Talk:Low-alcohol beer

US/prohibitionism bias

Employing the word "intoxicating" for alcohol abuse is extreme and is a US bias. In the rest of the modern world where there is no history of prohibitionism you will not employ a word with such a negative connotation. In wikipedia we should not employ "intoxicated" but "drunk" or "inebriate" which are more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.33.132 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the UK licensees are "licensed to sell by retail intoxicating liquor...". I would say the word "intoxicating", which after all only means "poisonous", is more neutral than "drunk" or "inebriate". Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Are they legally considered non-alcoholic? I mean, is it legal for underage people to buy them?

In many areas, it is legal (though not in Pennsylvania, according to a news article I read a while back) to sell non-alcoholic brews to people under the legal drinking age. While they contain a tiny amount of ethanol, you'd have to drink a ridiculous amount in one sitting to become intoxicated. Ralphael 17:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

They do contain alcohol so I don't think they can be drunk by underage. The legal part is just what they can legitimately be named.

Says who? This whole business of what is and is not "legal" is entirely dependent upon local jurisdiction. The part of the article which states, "Legally beers can contain up to 0.5 percent alcohol by volume to be called non-alcoholic" needs to be qualified to indicate which legal system is being referenced. (I presume the writer was talking about federal U.S. law, though I don't want to change the article based on a mere presumption.) —Psychonaut 17:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• When I have visited counties in the USA where alcoholic beverages cannot be sold on Sundays, I have noted that non-alcoholic beer is included in this prohibition. -- Infrogmation

However, they contain about as much alcohol as Coca-Cola does. A good alcohol removal should get rid of 99.7% of alcohol and with it any chance of getting drunk. Even Coca-Cola's formula still has traces of cocaine (from the coca leaves); the decocanization process leaves non-physioactive traces of ethanol (liquor alcohol) and cocaine.

No. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.htm , near bottom. And what about Bitter Shandies? (ie: proper bitter + lemonade)

This is not true in every state/county. Also the laws about buying NA beer vary greatly from state to state--some states require you to be 18 to purchase it, some allow it to be sold in supermarkets even though beer cannot be, etc. Cazort 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can legally buy these beers in Canada. Beers with less than 0.5% alcohol really cannot be used to get drunk. Most people would need to consume an impossible volume of the stuff to get a significant quantity of ethanol into their bloodstream. --Ilnyckyj (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Does the term "piss water" belong in the non-alcoholic beer article?

Nope. There is almost universal agreement that "non-alcoholic beer" isn't as good as real beer. No point in belaboring the issue.

Religious exemption.

There is an overly broad, totally unsourced statement that those who are teetotalers for religious reasons may drink non-alcoholic beer. AFAIK, the main sects that prohibit alcohol would not be okay w/ near beer.

Good examples would be most of the abstaining Baha'is, Baptist denominations, all Muslims, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. I honestly don't know about the abstaining Quakers and Methodists.

There may very well be a religion out there that is okay w/ near beer, but not the regular type. Unless there is a verifiable source though, this statement should be dumped. If there is, it should be properly sourced.

FWIW, I am a teetotaling Baptist, and the avoidance of alcohol also includes even the appearance of drinking it (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

Thanks.

Lol, how is it that people think religious people don't drink beer? 71.51.50.38 (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking to articles in other languages by other countries defenitions

Case in point: Is this comparable with the swedish lättöl ("lightbeer", less than 2.25%)?. Should it link to that article as the swedish version?

Non-alcohlic beer is beer that has almost no alcohol at all. 2.25% isn't a lot of alcohol IMO, but it's certainly too much to be called non-alcoholic (most N/A beers have about as much alcohol as fruit juice).

In Iceland, 2.25% is regarded as alcohol-free, and was produced and sold as such throughout the prohibition years (1915-1989). Although many restrictions are on the sale of alcohol, any minor can buy 2.25% beer at any cornerstore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.69.56 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, alcoholfreies Bier is the equivalent in German. Unfortunately, wik/d doesn't have an article for this. Duennbier, which is the link we give, is about 2%. Kdammers (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There are three articles which cover the same concept of low alcohol beer: this one, Small beer and Near beer. It would appear that these would be better served being brought together as one article. The merge page gives this suggestion as to when to merge: "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability." As there is an obvious overlap I am proposing a merge of all three articles. SilkTork 16:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Near beer" but not with "small beer." Small beer is more of a historical usage -- small beer was drank (Drunk? I never get this right.) instead of water, which was unsafe -- and was made for a totally different reason than Low-alcohol beer. Does that make sense? Wickerpedia 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Small beer should certainly have a separate entry from the modern terms of "Near beer" and "Low Alcohol beer". To group it with them is misleading and inaccurate.

Small beer should definitely have its own article. It is misleading to have it here. It was not brewed to be low-alcohol, but to be cheap. Commonly beer used to be much stronger than it is today and what was known as small beer back then would have been as strong as many common regular beers today. As I understand it unlike small beer most low-alcohol beers have the alcohol removed after brewing. There is a limit to alcohol content below which it is not possible to brew beer at all. Jooler 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Light beer

Light beer is obviously something different, it may contain upto something like 3.5% abv. Merge should be turned back. – Ilse@ 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The three most popular light beers in the U.S. (Bud Light, Miller Lite, and Coors Light) are 4.2% alcohol, and really don't have anything to do with the concept "Low alcohol beer". Either "light beer" or "American-style light beer" need to be a separate page. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate Articles Warranted

I propose creating separate articles for non-alcoholic beer (0-0.5% abv) and low-alcoholic beer. First of all, they're not really the same thing, and I think that lumping them together is inconsistent with the level of detail that wikipedia presents on most topics. Also, there are different laws governing their sale and consumption in most countries, and they also have a fairly different history, culture associated with them. (In particular, with most non-alcoholic beer being more modern). I think there's enough information in this article that it could easily be split into two. What do others think? Cazort 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC) non-alcoholic

I'm interested in such primary because of level of alcohol in it (i.e. for low-alcoholic beer we can say that it contains alcohol and non-alcoholic not).
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Light doesn't mean what you think it means

Sorry, just had to say that. Should this article stick to the word lite, and say it is marketed as light, which customers may perceive as lite, but may not be true? The adj form of the word light might be correct... that is to make lighter, or to lighten. But, I don't believe light is the correct word. —Slipgrid (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two things that people might mean when talking about light beer: beer with a lower alcohol content or beer with a lower carbohydrate content. The first sense is common in Australia, but I understand the second is more common in the US. I suppose the article should be more clear on what it is talking about. --James (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I'm saying is the word light is a physics term, or as the alcohol companies may mean in a subliminal advertising way, a spiritual awareness. The term lite, which is a different word, means the opposite of heavy. That's what you seem to be talking about. Look at a dictionary. If we are playing Jeopardy, and the answer is "beer with a lower alcohol content or beer with a lower carbohydrate content," then the question is "what is lite beer?" If the answer is, "a word used to describe beverages that gives a subliminal sense of illumination," the question would be, "what is light?" When you talk about "light beer" in an encyclopedic article, I believe the term is introducing a marketing ploy into the article. Though, I believe the article should make a distinction between the terms light and lite. Just my POV. —Slipgrid (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a regional difference. Light beers in Australia are generally marketed using the term "light" (e.g. Cascade Premium Light). The Oxford dictionary describes it as a "variant of Light. Now usually a deliberate respelling" and mentions that it can be used to refer to "a light beer with relatively few calories".

So I accept that "lite beer" is a common term in some places, but not that it has a distinct meaning to "light beer". In an article like this with an international audience, I don't think you could use either term without qualification so the article looks pretty good as it is. --James (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Florida

Used to be that Florida mandated that all beer sold in the state be 3.2. I recall on spring break in the early 90s getting a low buzz from drinking a 12 pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon in 90 min. while wearing the carpet bald from going to the toilet. Nowadays you can get beer like anyplace else though. Anyone know when the law changed? I'll find out myself when I get the chance... Ellsworth (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

List of alcohol-free beers

I'm interested in making list of worlds contemporary alcohol-free beers (not more than 0.05% ABV). Is anyone else?
--Čikić Dragan (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Legality & underage drinking

Can we get a list of countries and how legal it is for minors to drink it? 114.77.6.119 (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's at Legal drinking age. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead and definitions

Should we split the definitions (which are currently mention the US, UK and Europe) out of the lead and into its own "Definitions" section (possibly with subsections)? Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dealcoholisation process

There isn't a single word about the dealcoholisation process in the production of low-alcohol beers (assuming to be always necessary). This piece of information would be best suited in an encyclopedic article like this and more focused than the legal constraints to its consumption in different countries. Heathmoor (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)