve the image of beer. Yes. But at the expense of quality. No.

 
SilkTork
beers 7343 º places 109 º 02:52 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by chriso
Originally posted by FatPhil
Originally posted by chriso
I remember a bit of a furore a few years back when it emerged that the carbonation in Perrier water was tinkered with between coming out of the ground and being bottled, but that may have been as much to do with misleading marketing as the actual process itself.


So the carcinogenic benzene never had anything to do with it after all?


Think the benzene thing came some time after the revelation that the carbonation was tinkered with. Or perhaps it was some other fizzy water I was thinking of. Definitely in the 80s anyway.


I don’t know exactly when Perrier starting filtering the gas, but it was before the benzene incident because it was a fault in the filtering process that led to a build up of benzene. It was, as you say, in place during the 1980s. What Perrier do is capture the water and the gas separately, filter them, and bring them together again. This was done for reasons of health and consistency. It is ironic that in attempting to be safe and healthy the company ended up creating a product that was very unhealthy!

 
chriso
beers 7540 º places 736 º 03:15 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by Tandleman
Well I think you should vote for me too.

Thought I only hasd one vote but, looking again, I don’t think that’s the case.

 
chriso
beers 7540 º places 736 º 03:34 Sat 6/4/2011

Originally posted by SilkTork
The point is how do you define "quality good beer". All you are saying is that there is beer you enjoy, and the beer you enjoy is to you "quality good beer". But, clearly, without a means to define what you saying, you are just going round in circles. The point about CAMRA’s stance is that they have defined a process that is more likely to lead to beer that their members enjoy.

This thread is now at the point where it is felt that CAMRA’s definitions need updating, and that the definition of "craft beer" (same as "quality beer " or "good beer") is inadequate.

One of CAMRA’s aims is to "promote quality, choice and value for money". So CAMRA itself has felt the need the need to address the quality issue. I think it is rather difficult not to at some point. Of course, the issue of quality and beer scoring also comes into play in compiling the Good Beer Guide.

Also quite interesting, I had cause to consult my 2011 Good Beer Guide this morning and, as it fell open at Roger Protz’s introduction, the first words were "craft brewers". The term also appears in several other places in the articles at the front of the guide. So, although it seems to be a term we have difficulty in defining, CAMRA has no problem with the term itself. I’d be interested to know whether there is a CAMRA definition.