Shout-Outs For Two Good Guys: Jacob Grier and Carl Miller

. . . who have nothing to do with each other. (Er, I mean whose Good Deeds are unrelated to one another.) (Although I doubt they know each other.)

First, if you live in the Portland, Oregon, area, you're lucky: A group of local mixologists are mixing it up ("it" in this case being beer and spirits) this coming Sunday on behalf of Schoolhouse Supplies, which provides school supplies for kids in need. Read more here at Jacob Grier's blog. Then be there, or be square.

Second shout-out (and, really, the two are not connected): chops to Carl Miller at BeerBooks.com. Besides running BeerBooks, Carl is an accomplished historian whose focus is beer. This week I learned  that his new project involves tracking down the story --- the real one --- about the Conrad-Busch-Budweiser relationship. This is a labor of love (although one that I hope will reward him in more than love) by one of the good guys.

So, go get 'em, Carl. (Frankly, better you than me wading through all those legal briefs. . . )

How's that for random acts of blogging? Well, okay, long as I'm here and long as you asked: Yes, am hard at work on the manuscript. Spent a miserable week tearing a chapter apart and trying, with not much success, to reassemble it. Every book has such a chapter: one that does not want to come together. Does. Not. But I'll get the bastard in the end. 'Cause I always do.

Historical Tidbits: Beer Styles and the Law, 1913

In 1913, the editors of the brewing trade magazine American Brewer contacted the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Inspection Board in hopes that someone there would clarify the meaning of the (still relatively new) pure food and drug laws. Under what conditions, asked the magazine’s staff, could a brewer use the term “Pilsen” or “Bohemian” on his labels?

The inspection board’s chair responded reported that brewers could avoid paying fines (or worse) for violations of the laws by sticking to beer beers “of the true style after which they are named.” Otherwise, the government would consider them to be “misbranded.”

If, for example, a brewer wanted to use a label or trademark containing the words “Pilsen Style” or Wuerzburger Style,” he must “use the same materials and process of manufacture” as used in the country where those beers originated.

He thought it unlikely that any American brewer would be able to comply. As he pointed out, for decades brewers had added  corn and rice to  their beers because “the people of the United States did not desire a heavy type of beer made from malt.”

“It therefore seems to me. . . that we are not producing in this country beers of the Wuerzburger or Culmbacher types” but rather an American beer with a foreign name.

“I think that the sooner the brewers of this country get away from the use of foreign names on their beers and sell their products on their merits, letting the consumer know that they are an American type of beer different in quality from foreign beers, the better it will be for the whole industry.”

The editors at AB disagreed. There was “no guarantee,” they pointed out, that a German brewer making, say, Bohemian or Wuerzburger beer was not also using adjuncts.

Moreover, brewing processes were not set in stone: A brewer could create a Bohemian type beer using any number of processes and materials. Still, the editors agreed that brewers should stop using foreign names because it was clear that the Department of Agriculture intended to enforce the law: A year earlier, the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Georgia had seized a shipment of bottled beer whose labels read “Special Export Extra Pale Beer. Brewed from the very best malt and hops.”

The attorney claimed that the beer contained “little if any malt” and plenty of “other grains.” (The brewer paid a one hundred dollar fine.)

________________

Source: “The Pure Food Law in Relation to the Brewing Industry,” American Brewer 46, no. 5 (May 1913): 230-231.

The (Mis)Information That Drives Historians Crazy

This is the kind of crap that drives me batty. The other day I was reading something (can't remember now what it was) that led me to The Kitchen Garden Network. According to the site's "About" page, the people at KGN are focused on

the politics and economic forces that influence what reaches the food outlets where we shop for what we eat.

Okay. Fine. If they'd stopped there, I wouldn't have had the urge to bang my head against the wall. Instead, the site's founder goes on to note that

Up until the 1970’s a large portion of our food came from local sources . . . ’   Roadside stands, farmer’s markets, local co-ops and the like were a given. Organic produce had not yet become commonly available. By the 1980’s everything changed. The political climate altered the agricultural landscape in many dramatic and detrimental ways. Many farmers went out of business and farms began to be sold off at a rapid pace.

Oh. Ohhhh..... My aching head. Where should I start to correct the errors? (*1)

Should I begin by changing "1970s" to "1870"? Or explain that prior to the 1970s, few Americans bought their food at "roadside stands, farmer's markets [or] local co-ops"? Or dissect the claim that somehow in the 1980s, "everything changed"?

Or just explain that when I read stuff such uninformed nonsense, first I cringe, and then I worry? Because the current debate about food is being fueled by this kind of inane, inaccurate "information." Worse, substantive discussion about the global food system, climate change, and the like is in danger of being derailed by a lack of insight, context, and history.

It drives historians like me crazy. And frankly, it scares the crap out of me. (If too many cooks ruin the soup,  too many ignorant minds and chattering mouths destroy the debate.) So --- maybe I should choose door number three and get back to work on my current project. Because  the "food fight" needs a historian's input.

___________________

*1:  Mind you, I'm not picking on the people at Kitchen Garden Network. I could have used dozens of other, similar examples. This one just happened to be handy.

Must-Reads

This by Tyler Cowan. (And now: back to work.)

Mike Wallace Interviews Aldous Huxley, 1958 [Update]

From Terry Teachout's blog. This is seriously amazing. Give it a listen. (Okay, maybe it's only amazing to me because a) I'm old; and b) I'm a historian....)

This just in: Loyal Reader Dave posted a comment about this, noting that there are actually three parts to the interview. I completely missed that. When the interview ends, look at the small screens at the base of the large, main screen. You'll see links to the rest of Wallace's interview. (There's also a link to an interview with Frank Lloyd Wright, which I think is the "bubblegum for the eyes" interview.)

Tip o' the mug to Dave for this tip.

Oh, Those Wacky Beermakers . . .

I was vaguely aware of Sam Calagione's latest foray into beer weirdness, but today Lex from Scholars & Rogues sent me  a link to this article that has more detail. In this case, Sam is working with Patrick McGovern, an archaeologist whose name is well-known to alcohol scholars.

For more on the beers the duo created, see this. The beers are available to the public, but in limited editions (translation: move quickly if you want to try one.) McGovern has a new book out that sounds fascinating. I have not read it yet, but plan to. If nothing else, I'm looking forward to finding out what's new in alcohol archaeology since I first investigated it for my book seven years ago. (*1)

Anyway, all worth reading. And thanks again to Lex at Scholars & Rogues for the tip.

______________

*1: (I had this screwball idea that I would open my beer book by looking back --- waaaay back --- beer's ancient history. I spent months wading through archaeological studies. In the end, I opted for a different tack with the book, but I still have the chapter I wrote. One of these days, I plan to post it as a PDF file --- once I figure out how to create an online PDF file.)