Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#41

Post by icebraining »

MrLeftHand wrote: post #12

I hope they are OK with dead animals being used to fuel their cars, made into plastics to pack their stuff, producing the electricity to power their house and all the stuff in it. Never heard people being offended by killing plants for food, cutting trees grinding them into paper or just to have it as a decoration for holidays. I do agree, if it's only for aesthetics we could actually leave it out and not kill someth…

What hypocrisy? Many vegans object to killing animals but not the use of remains of already dead ones.

Use of isinglass requires killing new fish to extract their swim bladders. Meanwhile, nobody is killing animals to turn them into oil.

Besides, it'd only be hypocrisy if they're judging others. Simply saying "I'd like my beer free from fish bladders" isn't, even if you think the reason is ridiculous.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#42

Post by throwanem »

talldan wrote: post #27
thaumasiotes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handful > 2: a small quantity or number handful of people> How can a person fit into a hand? Alternatively, when were you given the power to decide what words should mean in a language you claim not to be familiar with?

Am I not allowed to criticise language usage? I'm making two points, it's a poor choice of word, as it is conceptually poor, even bordering on nonsense. It's also clearly the wrong word as evidenced by the long list I provided.

You are allowed to criticize language usage. Others are allowed to point out that you do so in a rather silly fashion.

English, like almost any natural language, is rich in metaphor. If that's not your cup of tea, fine. But it's probably worth learning to roll with the punches, just the same. Is this really the hill you want to die on?

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#43

Post by dagw »

Retric wrote: post #37
dagw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a quote from 1760[1]: “I well remember for many years it was not expected, nor was it thought possible [for porter] to be made fine and bright, and four and five months was deemed to be sufficient age for it to be drunk at. The improvement of transparency has since been added to it by means of more and better workmanship, better malt, better hops and the use of isinglass.” [1] http://tempestinatankard.com/2013…

It goes back to 1722 which is very recent in beer terms. People where making beer 5,000 years ago.

Where did you get the 1722 number from? I've never found a good source on when the process started?

But still when people are talking about the beginning of "modern manufacture of crappy commercial beers" I think it's safe to assume that they are at the very least talking about brewing after the discovery of the role of yeast in brewing and the control that that offered to the process, which is still 100 years after the quote I gave was made.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#44

Post by talldan »

throwanem wrote: post #42
talldan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I not allowed to criticise language usage? I'm making two points, it's a poor choice of word, as it is conceptually poor, even bordering on nonsense. It's also clearly the wrong word as evidenced by the long list I provided.

You are allowed to criticize language usage. Others are allowed to point out that you do so in a rather silly fashion. English, like almost any natural language, is rich in metaphor. If that's not your cup of tea, fine. But it's probably worth learning to roll with the punches, just the same. Is this really the hill you want to die on?

If I said "a handful of breweries" to you, how many would you take that to mean? Words like these can skew meaning greatly, and are inaccurate. I'm criticising because it wouldn't take much effort to indicate with more skill exactly what the state of things is. It's a careless use of words, in my opinion, which I don't expect from a writer of a factual news article. I'd be ok with it in casual usage.

It's also a shame that you and the other poster are focussing on this rather than the fact that the statement is plainly wrong. There are clearly more than a 'few' veggie-friendly brewers.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#45

Post by DanBC »

talldan wrote: post #22
Nursie wrote: post #4

The skewed view given in the article is hilarious. "Nobody really wants to advertise that they filter their beer through dead fish" Well that would be because they don't. Isinglass has a long history of use in beer and wine, and is a refined collagen. If you don't want animal products in beer, awesome, go for it. The slightly hysterical language is unnecessary though. -- edit -- Another technique sometimes used is to…

Some of the language in the article is a bit strange: "Its stance means Marble is one of a handful of breweries to be approved by the Vegetarian Society, something that's earned it a loyal following." 'Handful' is completely meaningless in this context. How can a brewery fit into a hand? The actual list is also quite long and by no means exhaustive: http://www.vegsocapproved.com/ProductCategory/Details/126?pa... Espe…

You link to a list of all the approved beers, not the approved breweries. Each brewery is responsible for multiple beers.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#46

Post by MrLeftHand »

icebraining wrote: post #41
MrLeftHand wrote: post #12

I hope they are OK with dead animals being used to fuel their cars, made into plastics to pack their stuff, producing the electricity to power their house and all the stuff in it. Never heard people being offended by killing plants for food, cutting trees grinding them into paper or just to have it as a decoration for holidays. I do agree, if it's only for aesthetics we could actually leave it out and not kill someth…

What hypocrisy? Many vegans object to killing animals but not the use of remains of already dead ones. Use of isinglass requires killing new fish to extract their swim bladders. Meanwhile, nobody is killing animals to turn them into oil. Besides, it'd only be hypocrisy if they're judging others. Simply saying "I'd like my beer free from fish bladders" isn't, even if you think the reason is ridiculous.

First of all it's free from fish bladders, because you're not consuming that. That fish might have been killed to end up on the plate of non-vegans. So the fish was already killed for other reasons in the first place. And following this thought, then vegans can go and wear clothes made out of skin. Cows, pigs, sheep aren't killed for their skin in the first place. It's just a byproduct that is used.

The hypocrisy lies in the valuing lives of certain beings over others.

Or when vegans have carnivorous animals as pets. Feeding them with canned guts and other leftover parts of animals. And whining about fish bladders in beer.

I will state that from an energetic standpoint it would be great, if the whole world would go vegan. I have no objections.

But I don't like people going mental on fish bladder whilst they are still polluting the environment as the others and have to have a rage fit about literally everything.

Oh and lastly, we don't have to drink beer. Alcohol was needed when humanity didn't have clean water and we needed alcohol to disinfect it. Now we have all the water we want. From the tap, or bottled.

You are not required to drink alcohol, at all.

Oh and why aren't they considering the huge impact we have on the environment just by growing crops for beer. A social, useless beverage. Like the fish are the only ones who suffer cause of this.

All and all, I'm fine removing fish bladders from the filtering process, but wont get a hissy fit if they continue to use it.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#47

Post by Nursie »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #13
Nursie wrote: post #4

The skewed view given in the article is hilarious. "Nobody really wants to advertise that they filter their beer through dead fish" Well that would be because they don't. Isinglass has a long history of use in beer and wine, and is a refined collagen. If you don't want animal products in beer, awesome, go for it. The slightly hysterical language is unnecessary though. -- edit -- Another technique sometimes used is to…

> Vegetarians do need to be careful with beer. Vegetarians may wish to be careful with beer. Some vegetarians aren't ideological/religious about it, and some that are draw lines in different places.

Quite right, people are vegetarian for a variety of reasons, and draw the line in different place!

It's worth noting that good results can be achieved with proper temperature control and irish moss, isinglass is not always needed. Also many/most keg beers are filtered rather than fined.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#48

Post by colinramsay »

talldan wrote: post #26
colinramsay wrote: post #2

In the UK there's a definite sentiment that a cloudy pint is a bad or off pint. I've seen a few breweries that specifically label their beer as "unfined" to make sure people know what to expect. I do find the slight distaste of fish bladders in this article a bit baffling though.

Not sure I agree with that. There's the same attitude pretty much everywhere, its not any more prevalent in the UK. Lager the whole world over has the same sort of clarity. In fact, the UK has a stronger craft beer and real ale scene than many other countries, so I'd say there are a lot of people here willing to drink a cloudy glass. It's much more likely that the continued use of Isinglass is due to tradition, and n…

Oh I wasn't saying it was necessarily more prevalent, just that it's something that I've seen in person.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#49

Post by throwanem »

talldan wrote: post #44
throwanem wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are allowed to criticize language usage. Others are allowed to point out that you do so in a rather silly fashion. English, like almost any natural language, is rich in metaphor. If that's not your cup of tea, fine. But it's probably worth learning to roll with the punches, just the same. Is this really the hill you want to die on?

If I said "a handful of breweries" to you, how many would you take that to mean? Words like these can skew meaning greatly, and are inaccurate. I'm criticising because it wouldn't take much effort to indicate with more skill exactly what the state of things is. It's a careless use of words, in my opinion, which I don't expect from a writer of a factual news article. I'd be ok with it in casual usage. It's also a sham…

Perhaps your claim of fact is being ignored due to its highly dubious nature. That's a list of beers, not of brewers, and even on the first page we see multiple products from a single brewery in a few different cases. The list also appears to be somewhere between 126 and 150 items in length, unless they're making that annoying pagination mistake where you don't give any clue to the true length.

So what you've cited in support of your argument in fact militates pretty strongly against it, because a hundred or so breweries isn't a very large subset of all those in the UK - according to CAMRA, that's a total of 1424, which puts the fraction on your list somewhere around seven percent. That's a little strong for my taste, but still a good beer. It is also, one might dare say, a relative handful.

Re: The fishy ingredient in beer that bothers vegetarians

#50

Post by icebraining »

MrLeftHand wrote: post #46
icebraining wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hypocrisy? Many vegans object to killing animals but not the use of remains of already dead ones. Use of isinglass requires killing new fish to extract their swim bladders. Meanwhile, nobody is killing animals to turn them into oil. Besides, it'd only be hypocrisy if they're judging others. Simply saying "I'd like my beer free from fish bladders" isn't, even if you think the reason is ridiculous.

First of all it's free from fish bladders, because you're not consuming that. That fish might have been killed to end up on the plate of non-vegans. So the fish was already killed for other reasons in the first place. And following this thought, then vegans can go and wear clothes made out of skin. Cows, pigs, sheep aren't killed for their skin in the first place. It's just a byproduct that is used. The hypocrisy lie…

It seems you're reading a different article, since I see nobody "going mental" on the one posted, hence there's no point in discussing further.
Post reply on HN