#2 2013-02-27 09:48:57
So if they are saying that the alcohol content is less than what's printed on the label, that should be trivially easy to test. Labeling laws in the US require ABV (alcohol by volume) when required. Some states require it, others proscribe it. Some don't care. But it's not like they can change to ABW (Alcohol by weight) to change the number.
So you test 1000 cans from a wide geographic distribution and if it's significantly less than stated on the label (say 10%) then it's a done deal.
Then InBev settles for $100m, the lawyers take $60m for their troubles and everyone else gets a $1 off a case coupon.
Offline
#3 2013-02-27 12:35:29
You would think the lawyers would have tested the beer before filing the lawsuits. Testimony from employees is evidence that the practice is intentional. I don't drink that piss water either. Guinness has been touting its Black Ale heavily, so I bought a sixer last weekend. Not that impressed. We have several craft breweries close by which make great beer. Lost Coast, Sierra Nevada, Lagunitas, and North Coast all distribute fairly widely. We have some great small breweries and brew pubs too. No reason to drink shit beer.
Offline
#4 2013-02-28 11:16:56
phreddy wrote:
Guinness has been touting its Black Ale heavily, so I bought a sixer last weekend. Not that impressed. We have several craft breweries close by which make great beer. Lost Coast, Sierra Nevada, Lagunitas, and North Coast all distribute fairly widely. We have some great small breweries and brew pubs too. No reason to drink shit beer.
Guinness is only good if you go back East or to SE Asia. It's a solid C but better than the cheap lager swilled in those nasty parts.
Offline
#5 2013-02-28 17:11:52
Guinness sure braises pork ribs nicely though.
Independent labs say that Bud is what it says on the label. I guess the tort lawyers will have to go drown their sorrows in $40 martinis.
Offline
