Beer 47 » beer laws

Protest the California Bill to Outlaw Coffee Stout, AB 1598

David Jensen — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:51:09 +0000

A few days ago I posted an article about California Assembly Bill 1598, which is currently in committee and will, as currently written, potentially outlaw any malt beverage that contains caffeine, including the beloved craft beer styles that include coffee such as espresso stouts, coffee porters, and more.

[Updated March 12 at 10:21am] In my previous post, I mentioned that, yes, Beall’s office is working with the Craft Brewers Association to clarify this bill. This does not mean, however, that we should not sit by idly and wait. We need to express our discontent to the California Assembly regarding this bill and the slippery slope that it creates. Don’t let coffee stout be outlawed by a technicality!

Since writing that article, I have seen much support against this bill on twitter and from readers of this blog. I also wrote letters to both the committee chair, Joe Coto, of Governmental Organization (G.O.) as well as Assemblyperson Jim Beall, who introduced the bill. I have not received a response, personally, until this morning.

This weekend I would like you to help out and protest this horribly written piece of legislation in the following manner:

Find a craft beer made with coffee and enjoy it. Use Twitter to announce what coffee beer you are drinking and use the hashtags #noab1598 #iheartcoffeestout
If you do not use Twitter, then announce what beer you had in the comments of this post.
Write an email to Jim Beall, Joe Coto, or your California Assembly representative expressing your displeasure will AB 1598 and that you think it needs to be either completely re-written or, better, stopped altogether.
- Jim Beall: Assemblymember.Beall@assembly.ca.gov
- Joe Coto: Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov
Put a this badge on your blog or website. A link back to this blog post is not mandatory but would be useful.

<a href=”http://beer47.com/2010/03/protest-the-california-bill-to-outlaw-coffee-stout-ab-1598/” mce_href=”http://beer47.com/2010/03/protest-the-california-bill-to-outlaw-coffee-stout-ab-1598/”></a>

With enough people involved, I’m sure we can all make a difference together and squash this frivolous law that would prevent us from drinking some great craft beer made with coffee.

Update: March 12, 2010 at 10:25am

I received a comment from Assemblymember Beall’s office below. They misunderstood that they had not replied to my message. So that everybody know what I sent to Beall and Coto, I will post my message here:

Assembly Member Beall,

I am writing to ask you to withdraw AB 1598.

I understand that the intent of AB 1598 is to outlaw caffeinated malt beverages that might be popular by young and underage drinkers. The desire to protect our youth is laudable but this bill serves to remove more liberties. There are several problems with the law in its current form:

1. It will also outlaw a niche in the craft beer market, which is coffee stouts, coffee porters, and yerba mate beer. There is wonderful roasty and mocha quality that coffee or espresso adds to these styles of beer that can not be reproduced otherwise. Furthermore, the coffee is naturally brewed and added to the beer during the standard brewing process.

2. There is already an FDA investigation with regard to caffeine and stimulant additions to malt beverages. My understand is that there are also already regulations and guidelines governing caffeine in beer. Why does California need another bill on the books when there are already Federal guidelines?

3. There are a few sections of the bill that state facts and make assertions with out the proof of the research behind those assertions. With out the research they are merely opinions. There is even a misguided assertion that social networks are comprised only of young people but the fact is that the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is 35+ and 18-25 is shrinking percentage-wise.

4. Finally, if the issue is marketing these soda-pop alcohol drinks to minors and young people, then write a new bill to outlaw the practice of marketing alcohol to underage drinkers. If you make it difficult or impossible for big alcohol to reach the underage demographic, then there will be no need for those products.

Finally, I also understand that you or the committee are already in talks with craft brewers about this bill. I’m writing to let you know that it is not only the craft brewers that are concerned with this bill but also consumers such as myself and the readers of my blog.

Thank you,
David Jensen
San Mateo, CA

Update: March 12, 2010 at 2:30pm

In addition to the comment below, I also received an email from Cris from Assemblymember Beall’s office. Cris did mention that the intent of the bill is to prevent manufacture of an unsafe product. Fair enough but I still have not seen the research (waiting on a reply for that) that explains what the unsafe levels are. Cris also provided a link to the FDA regulations on the matter:

FDA To Look Into Safety of Caffeinated Alcoholic Beverages

From reading that it seems to me that the manufacturers of the beverages have to prove that it is safe but what is considered safe has not been defined. In its current form AB 1598 does assist in creating the definition of what is safe. It takes broad strokes that could be applied to your favorite coffee stout. Intention or not, it’s a bill that could become law, if how it is written does not reflect this supposed intention, then we have a problem.

Finally, here is my response to the email that I received from Jim Beall’s office.

Cris,

Can you forward references to the studies that caffeinated alcoholic drinks are unsafe? I’m curious about the unsafe levels and the circumstances studied. I’m also not sure what the problem is with this FDA regulation, the manufacturer has the burden of proof that the product is safe. I know one brewery that uses licorice in their beer and had to get FDA approval. The resulting product has safer levels of licorice than licorice candy. (Note: licorice can increase blood pressure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquorice). If the problem with the FDA regulation is the ambiguity of what is considered safe, then AB 1598 also does not address that. If any caffeine plus 0.5% alcohol is what is considered unsafe, then that is much much to board and I’m very skeptical of those numbers.

I also agree that the government needs to intercede on behalf of the public to protect the public from dangerous products. We should not have lead in toys. But it has not been proven to me, yet, what amounts are considered dangerous. Over short (or prolonged) periods of time alcohol in large quantities is dangerous and caffeine in large quantities is dangerous. But we don’t ban alcohol and we don’t ban caffeine, we regulate the amount that is considered safe and even then, it can still be abused so we encourage moderation and provide warning labels.

I’ve tried rum and coke, red bull vodka, jack and coke, espresso stout, coffee porter, and so on. At what point are these beverages unsafe? If we use scientific research to set limits on what is considered safe amounts of alcohol and caffeine that can be combined it and sold as a single unit, then I might be willing to accept that.

We don’t have to wait for the FDA to “catch-up” but we should not be so quick to jump the gun without the proper research (again, I’d like to see the research). Furthermore, the bill as it stands still it too broad and still make unsubstantiated or absurd statements. The whole thing about Facebook and MySapce still bothers me.

If the intent of the law is to regulate safe levels of alcohol plus caffeine, then keep it simple and word it as such.

I suggest writing the law as if it were an FDA regulation. Keep to the facts and keep the crap out.

You have a good weekend too.

Cheers!
David Jensen
San Mateo, CA

Will California Outlaw Coffee Stout with Bill AB 1598?

David Jensen — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:15:44 +0000

Normally, I only post articles about beer reviews, beer events, home brewing, and cooking with beer but something a little more political and beer related recently caught my attention. I was reading a post by @DevilsCanyon that linked to California bill AB 1598, which outlaws malt beverages that contain caffeine. I’m not lawyer or legislator but there seems to be some issues with this bill that could lead to outlawing coffee stout.

The bill language and some reference links can be found at the following locations:

Below are the questions and concerns that I have about the bill:

Does it or does it not outlaw beverages such as coffee stouts?
- This is my biggest concern. Will it prevent me from home brewing my own coffee porter or stouts?
- There seems to be a section that exempts beer such as stout, porter, ale, lager, etc. but to me it is not that obvious.
It leaves the terminology for “stimulants” open ended.
- I interpret (or misinterpret) a situation where somebody like Uncommon Brewers might have to cease producing some of there beer if somebody considers anise or licorice or something else a stimulant, despite the fact that they have received FDA approval for their beer.
It makes a bunch of assertions to justify the existence of this bill, some of which are hokey, false, or without proof.
- For instance, according to the bill, social networking sites, like Facebook and MySapce, are used to market to, specifically, young people. I guess the California legislature knows the Facebook demographics better than Facebook. The truth is the 18-25 demographic on Facebook is shrinking percentage-wise. In March 2009, it was down to 35%.
- Does caffeine and alcohol really impair you ability to know how drunk you are? Maybe there is a study for this but I’d like to read the study before it gets jammed into law as fact.
The law outlaws caffeinated malt beverages but doesn’t touch Red Bull vodka. This is also a slippery slope, will Red Bull vodka be next? What about rum and coke?
I was looking for Title 26 Section 5092 for the definition of “brewer” but could not find it and it seems that 5052(d) has replaced 5092 but I’m not certain.

What do you think of this AB 1598? Does it outlaw coffee stout and porter?

Update: March 9, 2010 9:20am

Mario from Brewed For Thought contacted and received a response from Tom McCormick of the California Small Brewers Assoc. which indicates that there should be no concern, yet, about this bill.

Mario,
Currently we are in direct talks with the bill’s author, Assemblyman Jim Beall (Santa Clara). We expect to amend this bill fully so that it has no impact on craft brewers. If that changes for any reason, we will certainly look at a letter writing campaign etc.
Thanks for your support!
Tom

Tom McCormick
Executive Director
California Small Brewers Assoc.

Personally, I won’t be unconcerned until the bill is dead. This bill has a slippery slope down which we should not slide.

I also found a few more links this morning:

Update: March 9, 2010 at 11:22am

Read the comments below. One read received a response from Jim Beall’s office as follows:

The Assemblymember is working with the craftsbrewer association to attempt to clarify the legislation. The intent of AB 1598 is to enforce federal legislation that prohibits alcoholic beverages that are spiked with stimulants.

Sincerely,

Frances Grammer

Senior Field Representative

If this is the case and the reason is to comply with federal regulations, then why is there all of that mumbo-jumbo in sections (a) through (j) of the bill? This bill needs a lot of work. They need to remove (a) through (j) and simply state it that the intent of this bill is to comply with the enforcement of federal regulations.

But now I ask, if there is already a federal regulation, why does California need a law on the books?

Update: March 10, 2010

FDA Investigation

I received a message on Twitter from @beerwars that this issue is similar to an ongoing investigation by the FDA. Here’s some details about that investigation: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/whats-in-your-kids-favorite-drink-big-brother-wants-to-know-01896.html

Jim Beall, California Assembly District 24

This bill was introduced by Jim Beall from District 24, which covers Santa Clara and parts of San Jose. Here is some information about Jim Beall:

California Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization

This bill is currently in committee with the Committee on Governmental Organization. If your representative is on this list, then please send them an email with your displeasure about this bill. If you representative is not on the list, then send an email to Jim Beall or the committee chair, Joe Coto, District 23.

Members of the Committee on Governmental Organization
Joe Coto, committee chair: Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov