Friday, February 25, 2011

Microbrewery Beer and Tea

Image provided by The Science of Beer, http://newvoicesforresearch.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-of-beer.html#comment-form

I know that Yardhouse here in Southern California does an excellent job in food, spirits, beer of course, and well - they even serve a decent flavored loose tea of all places. Restaurateurs should know they are one to follow.

But one little topic keeps coming up in my full-frontal-tea-nerdy association circles. And that is Microbrew Beer.
Now my job gets more interesting because microbrewery beers are everywhere and at shows I am at. And these guys are cool in a whole different elemental way, you know? When I am around them, I get the entrepreneurial itch to open an organic sausage stand and serve micro brews in true granola-like fashion, best I could conjure of course.

Sooooo....my question of the day is, being that my associates are selling hibiscus, rosehips, and chamomile to microbreweries, what kind of beer is that? I can't wait to find out! Hibiscus beer brewer? Here I come to hunt you down and find you in your mad lab of herbal concoctions! Although my favorite may well always be Mateveza ( Yerba Mate and beer ) - this light weight will enjoy taking her time scoping the scene and sampling a bit here and there along the way.

Interesting beer reads: http://www.craftbeer.com/pages/news-and-events/american-craft-beer-week

Honest Tea Tops List of Most Eco-Friendly Beverages

I am interested to see what more we can or will see in the tea RTD segment? And what about in the water segment with Kraft announcing their new water additives?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-02-22-watertweaks22_ST_N.htm

Honest Tea Tops List of Most Eco-Friendly Beverages

What do you think the biggest opportunities are in the beverage category?
I am banking on mine.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Coca-Cola says biodegradable packaging 'not a viable option'

Coca-Cola says biodegradable packaging 'not a viable option': "Coca-Cola said earlier this month that biodegradable packaging is “simply not a viable option” but a new report suggests that other smaller drinks companies are beginning to take an interest."

New packaging guidelines aim for 100 per cent PET recyclability

New packaging guidelines aim for 100 per cent PET recyclability: "Leading industry trade associations are encouraging their members to follow a new set of guidelines to ensure that PET bottles are compatible with recycling facilities."

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Testing on Animals in Tea Industry, WAH?


This one baffles me....


Unilever Ends Animal Testing On Lipton Tea Products After PETA Threatens Major Campaign

The Huffington Post Joanna Zelman Posted: 02/ 3/11 03:39 PM

Would you feel safer knowing that your tea was tested on pig intestines? Where should the line be drawn for animal testing? After scathing reports that Unilever, owner of Lipton and PG Tips teas, conducted torturous experiments on animals, the company announced that it would stop testing its teas on animals.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) reports that Lipton had been conducting tests on animals in order to make health claims about their tea products. The tests reportedly involved feeding rabbits high-cholesterol diets in order to harden their arteries, and then feeding the rabbits tea to reduce the lesions that had formed. Once the experiments were over, the rabbits' heads were cut off. According to Planet Green, PETA also reports that piglets were exposed to an E. coli toxin, then given tea to test for prevention of diarrhea. Following the tests, the pigs' intestines were cut apart... while the animals were still alive. These are just two of many disturbing claims regarding Lipton's treatment of animals. Yet, many reports claim that in order to prove a product's health claims, animal tests such as these are not necessary.

Following the animal testing revelations, PETA prepared to launch an international campaign against Unilever. The company was bombarded with 40,000 appeals and the threat of a global "Lipton/PG tips CruelTEA" campaign. A PETA press release reports that just days before the campaign launch, Unilever announced an immediate worldwide end to animal testing for tea, "Given the leadership role our tea category takes in the area of environmental sustainability and the ethical sourcing of tea, Unilever is committing to no animal testing for our tea and tea-based beverages, with immediate effect." Unilever joins cruelty-free companies such as Stash Tea, Luzianne Tea, Twinings, and Honest Tea.

The PETA press release reports that not only are modern in vitro and human-based tests less cruel, but they are also more effective than experiments on animals because of physiological differences between humans and other animals.

But the battle's not over. Even Unilever, a company currently heralded by PETA, openly reveals on its website that certain animal tests are still performed by the company when "it is necessary to meet its health, safety and environmental obligations or it is demanded by government regulators or other official bodies." The question then must be -- who is obligating or demanding these tests? Unilever reports that some novel ingredients may be tested first on animals, because "for ethical reasons it is not always possible to carry out tests directly on humans." But apparently these "ethical reasons" don't apply to non-human animals.

When there is a demand for animal testing, is it necessary? Supporters of animal testing argue that animals are necessary for teaching and for medical research. But Huffington Post contributor Lee Schneider found that just three accredited medical schools in the United States teach surgery by using animals thanks to new teaching methods. As for medical research, Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the National Cancer Institute, stated that "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." Cardiologist Dr. John J. Pippin goes so far as to call studying human diseases on animals "an abject failure."

Meanwhile, animal rights enthusiasts celebrate a major success today. What do you think? Should certain tests on animals be permitted or should all animal testing be banned? Perhaps it's an ethical dilemma worth debating over a nice cup of tea.