Jump to content

Carling admits it's lager is weaker than advertised


Recommended Posts

Just reading the actual decision and it appears taste tests were done and Carling consumers actually preferred the taste of the weaker brew.

 

"However, we note that this did not

contravene the statutory labelling requirements (see above) which provide for a +/-

0.5% ABV labelling tolerance and that MCBC was careful not to alienate consumers

who, taste tests indicated, preferred the beer with the lower ABV."

 

'Yeah, I like sample B.'

 

'Why?'

 

'Tastes more like sparkling water.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never tasted "rats urine" (sic).

Earlier today I was drinking an 11% stout.

And you, pal, are seriously at the wind up ya cheeky monkey!

I'm sorry you felt sic of carling. You have me intriguing about this 11% stouts. I'm german so I'm probably a cheeky chip monk lost in transit :|

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2017 at 22:24 ----------

 

and hes crap at it too

 

I'm a tolerant person and never inbune nobody. You however never start a sentence with a capital. Are you silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Carling, it's an okay session drink, but then again I'm not a hipster beer snob.

 

Reading the article I think Coors have just been quite clever, reading between the lines they say if they tell the tax man they brew at 3.7% they pay less tax but they're allowed a 0.5% buffer either way. That suggests to me it's a tax avoidance plan, brew at 3.7% with a .5% buffer means you can still achieve 4% but pay less tax. It's a loophole in my opinion and quite clever of the brewer.

 

If they brew at 4% they pay more tax if they "brew at 3.7%" with a .5% tolerance they can still achieve 4% and pay less tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind Carling, it's an okay session drink, but then again I'm not a hipster beer snob.

 

Reading the article I think Coors have just been quite clever, reading between the lines they say if they tell the tax man they brew at 3.7% they pay less tax but they're allowed a 0.5% buffer either way. That suggests to me it's a tax avoidance plan, brew at 3.7% with a .5% buffer means you can still achieve 4% but pay less tax. It's a loophole in my opinion and quite clever of the brewer.

 

If they brew at 4% they pay more tax if they "brew at 3.7%" with a .5% tolerance they can still achieve 4% and pay less tax.

 

Yep, it's exploring a loophole in taxation and packaging laws

 

Not many drinkers will now there is such a variance in the strength of their regular brew, and will accept the strength stated on the product.

 

Needless to say a big commercial brewer is going to fairly precisely control their ABV. If lowering the tax bill depends on it they won't mess it up.

 

Maybe packaging laws should be changed to state the variance of the brew, or variances at a particular brewery. Say from the previous year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would you drink carling anyway?? i love hearing some people say oh i had 10 pints of carling last night lol, yes and??? try that with stella, Peroni or similar.

 

Well you've sort of made the point for me, if you're out on a session you might drink Carling because as you say if you drink ten pints of Stella you might find yourself in a gutter covered in your own vomit where as if you're drinking Carling you'll end up safely tucked up in bed at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.