Why Oskar Blues trashed Glass + said “Yes we Can.” ~ Katie Feldhaus

Via on May 13, 2010

Pale ale

Believe It or Not, Beer in a Can Tastes Just as Good.

Tastes Great v Less Filling? That’s so 80s. The rivalry in Beerland is glass v. can. Which is better? We elephants say: neither. For the smallest carbon karma, order your beer local—and order it on tap. ~ed.

Longmont, Colorado’s Oskar Blues Brewery was the first U.S. micro-brewery to brew and can its own beer.

The brewery has been serving beer in cans since 2002 for three reasons: beer quality (surprisingly), portability and environmental integrity.

Why is an aluminum can better?

The aluminum can’s inside coating is 100% recyclable and keeps the beer fresh, away from sunlight and oxygen (the two main factors that negatively effect the quality of the beer).

The portability is perfect for those of us with active lifestyles (being able to have a beer in hand when boating or hiking makes life outdoors that much better). A can rather than a bottle is much more portable and accessible (you know, no broken glass in streams, beaches, on trails).

When it comes to our environment, a bottle can’t compete: lightweight aluminum can reduce fuel costs of shipping by 35%, greatly cutting down our carbon footprint. The aluminum can is also the most valuable beverage container that can be recycled and it costs less to make a beer can out of recycled cans than out of new aluminum. Forty percent of beer cans are made from recycled cans, while only about 20 to 30% of glass is recycled into glass bottles.

Many of us micro-brew drinking beer snobs believe that beer in a can just doesn’t taste as good. But Oskar Blues’ many honors and awards prove that this is a myth.

~

The ultimate asnwer to the beer vs. can question? Neither. For the least environmental impact, order your beer local, and order it on tap.

About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive. Questions? info elephantjournal com

4,105 views

10 Responses to “Why Oskar Blues trashed Glass + said “Yes we Can.” ~ Katie Feldhaus”

  1. Nathan Smith smithnd says:

    Wow- good to know. Drink beer from a can to save the environment! This sounds like something that might just catch on… Now if only my favorite local microbrews would be offered in cans.

  2. Except that aluminum cans are coated in BPA, so every time you drink from one you are poisoning yourself, and what doesn't get absorbed into your body gets eliminated and ends up polluting our environment. That's not environmentally friendly.

  3. Rick Gilbert says:

    …and, for the record, I'm not belittling or denying the health risks associated with BPA exposures, especially in developing children. It's just good to have one's ducks in a row with assertions like bioaccumulation. BPA can be a lot of bad things, but I'm not sure bioaccumulation is one of them.

  4. There are more articles than I can link to. Do a google search and you'll find an abundance of articles and research.

  5. Rick Gilbert says:

    really, not even one? I still maintain that BPA is NOT bioaccumulative–I did a google search and found nothing about it being bioaccumulative. it may be harmful, but arguments lose credibility when they aren't backed up by facts.

  6. Steve Vegas says:

    Certainly not as thourough or convincing as some marketing copy from a beer website, but there does seem to be just a bit of evidence that BPA might just possibly bioaccumulate in plants, water, and humans. I'm sure "not enough" to damage beer drinkers, but perhaps enough to be of concern.

    Phytotoxic, clastogenic and bioaccumulation effects of the environmental endocrine disruptor bisphenol A in various crops grown hydroponically
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4n2205757q17

    "Further, the presence of BPA measured in roots and shoots of broad bean and tomato after 21-day growth indicated that bioaccumulation of BPA had occurred."

    Bisphenol A, Chapter 2: New Data Shed Light on Exposure, Potential Bioaccumulation
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC26858

    The findings are consistent with two possible explanations—first, that BPA exposure occurs through means other than food, and second, that BPA accumulates in body fat, from which it is gradually released over time.
    http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/arti

    BPA is not Easily Detectable in Water, People

    In humans, this chemical can lead to diseases such as breast cancer and thyroid dysfunction. BPA present in industrial effluents, waste water and landfills pollutes the land, groundwater and surface water. This leads to toxic uptake in agricultural products and bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. Hence, measurable quantities of BPA should theoretically be found in affected rivers and organisms.

    However, experimental findings indicated that BPA is undetectable due to two primary reasons. The first is the concentration of BPA in the samples is lower than the detectable limit of approximately 0.001ug/L. Secondly, in environmental samples, BPA has a relatively fast rate of degradation. Waste water plants are able to remove about 95% of the original BPA. Therefore, BPA is undetectable in environment and its bioaccumulation is not obvious.

  7. Steve Vegas says:

    why do we have to be careful about saying it bioaccumulates? are we submitting to a peer reviewed journal? how is mining for bauxite good for the environment? the only "proof" you provide that BPA doesn't bioaccumulate is a link from a beer company selling aluminum cans. please provide some facts to back your assertion that aluminum is better for the environment than glass. please provide scientific proof for your argument that BPA doesn't bioaccumulate – the ewg article quotes the american chemistry council, please prove to me that this interest group is totally unbiased and 100% positive that BPA isn't bioaccumulative based on rigorous and irrefutable scientific fact.

Leave a Reply