Winter Warmers Promotion: Full Listing

Mississauga Matt · Post by **Mississauga Matt** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 1:00 pm

On 2003-12-01 10:47, Cass wrote:
I couldn't bring myself to buy a George Gale after past experiences - has anyone tried it yet?

I find this year's offering of Gale's POA to be much better than last year's, more in keeping with what I expect from that beer.

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:44 pm

The Barbar Winter Bok is now in a lot of the Toronto area stores and we're still waiting on the Adnams SSB and it's getting a bit frustrating as it's been tied up waiting for lab approval for weeks now which means that it will be at least another week before it starts moving into the stores...maybe we should switch it to the Spring promo instead of Winter Warmers!

borderline_alcoholic · Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:07 pm

On 2003-12-01 15:44, esprit wrote:
we're still waiting on the Adnams SSB and it's getting a bit frustrating as it's been tied up waiting for lab approval for weeks now which means that it will be at least another week before it starts moving into the stores

Noooooooooooooooooooo!

I'm off to have a quick cry...

Incidentally, have the LCBO "lab" ever refused a beer entry to the Ontario market?

[ This Message was edited by: borderline_alcoholic on 2003-12-01 16:12 ]

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 10:07 pm

Actually, I've never had a beer refused but I have had several of my wines refused over the years.

borderline_alcoholic · Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:49 am

On what grounds, just out of interest?

I am just interested in what sort of things they are actually trying to protect the delicate sensibilities of the people of Ontario from, beyond the obvious smuggling of controlled substances that is.

And also, what happened to the wine, was it sent back, drunk at the "lab" or simply destroyed?

[ This Message was edited by: borderline_alcoholic on 2003-12-02 00:52 ]

esprit · Post by **esprit** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:15 am

Actually, I've never had a full order arrive that was rejected. The closest I got was a wine from New Zealand which arrived and tested high for a substance which is a component of some insecticides. Curiously enough, the supplier did not use this insecticide in it's vineyards and, as it turns out, the apply orchard next to them did so obviously some of the vineyards were oversprayed. I had to get a couple of outside labs in Toronto test the wine and they came up with slightly lower levels in their tests. Also, I happened to find out (no thanks to the LCBO because they wouldn't tell me this) that the wine did not exceed the federal standard for this compound and it was the LCBO's own even stricter standard that we didn't meet. As a result, we did finally get an exemption. All of the other products were rejected at the sample stage, that is, we had a commitment for the wine to be bought but it was withdrawn after testing. The most common problem I had is with ethyl carbamate levels...don't ask me what they are and what they do because most countries in the world do not even test wines for this substance and it commonly occurs in wine...thank God the LCBO is protecting us from this as it is probably what is making most Californians and Europeans go insane since they don't test for it.

borderline_alcoholic · Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:50 am

On 2003-12-02 10:15, esprit wrote:
I happened to find out (no thanks to the LCBO because they wouldn't tell me this) that the wine did not exceed the federal standard for this compound and it was the LCBO's own even stricter standard that we didn't meet.

Nice to see them being their usual transparent helpful selves...

So, what you are allowed to import for sale differs from province to province. Does the LCBO's control just cover selling of alcohol products or does it also cover ownership? For instance, if I brought in a bottle of wine from, say Alberta, for my own consumption which would not meet the LCBO's tests, would I in some way be liable? Obviously, the chances of me actually getting caught in such an instance are negligible, as doing spot checks of my home for such things contravenes human rights legislation which Canada has signed on to at the federal level, but I do think that it is frankly ludicrous to have provincial controls on this sort of thing at all. Canada is one Country without internal border controls (and I am not in favour of changing this BTW), so what is and is not allowed should really be dealt with entirely at the federal level. All IMHO, naturally.

As a result, we did finally get an exemption.

You overturned an LCBO ruling? I am astonished.

I imagine that they have since tightened up any ridiculous loopholes that allow something as absurd as questioning their infinite wisdom.

The most common problem I had is with ethyl carbamate levels...don't ask me what they are and what they do because most countries in the world do not even test wines for this substance and it commonly occurs in wine...

I believe that ethyl carbamate occurs in all fermented products (not just wines) as a side effect of the process. In *extremely* high doses it is a carcinogen, I believe. Though, my understanding is that the health risk from its levels in wines, beers, etc is pretty negligible, which is why most regions do not bother to test for it.

Mind you, I am not up to date on any recent studies in determining links between drinking wine and developing cancers. And who knows? Perhaps in a few decades it will transpire that the wine industry has conducted confidential studies of their own, discovered all manner of wine-related health risks and then sat on the information for centuries, using their influence to prevent independent studies being carried out, in much the same way that the tobacco industry has done.

thank God the LCBO is protecting us from this as it is probably what is making most Californians and Europeans go insane since they don't test for it.

Too late for me then.

Rubaiyat · Post by **Rubaiyat** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 2:35 pm

you're right about ethyl carbamate (urethane), yes, it occurs with fermentation. the most difficult things to keep it under control with are old barrel aged bourbons, sherries (i.e. fermented products that are then heated, baked, distilled) and so forth - with which we have had trouble with the LCBO lab in the past -- but always resolved.

yes, indeed, urethane causes cancer in lab animals altough the effect on humans is still unclear (at ppb levels i'm sure ...).

this time around though - we DID just have a small TINY order of blanche des honnelles DESTROYED (no choice) due to slightly elevated levels of ethyl carbamate. what is ludicrous is that these levels would have been within acceptable limits had the beer itself been a few degrees higher in alcohol (because, so big brother thinks, one would consume less in this case ... !?) but, as the alchol level was fairly low -- the ethyl carbamate level was too high, relatively speaking. of course we're still talking parts per BILLION ...

so ... off to be destroyed it went -- at OUR expense.

so no blanche des honnelles in ontario for now.

boo hoo

paul

[ This Message was edited by: Rubaiyat on 2003-12-03 14:39 ]

borderline_alcoholic · Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:47 pm

On 2003-12-03 14:35, Rubaiyat wrote:
yes, indeed, urethane causes cancer in lab animals altough the effect on humans is still unclear

Yes, that is true, but currently it is generally inferred (rightly or wrongly) that *ludicrous* quantities of the stuff would probably have similar effects on humans.

We could test this, but it would be considered unethical.

(at ppb levels i'm sure ...).

Absolutely. The LCBO obviously errs on the side of caution to 1 part in billions too. I am sometimes amazed that they allow the sale of anything...

this time around though - we DID just have a small TINY order of blanche des honnelles DESTROYED (no choice) due to slightly elevated levels of ethyl carbamate. what is ludicrous is that these levels would have been within acceptable limits had the beer itself been a few degrees higher in alcohol (because, so big brother thinks, one would consume less in this case ... !?)

Ah, there you go trying to rationalise the thinking of our favourite quango. It'll just drive you crazy.

I suppose that you could create some kind of Blanche des Honnelles hybrid by topping it up with pure ethanol until you reached the required alcohol:ethyl carbamante golden ratio for it to pass.

I'd be up for risking some.

so ... off to be destroyed it went -- at OUR expense.

I would have destroyed it for you for free. Indeed, I could even be persuaded to pay you for my services in this capacity.

A shame, as I have a lot of time for Blanche des Honnelles. Will you be trying again with it or just cutting your losses and going with something else?

[ This Message was edited by: borderline_alcoholic on 2003-12-03 15:54 ]

Rob Creighton · Post by **Rob Creighton** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:50 pm

On 2003-12-03 09:50, borderline_alcoholic wrote:
"Canada is one Country without internal border controls (and I am not in favour of changing this BTW)"

I am assumming you say this in jest or alternately have just arrived in Canada.

It was the mid-eighties when I came to the realization that we could ship beer (Upper Canada at the time) to anywhere in the world except the other provinces of Canada. In the 18 years since, the inter provincial trade barriers have barely changed. Prohibition and protestantism (sp?) have truly provided us with a long lasting twisted selection of laws that we pay bureaucrats billions to maintain yearly. Beer provides me with the sanity to deal with or ignore this on-going stupidity.

borderline_alcoholic · Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:01 pm

On 2003-12-03 15:50, Rob Creighton wrote:
On 2003-12-03 09:50, borderline_alcoholic wrote:
"Canada is one Country without internal border controls (and I am not in favour of changing this BTW)"

I am assumming you say this in jest or alternately have just arrived in Canada.

I am indeed a recent arrival, but I do know what you are saying. I have mentioned on here before that the lack of free trade across Canada is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen. Especially given that Canada has signed on to NAFTA...

What I actually meant was that there are no customs stops between provinces AFAIK, so there is in effect nothing stopping me from transporting alcohol from one province to another myself. Of late, I have noticed that many of the Whiskies which I like appear to be around 50% cheaper in Alberta (almost certainly a provincial taxation issue) and I am pondering making use of this in the future to, essentially, finance a holiday...

It was the mid-eighties when I came to the realization that we could ship beer (Upper Canada at the time) to anywhere in the world except the other provinces of Canada. In the 18 years since, the inter provincial trade barriers have barely changed. Prohibition and protestantism (sp?) have truly provided us with a long lasting twisted selection of laws that we pay bureaucrats billions to maintain yearly. Beer provides me with the sanity to deal with or ignore this on-going stupidity.

Yes, I completely agree with you. It is insane and should be stopped immediately. It is however, a separate issue to what I was talking about in my post.

And FWIW, it is very hard to revoke laws once passed. Which is why I am also somewhat disturbed by how keen the various governments within Canada seem to be to pass legislation on every single issue, whether it is needed or not. Pointless legislation and added bureaucracy are not exactly desirable.

[ This Message was edited by: borderline_alcoholic on 2003-12-03 16:10 ]

borderline_alcoholic · Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:04 pm

It was the mid-eighties when I came to the realization that we could ship beer (Upper Canada at the time) to anywhere in the world except the other provinces of Canada.

Ah, this could actually be news to me. Are you saying that I could not post beer from myself to another private individual in a different province for their own personal consumption and with no commercial application?

If so, things are worse than I thought.

Rob Creighton · Post by **Rob Creighton** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:26 pm

I couldn't respond to a person-to-person situation because I have done it before and never asked whether I was breaking any archaic law but I'm sure there would be something there originally sponsered by a local temperance union.

On a commercial level, it is the cause of all the breweries that were located in each province in order to be able to sell there. The growth of Sleeman's reflects why they purchased the small Quebec micro, Nova Scotia micro, Alberta micro and B.C. micro. It wasn't because they had interest in any of the brands, that's for sure.

borderline_alcoholic · Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:03 pm

Thanks for the quick response Rob. I wonder if anyone on this board does know the actual legal situation there.

Also, thanks for the brief history of the rise of the Sleeman empire / beast. That is also new information to me. So, you would need to own a small fully-licensed company in each of the territories you wish to sell to? Interesting.

I do wish that Canada would reform and modernise some of this archaic nonsense out of existence, streamline its system to remove wasteful bureaucracy (of which there seems to be a staggering amount compared to other Western Countries) and open itself up more. (Of course, such a move would put a lot of existing bureaucrats out of jobs, but I am sure that the more cunning among them could find all manner of new bureaucratic drivel to implement within the new "streamlined" vision to maintain their gravy trains for a long time to come.)

dhurtubise · Post by **dhurtubise** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:18 pm

That is a crying shame. Blanche de Honnelle from Abey de Roc is probably the best wit I have ever had. I wish I could be the destroyer of those urathane laden beers. Please bring some back in.

Daniel.