I have a better one for you: what if Budweiser themselves used AI to create the label, and it's actually a real photo? What if we have entered an age of... Whatever that horror is
Edit: I looked up the can design and it's sold in different regions with the same design with the top text being replaced with whatever regional language is expected.
As someone who took French for 6yrs, I don't think R^2^]R is French... nor is a bunch of the text that appears like multiple characters written over each other.
Like other commenter said, its more a general vibe.
Its the blocky graphic on either side with smaller text labeled modern squared off graphics in the middle. Its the font. Its the spacing. Its got the same general flow of the dozens of AI generated websites I've seen.
The "emphasis whiskers" around "it's" in the top, middle are a dead giveaway. Plus I've seen multiple AI generated posters with this exact color/font scheme. You're gonna keep seeing it over and over now that you know what to look for, unfortunately.
I also think it's AI. It's not something in particular I can point out that makes me think that, it's more an impression. An impression that comes from having seen a ton of slop.
The style of the text is a big giveaway to me. Generated text has gotten a lot better (ie usually legible), but it's pretty much always that same block letters that aren't quite perfect enough to be a typeface, but also not designed well enough to be made by hand.
I can pick that same "general vibe" very well with video but I think I'm yet to acquire that instant read on still images (of graphic design as opposed to realistic scenes). Only one of three, the one on the right, seemed at all obvious to me.
I'm having trouble telling if the poster is AI slop or the entire picture is.
The box of Budweiser looks 99% fine to me (bear in mind, I'm not American so I don't know if that's what it looks like), but the text on the close edge of the top side of the box looks weird to me. Buuut it could also just be compression artifacts.
This shit should be illegal zero alcohol or not we should not allow advertisement of beer to children. Where the fuck protect the children groups on this shit?
There used to be candy that looked like cigarettes and soft drinks made to look like a champagne bottles, and at some point we decided that was not a good idea.
I drink and I smoke, but I also think it's not a good idea to get children used to those things. You can drink responsibly but there's no quantity of alcohol that does zero damage, and the less we get young people used to them the better.
I drink and I smoke, but I also think it's not a good idea to get children used to those things.
Unfortunately, there isn't a "one size fits all solution". When I was a kid, I had the candy cigarettes, champagne bottles, cap-guns to play " cops and robbers", and bb-guns to "shoot things" (trash usually)
As an adult, I don't smoke, I'll have a beer once a month or less, and I haven't robbed any banks nor go hunting. Mainly because, as an adult, I'm not interested in those things.
However, as a child, these were tools to pretend and often pretending involves replicating your environment. I definitely grew-up in a rural area, but on (80-90s) television when everyone is smoking and drinking, your relatives smoke and drink - it's normalized.
I would argue that the social shift towards no smoking and less drinking for adults, has a greater affect on children than a ban on stick shaped candy in a box.
(Now marketing vaping to young people with addictive "fun" chemical flavoring: that is evil and should be banned)
I'm pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It's absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they're ready to try it, in safe settings.
So, there are these things called candy cigarettes. They are candy shaped like cigarettes. Despite simply being things like bubble gum or chocolate, it turns out that people who ate them as kids are about twice as likely to smoke real cigarettes as adults. This has resulted in them being banned as advertising tobacco products to children in a good number of countries. This add for nonalcoholic beer specifically saying that minors can buy it can easily be argued to be the same kind of thing, with the same kind of legal response. If consuming non-alcoholic beer as a minor results in significantly higher rates of alcohol consumption as an adult, then ads for non-alcoholic beer that target children, like the one shown, might be worth a ban.
I was under the impression that "alkoholfrei" / "alcohol free" could be up to 0.5%, whereas 0.0% really needed to be without any alcohol. Your link is only about the first case, if I read it correctly. They do state though that "without alcohol" should really be without.
Edit: further research seems to indicate that it is unfortunately not quite clear and you are correct: ". Sobald der vorhandene
Alkoholgehalt mindestens 0,05 Volumenprozent beträgt, ist die Angabe „alkoholfrei“ um die Angabe „(< 0,5 %
vol)“ zu ergänzen." - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/weinv_1995/WeinV_1995.pdf
-> only once you exceed 0.05% do you need to declare <0.5%
Very disappointing indeed. Why not have them call it <0.5% and <0.05% and have the customer take an informed decision?
Of course because the industry then says: "Dear government this is too hard, let us deceive the customers 🥺"
There's no deception: <0.05 rounds to the two significant digits 0.0 (0.050001 would round to 0.1)
It's impossible to have absolutely no alcohol in something that had sugar and living micro-organisms in it at any point: e.g. fruits and therefore juice have alcohol.
That why you don't need to label anything with less than 1.2% alcohol. You can only be sure that something has less when it says 0.0% or „alkoholfrei“.
So 19yr olds shouldn't be advertised to? What's the cut off?
I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.
But lacking that, I don't see an issue with advertising universally. And if we're going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. "Teenagers" includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.
Honestly, you're right, but the issue is deeper than that. Ads like this indoctrinate people that aren't even children - this includes teenagers past 13 and even adults of varying stages.
Advertising harmful drugs shouldnt be done at all - but in the meantime, teenagers and even young adults should be except. Also the killing part is a totally different issue.
Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at "Children" by nature of using the term "Under Age." I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.
What does you being German have anything to do with it?
Completely ignoring that no, being able to legally advertise it as 0% doesn't mean it has 0%, in Germany non-alcoholic beer is still beer and doesn't get advertised to children. That would be fucking insane to do.
Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.
Absolute fringe opinion even in Germany. Most shops and bars refuse to serve 0.0 to teens below legal drinking age (which already is ridiculously low), ads also don't target them.
Yeah exactly: this is a thread where I said that kids drinking non-alcoholic beer is fine. What you just said agrees with me here, so I'm glad I made my point.
Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you "Under age" until you're 21. So you're complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally "Anybody under the age of 21." Which is an unfair complaint to make.
Because using that same logic, "under age" porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.
I hear you say "But there are different ages for X and Y." Yeah, but it's the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond "Uh... Here's the cut-off I guess?"
Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that's technically "Under Age Beer!" And they'd be considered full adults here in Germany.
Sure, I'm not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting "Children," by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase "Under Age," which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.
Here in Estonia you have to be 18 to buy alcohol free beer and wine. The idea being "hey maybe let's not get kids used to the flavour of drinks that are bad for them to be consuming even once they ARE 18"
Why? Because it is also ~0%sugar? Ban ads for coke instead.
Edit: know a lot of people saying that 0%beer tastes not the same (what I can agree on) and thats why they do not drink alc free beer.
Could imagine the effect works also the other way round.
If this store is in the US they are stupid for making this sign and they can get in quite a bit of trouble for this with ABC. NA beer is still 21 and over, its not "beer for kids"
Usually you'd start that joke with 'what do x and y have in common...'
Starting with what's the difference works when there's a difference. Like this, 'What's the difference between a woman in a confessional and a woman in a bathtub? One has hope in her soul.'
In my experience it’s because they’re drinking 18 of them and don’t want to be sloppy drunk after 10-12 hours. I prefer the more direct method of hard liquor to be more efficient but I get the thought process.
Maybe they're keeping a better balance of hydration to alcohol for their old brain, and not having a fruity or sweet taste but not boring plain water as well. Lite beer can occasionally be refreshing. Although personally I'd rather pour half a beer into a cup of ice than drink most light beers.
Ok, I did the digging on this because you asked. I actually just assumed because I was carded for NA beer that this was a law.
In the US, federally it is not illegal to sell less than 0.5% without carding. But many states treat NA beer the same as normal beer and they require the person be over 21. In the states that do not require 21 and over for NA beer many (most) stores and bars will still card because its better safe than sorry when it comes to ABC and losing your license.
So even tho it might be legal, you are probably still going to get carded, except at this place I guess.
But also I am struggling to understand why someone would choose to drink NA beer if they didn't already know what real beer was like and was trying to avoid it by getting the NA kind (like me). Like - NA beer costs the same as real beer, just buy literally anything else to drink and its cheaper.
Technically the drinking age isn't a national law at all. Setting the state law to alignment is a precondition for national highway funding. A state can set the age to whatever they want, but the federal government wouldn't give money for road maintenance.
As such, different states define a prohibited beverage in different ways. Some set the limit based on a set alcohol limit. Others based on intent or similarity, essentially so that they can prevent advertising alcohol^free^ beverages to kids and getting them in the habit at an impressionable age.
Most common is the abv limit based on what's typically found naturally in juices and such, with limited exceptions for religious ceremonies, parental supervision, or accidental ingestion and such. (Technically speaking, if you call 911 because your 3 year old stole a canned alcoholic beverage off the counter and drank a bunch before you noticed and you're scared, they would be required to also give you and the child legal penalties without that clause).
I saw a pregnant person drink a non alcoholic beer. I guess it's better than nothing? I could imagine a pregnant person craving a beer, but wanting to avoid alcohol.
I choose NA beer for that exact reason and its been a really big tool for me to keep my sobriety. It works for some and for others it doesn't but I am glad its available as an option for me. But had I never started drinking in the first place I would not like beer, so I am not sure why anyone would buy NA beer unless, like me, they are trying to scratch an itch that can't be scratched like it was before.
The real reason is you don't. Not in every state. Some defined it by a strict measurable standard. Others defined it to close off what's depicted in this image. Others defined it to describe what was banned as oppressed to what you measure, so that if you're selling beer you can't sell it to kids. No checking labels, no "well, it's my home brew so I don't know". Is it beer? You can't sell it to kids.
The last one is almost funny because you can almost feel the confusion about why the concept of non-alcoholic beer even exists.
Because it's beer. Generally the way laws are written in the us, they call out beer, wine, and spirits, or some such wording, not being available to under 21s.
Laws generally do not mention alcohol content of whatever it is you're buying.
Vice is difficult to regulate, and laws surrounding vice are imperfect
The same reason why vapes are considered "tobacco products" despite not containing any tobacco and considered "flavored" if they contain any flavor (or no flavor) besides "tobacco" flavor (which is actually just caramel flavoring since vape juice has no flavor by default). It's because politicians are stupid and short sighted and most of these regulations make little sense outside of government control.
The amount of adult stuff being deliberately pointed at children has increased quite a lot over even just the past couple years, because the corporations know that no one is going to come after them for it.
Hell, at my work, we replaced a court-ordered anti-smoking sign with a giant wall of cigarettes, so that we could make room for a bunch of new fruity flavors of nicotine pouches so that kids can become new addicts.
It's always been the goal to get children consuming products. It's a known function of humans that they usually stick to whatever they were doing when they were kids well into adulthood. It's harder to convince an adult with pre-established routines and preferred products to switch over.
You're right though that it's getting pretty blatant now, but that's to be expected as we dismantle food and drug regulations.
If you can die in an industrial accident at 14, you should be able to enjoy the great taste of beer after work - even if you still have to wait for the alcohol.
Not just the children - under age also includes teenagers and young adults in this case. Honestly, indoctrination has always been the case, since there is a push that drugs are harmful for all, why not indoctrinate the youngest of all: children. By the time they grow up to be teens they will be addicts.
I don't think there's many parents that would buy this for their kids. I grew up knowing friends parents would would just straight up buy you actual beer. But knowing them, if they saw this, I imagine them saying "Then what's the fucking point??? Pussyass bullshit!" While at the same time putting 2-24packs in the cart, and then saying "For you and your little friends when they get here."
Fruit juice naturally has around 0.5% alcohol. It's just a side effect of wet sugar.
There's no legal federal limit, it's all state law. Some states go by that 0.5%. others go by a definition that includes "things sold as beer" essentially.
"You are holding a container. It is labeled beer. Do not give it to anyone under 21.”
Other times stores just assume and card everyone because it's waaay easier than nuance and you're not legally required to sell non-alcoholic beverages to minors.
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a soda or something
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason.
Even the grocers (and even manufacturers) get it all messed up. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
Another counter example that disproves the misunderstanding is kombucha. Kombucha has naturally occurring alcohol, but it’s not classified as some other category. The legal categories are “Alcoholic beverage” Or “Not alcoholic beverage” and it’s less than 0.5% so it’s “not alcoholic beverage” and therefore is available for anyone to buy and has nutritional information on the container.
Similarly, NA “beer” should have the full nutritional information on the can and be sold to anyone. It just “feels” like it should be different somehow, and no one is updating or enforcing policies. You might notice that none of them actually say, “beer.”
Because people aren't making irrational claims yelling at companies who make juice. Eating a banana or drinking juices that are higher in glucose aren't going to hurt you in any measurable way that the sugar won't hurt you so drastically more.
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
0.5% it’s beer and subject to laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a soda or something
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category
But the grocers just do whatever. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
0.5% it’s beer and subject to laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a soda or something
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category
But the grocers just do whatever. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
The 0.0% on the poster must legally be without alcohol whatsoever. What you have in mind is a confusingly named non-alcoholic beer which goes under the official alcoholic beer radar.
I think it depends on where you're at. I've been taught to ID even for N/A beers (because usually when advertised as such, they are allowed something like 0.5% or less ABV). But also, what kid would enjoy the taste of beer? Even the stereotype that's how teens want to drink all the time, the lack of alcohol takes all of the fun out of that stereotype. As an adult, I only drink ciders and wines, which has kid versions of soda and grape juice.
I drank beer more often at 16 (which was the drinking age when I was growing up) than I do now. And I did it for the flavour. Though granted I had better choices than american "Budweiser".
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a food
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a food. But they don’t.
Counter example: kombucha has naturally occurring alcohol, but you don’t see anyone getting carded for it and you have the regular nutritional label on it.
What's this actually taste like? I figure it's basically what they added to bud light to make bud select if it wasn't just water. Bud light - 110 calories, 4.2% alc. Select - 55 calories 2.1% alcohol.
I remember looking at it when it came out and thinking they filled half the bottle with carbonated water and sold it for slightly more.
It's like McDonald's. It isn't haute cuisine but it's fine, as much as people feel better about themselves for looking down on it. People like judging other people.
I mean, most countries drink 3-5 (some 7) years before Americans. By 21, people have kind of gotten over it and having beers for weekend chats and hangs is just normal. Drinking with intent or excitement to drink doesn't exist without underlying mental issues.
This advertising wouldn't exist because it would be aimed at actual kids and teens. Whereas in the US you join the military, kill people for them, then after a few years of that, you've earned a beer with some alcohol in it.
Thats the thing about it, we're concentrating on the sake of children not teenagers - this is the easiest mass to essentially manipulate and indoctrinate. Even if the whole thing applies to teenagers aswell, the children have it the worst in this case due to biological factors and that some parents are in on it.
In an ideal world drugs shouldnt be advertised to Anyone: children, teenagers and adults alike.
Seems fake. It's also not legal AFAIK to sell non alcoholic beer to minors since it's still got some alcohol in it. Then again I guess vanilla extract and mouth wash does too.
There's a difference between non-alcoholic (or alcohol-free) and 0.0% alcohol (like it appears in the poster). The former allows for up to 0.5% ABV, while the latter means absolutely no alcohol whatsoever.
Still I don't think it's a good idea to get children used to the idea of drinking alcoholic beverages.
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a food
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason.
Even the grocers (and even manufacturers) get it all messed up. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a food
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a food. But they don’t.
Counter example: kombucha has naturally occurring alcohol, but you don’t see anyone getting carded for it and you have the regular nutritional label on it.
I don't know if this is a hot take or not but alcohol free beer is pointless. I don't believe anybody actually drinks beer for the taste because it objectively doesn't taste all that great, people like beer because of the association it has with having a good time with your friends, nobody drinks it as a refreshing beverage.
The fact that beer doesn't actually taste all that good is why people invented cocktails.
Not true at all. I love the taste of beer alone, AND in combination with certain foods. Not all beer of course, they make so many different kinds that it would be impossible to love them all.
I'm not going through the trouble and expense of cooking a steak if there isn't going to be a beer accompanying it.
I actually like the taste of beer, especially the bitterness and a bit of fruity taste without being sweet.
And i am very glad that here in Germany there is a lot of analcoholic beer available, because very often i want the taste without the drug.
Still i agree with you that the memory of good times with beer makes it even better. I know a lot of people that don't like the taste so much. So probably i am the outlier here.
I've had one beer I thought tasted pretty good (a Sam Adam's Cherry Wheat lager). It tasted like cherries. Like a slightly carbonated cherry juice; not beer with a hint of cherry.
I've never seen it being sold anywhere since. :(
Pretty sure I just hate the taste of hops. I have no tolerance for bitter flavours. Really sucks when my dad or sister cook, because I can hella taste when they burn any garlic used in it as it becomes super bitter.
I was in a restaurant last week that had Milwaukee's Best N/A for sale. My brain turned off. It might be the worst beer I've ever tasted. The only reason we drank it was because we were trying to get a dozen teenagers as fucked up as possible for under $10.
Waitress said it was one of their best sellers. The Beast N/A. Fucking disgusting.
yeah I saw that on another post... and did look it up myself, in the US they can be sold, but legally they cannot include the word cigarette anywhere in the labeling or packaging, on amazon they do indeed put it in the title of the listing, which is against the law, but not particularly well enforced, the packages themselves though you can also see clearly they don't use the word cigarette for exactly that reason.
Because it's clear they want kids to start drinking budweiser young. It's marketing budweiser to minors, whether it has alcohol or not. And it's marketing alcohol ("it's BEER for under age") to youth... Beer by default has alcohol. This is marketing beer to literal children.
What do you think all that marketing does? Gets them drinking more budweiser as adults, and probably interested in alcohol while underage. Shady as fuck.
It's interesting because, in the US technically they aren't allowed to be labeled Cigarettes (in most countries they are outright illegal), Just did check amazon, and you can see the actual packaging just says "bubble gum", or "candy". Though I think the amazon listing using the word, may actually not be within the law.
I think these people haven't been aware of near-beer sales to kids going back over 60 years. Kids have been able to buy them here in Canada for longer than that, that is just the oldest person I have know to buy a 6pack of near-beer as a 5 year old kid.
222 Comments
Squatcher@piefed.social · 144 pts · 4d
Wow this is terrible and also cherry on top ai created sign 100%
daggermoon@piefed.world · 19 pts · 4d
What makes you think it's AI?
SayJess@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 96 pts · 4d
Look at the text on the beer can. It’s gibberish.
trem@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 48 pts · 4d
Someone's been a
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 4d
Lol it actually says "Badweiser". That's pretty funny.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 4d
Lol @ "it's Polish"
I have a better one for you: what if Budweiser themselves used AI to create the label, and it's actually a real photo? What if we have entered an age of... Whatever that horror is
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 4d
Why are you saying this?
It's gibberish.
kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com · 5 pts · 4d
i think they’re suggesting it’s a real photo of an ai generated print on a real can
daggermoon@piefed.world · -12 pts · 4d
It's fucking Polish.
Edit: I looked up the can design and it's sold in different regions with the same design with the top text being replaced with whatever regional language is expected.
Viceversa@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 4d
https://lemmy.world/comment/25250353
Does that look like Polish to you?
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus · 8 pts · 4d
The small text on the upper part of the can isn't polish, it's gibberish. They fixed up every other text, but that part they didn't touch up.
DahGangalang@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 4d
Can you pass a translation for me?
WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca · -28 pts · 4d
French is gibberish now? This was taken in Canada, you can tell by the bilingual packaging.
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 50 pts · 4d
Which part of this is French?
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 4d
No part of it is language at all. Its like latin letters got mixed with Devanagari.
100% AI slop
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 4d
I agree, but this is what I was responding to: https://lemmy.ca/comment/24773109
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2d
Yeah, sorry. I replied to the wrong comment. My reply was intended for @WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 4d
Damn, good eye
daggermoon@piefed.world · 4 pts · 4d
It looks Slavic to me.
recursivethinking@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
Polish uses the Latin alphabet. Other Slavic languages use Cyrillic. That is neither.
daggermoon@piefed.world · 1 pts · 3d
It looked Latin from a glance.
Edit: Slovene uses the Latin alphabet as well.
WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 13h
On the cans in the shelf not the Aisle Header. I thought they were claiming the whole image was AI Slop.
thejml@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 4d
As someone who took French for 6yrs, I don't think R^2^]R is French... nor is a bunch of the text that appears like multiple characters written over each other.
PlaidBaron@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
Im sorry, what? Nothing about this id bilingual.
untorquer@quokk.au · 1 pts · 4d
The label on the jack links has a bit of blurry French. And the Qualite on the right side of the can on the box
And the labels in general
PlaidBaron@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
Yeah but not the ad we are talking about.
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app · 1 pts · 4d
Sir, that's not any French I've ever seen, and I speak French... in Canada.
DahGangalang@infosec.pub · 29 pts · 4d
Like other commenter said, its more a general vibe.
Its the blocky graphic on either side with smaller text labeled modern squared off graphics in the middle. Its the font. Its the spacing. Its got the same general flow of the dozens of AI generated websites I've seen.
Its too cleanly unclean.
NathanDerWeise@feddit.org · 18 pts · 4d
The "emphasis whiskers" around "it's" in the top, middle are a dead giveaway. Plus I've seen multiple AI generated posters with this exact color/font scheme. You're gonna keep seeing it over and over now that you know what to look for, unfortunately.
RustySharp@programming.dev · 3 pts · 4d
I still don't understand the "whiskers". What dataset are they using to train? I've literally not seen them until the prevalence of genAI.
sidebro@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 4d
I also think it's AI. It's not something in particular I can point out that makes me think that, it's more an impression. An impression that comes from having seen a ton of slop.
GrilledCheese@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 12 pts · 4d
You’ve seen quite a few pixels in your time, you say?
aizakku@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 4d
Sir, it’s an older meme but it checks out.
ech@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 4d
The style of the text is a big giveaway to me. Generated text has gotten a lot better (ie usually legible), but it's pretty much always that same block letters that aren't quite perfect enough to be a typeface, but also not designed well enough to be made by hand.
The general format of this one is also fits closely to a lot of other generated posters I've seen (some examples: https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/2d35f3bf-bc05-4971-8c8d-9e69fe857bde.png). It's hard to describe, but hopefully you can see what we're talking about.
Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4d
I can pick that same "general vibe" very well with video but I think I'm yet to acquire that instant read on still images (of graphic design as opposed to realistic scenes). Only one of three, the one on the right, seemed at all obvious to me.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 4d
The meaningless feature section in the middle of the poster.
redwattlebird@thelemmy.club · 2 pts · 3d
It doesn't look like it was designed by hand. There's no meaning or sense of planning in the design.
frunch@lemmy.world · 80 pts · 4d
The AI slop used to generate the ad poster contained a nice suggestion for an alternative name for this crap:
ours@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 4d
It's evolving and recognizes shit beer.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 4d
Badweiser is accurate.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 3d
I'm having trouble telling if the poster is AI slop or the entire picture is.
The box of Budweiser looks 99% fine to me (bear in mind, I'm not American so I don't know if that's what it looks like), but the text on the close edge of the top side of the box looks weird to me. Buuut it could also just be compression artifacts.
ShortFuse@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Can and box are real and sold in Canada.
Poster is AI slop. Either added into the image or made by the store. Budweiser wouldn't be promoting Corona, a competitor.
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 4d
This shit should be illegal zero alcohol or not we should not allow advertisement of beer to children. Where the fuck protect the children groups on this shit?
protist@retrofed.com · 25 pts · 4d
The "protect the children" groups have federal cover now to actively harm children, which is what they always wanted to do anyway
osanna@lemmy.vg · 13 pts · 4d
Lmao. They don’t ACTUALLY give a fuck about children.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4d
German here. I'm absolutely flabbergasted that this incomprehensible opinion has 20 upvotes.
0% alcohol is 0% alcohol. What the fuck are you talking about?
thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de · 16 pts · 4d
There used to be candy that looked like cigarettes and soft drinks made to look like a champagne bottles, and at some point we decided that was not a good idea.
I drink and I smoke, but I also think it's not a good idea to get children used to those things. You can drink responsibly but there's no quantity of alcohol that does zero damage, and the less we get young people used to them the better.
LedgeDrop@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 4d
Unfortunately, there isn't a "one size fits all solution". When I was a kid, I had the candy cigarettes, champagne bottles, cap-guns to play " cops and robbers", and bb-guns to "shoot things" (trash usually)
As an adult, I don't smoke, I'll have a beer once a month or less, and I haven't robbed any banks nor go hunting. Mainly because, as an adult, I'm not interested in those things.
However, as a child, these were tools to pretend and often pretending involves replicating your environment. I definitely grew-up in a rural area, but on (80-90s) television when everyone is smoking and drinking, your relatives smoke and drink - it's normalized.
I would argue that the social shift towards no smoking and less drinking for adults, has a greater affect on children than a ban on stick shaped candy in a box.
(Now marketing vaping to young people with addictive "fun" chemical flavoring: that is evil and should be banned)
edit: fixed a couple of words
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 4d
I drink non-alcoholic beer because I like the flavor of beer.
There's also no non-alcoholic fruit juice, so you should be all for 0% beer, which has less alcohol than any carton of apple juice you can buy.
thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 4d
It's not really about the alcohol content per se.
The issue is getting young and impressionable children used to the idea of drinking beer.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 4d
I'm pretty sure young and impressionable children get used to the idea of drinking beer from friends and family. I think the bigger issue is that the drinking age is fucking 21. It's absolutely nonsense. If you want to protect children from alcohol abuse, talk to them, teach them, let them have alcohol when they're ready to try it, in safe settings.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 4d
Very much this.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 4d
So, there are these things called candy cigarettes. They are candy shaped like cigarettes. Despite simply being things like bubble gum or chocolate, it turns out that people who ate them as kids are about twice as likely to smoke real cigarettes as adults. This has resulted in them being banned as advertising tobacco products to children in a good number of countries. This add for nonalcoholic beer specifically saying that minors can buy it can easily be argued to be the same kind of thing, with the same kind of legal response. If consuming non-alcoholic beer as a minor results in significantly higher rates of alcohol consumption as an adult, then ads for non-alcoholic beer that target children, like the one shown, might be worth a ban.
MatSeFi@lemmy.liebeleu.de · -1 pts · 4d
Guess we have give it a different name than.. My proposal: Freer
baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 4d
I'm also German but nobody should advertise harmful drugs to children.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 4d
Yeah, and 0,0% beer in Germany can have up to 0,04999...% alcohol while unlabeled anything may have up to 1.2% (fruit juice often has like 0.3% or so)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkoholfrei
Mentando@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 4d
I was under the impression that "alkoholfrei" / "alcohol free" could be up to 0.5%, whereas 0.0% really needed to be without any alcohol. Your link is only about the first case, if I read it correctly. They do state though that "without alcohol" should really be without.
Edit: further research seems to indicate that it is unfortunately not quite clear and you are correct: ". Sobald der vorhandene Alkoholgehalt mindestens 0,05 Volumenprozent beträgt, ist die Angabe „alkoholfrei“ um die Angabe „(< 0,5 % vol)“ zu ergänzen." - https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/weinv_1995/WeinV_1995.pdf -> only once you exceed 0.05% do you need to declare <0.5%
Very disappointing indeed. Why not have them call it <0.5% and <0.05% and have the customer take an informed decision? Of course because the industry then says: "Dear government this is too hard, let us deceive the customers 🥺"
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 3d
There's no deception: <0.05 rounds to the two significant digits 0.0 (0.050001 would round to 0.1)
It's impossible to have absolutely no alcohol in something that had sugar and living micro-organisms in it at any point: e.g. fruits and therefore juice have alcohol.
That why you don't need to label anything with less than 1.2% alcohol. You can only be sure that something has less when it says 0.0% or „alkoholfrei“.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 2 pts · 4d
Agreed, but also including teenagers.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 4d
So 19yr olds shouldn't be advertised to? What's the cut off?
I actually fully agree that all advertisement is awful and support removing it entirely.
But lacking that, I don't see an issue with advertising universally. And if we're going to restrict advertisement to children, target actual children. "Teenagers" includes people legally old enough to join the military and kill other humans.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 1 pts · 4d
Honestly, you're right, but the issue is deeper than that. Ads like this indoctrinate people that aren't even children - this includes teenagers past 13 and even adults of varying stages.
Advertising harmful drugs shouldnt be done at all - but in the meantime, teenagers and even young adults should be except. Also the killing part is a totally different issue.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 4d
Sure, but the primary complaint was against a 0% alcohol beer targeted at "Children" by nature of using the term "Under Age." I have no complaints against wanting to remove advertising, in general, including drug advertisements.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 2 pts · 4d
Which consequently includes teenagers and young adults within it - which aren't children.
Vrtrx@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
What does you being German have anything to do with it? Completely ignoring that no, being able to legally advertise it as 0% doesn't mean it has 0%, in Germany non-alcoholic beer is still beer and doesn't get advertised to children. That would be fucking insane to do.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 4d
You're confusing „ohne Alkohol“/0.0% beer with „alkoholfrei“/“non-alcoholic” beer.
In Germany, drinks only have to be labeled as alcoholic from 1.2% upwards, so
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkoholfrei
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 4d
Except the US concept of underage also includes people 16 to 20, which this ad is undoubtedly target towards. If it was an ad for beer with bright colours and cartoon characters I would agree, but it is not.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
Absolute fringe opinion even in Germany. Most shops and bars refuse to serve 0.0 to teens below legal drinking age (which already is ridiculously low), ads also don't target them.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d
Hahaha what weird corner do you live in? Completely unbelievable in Bavaria.
Not saying that I like the drinking culture here, but you're not describing the reality here.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
yeah should have guessed it's Bavaria
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d
No, you should have guessed Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Hamburg, or Sachsen, which have higher per capita alcohol consumption than Bavaria.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
per capita alcohol consumption =/= drinking culture
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 3d
Yeah exactly: this is a thread where I said that kids drinking non-alcoholic beer is fine. What you just said agrees with me here, so I'm glad I made my point.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 4d
Below drinking age, sure. I think the nonsense here is that the US considers you "Under age" until you're 21. So you're complaining about an ad targeting children, when the target is literally "Anybody under the age of 21." Which is an unfair complaint to make.
Because using that same logic, "under age" porn is actually legal. Because at 18 you can get fucked in the ass by 3 dudes at once, but not buy a beer.
I hear you say "But there are different ages for X and Y." Yeah, but it's the exact same term used to mean the same idea with completely different ranges and neither has any justification beyond "Uh... Here's the cut-off I guess?"
Would you take issue with 18yr olds having beer ads aimed at them? Because that's technically "Under Age Beer!" And they'd be considered full adults here in Germany.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
Yes I take issue with alcohol ads aimed at anybody.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 4d
Sure, I'm not against that at all. I hate advertisements and would take no issue with a universal ban. My problem was with the arbitrary moral outrage at this advertisement targeting "Children," by virtue of the utterly meaningless phrase "Under Age," which includes actual, legitimate adults, in the US.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
It‘s pushing the boundaries with the emphasis (UNDER AGE) but I’m with you.
Fawkes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 3d
Only because the boundary has been set to include genuine adults. That boundary SHOULD be pushed.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 3d
Here in Estonia you have to be 18 to buy alcohol free beer and wine. The idea being "hey maybe let's not get kids used to the flavour of drinks that are bad for them to be consuming even once they ARE 18"
MatSeFi@lemmy.liebeleu.de · 4 pts · 4d
Why? Because it is also ~0%sugar? Ban ads for coke instead.
Edit: know a lot of people saying that 0%beer tastes not the same (what I can agree on) and thats why they do not drink alc free beer. Could imagine the effect works also the other way round.
TopsickPilgrim@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 4d
let's just ban all ads. That'd make me happy.
stopforgettingit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
If this store is in the US they are stupid for making this sign and they can get in quite a bit of trouble for this with ABC. NA beer is still 21 and over, its not "beer for kids"
blackberry28@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
This is very likely form the US where u need to be 21 to buy beer. So even a 20 year old would be a child to you? This is dumb af.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 39 pts · 4d
Wtf is the point??
Is someone out there drinking Budweiser....for the taste?
froh42@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 4d
Is there a difference between Budweiser and having sex in a canoe? Nope. Both are fucking close to water.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 4d
Usually you'd start that joke with 'what do x and y have in common...'
Starting with what's the difference works when there's a difference. Like this, 'What's the difference between a woman in a confessional and a woman in a bathtub? One has hope in her soul.'
froh42@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Thank you very much for the explanation. I would never have guessed. My mind is blown.
ech@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 4d
I have a parent who will only drink "lite" beer. I do not understand it. It takes like shitty water.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 4d
In my experience it’s because they’re drinking 18 of them and don’t want to be sloppy drunk after 10-12 hours. I prefer the more direct method of hard liquor to be more efficient but I get the thought process.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 4d
It's to beer what LaCroix is to fruit juice.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 4d
Maybe they're keeping a better balance of hydration to alcohol for their old brain, and not having a fruity or sweet taste but not boring plain water as well. Lite beer can occasionally be refreshing. Although personally I'd rather pour half a beer into a cup of ice than drink most light beers.
JAPHacake@feddit.uk · 35 pts · 4d
The sign is AI generated.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 4d
makes me question if Budweiser did this or if the store did
s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
Budweiser probably did it. In every grocery store I've seen, the beer vendors set up all the displays.
Flames5123@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
This is most likely in Canada. And it’s illegal to advertise like this in Canada too.
But the whole thing is probably AI generated.
stopforgettingit@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 4d
You still have to be 21 to buy NA beer. Even if its 0.0, the stores will get in trouble for not carding.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 10 pts · 4d
Why doe?
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 4d
Rates of alcohol use and addiction have been decreasing.
This is just getting them started early like cigarettes always tried to do.
stopforgettingit@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 4d
Ok, I did the digging on this because you asked. I actually just assumed because I was carded for NA beer that this was a law.
In the US, federally it is not illegal to sell less than 0.5% without carding. But many states treat NA beer the same as normal beer and they require the person be over 21. In the states that do not require 21 and over for NA beer many (most) stores and bars will still card because its better safe than sorry when it comes to ABC and losing your license.
So even tho it might be legal, you are probably still going to get carded, except at this place I guess.
But also I am struggling to understand why someone would choose to drink NA beer if they didn't already know what real beer was like and was trying to avoid it by getting the NA kind (like me). Like - NA beer costs the same as real beer, just buy literally anything else to drink and its cheaper.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 4d
Technically the drinking age isn't a national law at all. Setting the state law to alignment is a precondition for national highway funding. A state can set the age to whatever they want, but the federal government wouldn't give money for road maintenance.
As such, different states define a prohibited beverage in different ways. Some set the limit based on a set alcohol limit. Others based on intent or similarity, essentially so that they can prevent advertising alcohol^free^ beverages to kids and getting them in the habit at an impressionable age.
Most common is the abv limit based on what's typically found naturally in juices and such, with limited exceptions for religious ceremonies, parental supervision, or accidental ingestion and such. (Technically speaking, if you call 911 because your 3 year old stole a canned alcoholic beverage off the counter and drank a bunch before you noticed and you're scared, they would be required to also give you and the child legal penalties without that clause).
lemmygarden@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 3d
I saw a pregnant person drink a non alcoholic beer. I guess it's better than nothing? I could imagine a pregnant person craving a beer, but wanting to avoid alcohol.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 1 pts · 4d
That's very interesting. Okays very odd. You would think it would fall under the same as Soda but I guess NA beer is just very very low alcohol beer .
The only reason I can see someone choosing NA beer over real beer would be alcoholism but that seems to be playing with fire.
stopforgettingit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
I choose NA beer for that exact reason and its been a really big tool for me to keep my sobriety. It works for some and for others it doesn't but I am glad its available as an option for me. But had I never started drinking in the first place I would not like beer, so I am not sure why anyone would buy NA beer unless, like me, they are trying to scratch an itch that can't be scratched like it was before.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 4d
Eliminating reasonableness is the first step in creating an abusive legal system.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 4d
Sure, because teens won't buy 0 % beer and mix in some regular beers, that would never happen.
verdigris@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 4d
Oh no, don't let the children... dilute their illegally acquired alcohol...
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 4d
Correct, if they had access to that regular beer, they'd just drink the regular beer and not bother diluting it.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
But if questioned why their breath smells like beer, it was the 0%.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 4d
The real reason is you don't. Not in every state. Some defined it by a strict measurable standard. Others defined it to close off what's depicted in this image. Others defined it to describe what was banned as oppressed to what you measure, so that if you're selling beer you can't sell it to kids. No checking labels, no "well, it's my home brew so I don't know". Is it beer? You can't sell it to kids.
The last one is almost funny because you can almost feel the confusion about why the concept of non-alcoholic beer even exists.
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
Because it's beer. Generally the way laws are written in the us, they call out beer, wine, and spirits, or some such wording, not being available to under 21s.
Laws generally do not mention alcohol content of whatever it is you're buying.
Vice is difficult to regulate, and laws surrounding vice are imperfect
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 4d
The same reason why vapes are considered "tobacco products" despite not containing any tobacco and considered "flavored" if they contain any flavor (or no flavor) besides "tobacco" flavor (which is actually just caramel flavoring since vape juice has no flavor by default). It's because politicians are stupid and short sighted and most of these regulations make little sense outside of government control.
douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 4d
Looks like a ChatGPT poster
Wispy2891@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 4d
It is a chatgpt poster
Matty_r@programming.dev · 7 pts · 4d
Yep it always does those stupid lines on either side
quarkquasar@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 4d
The amount of adult stuff being deliberately pointed at children has increased quite a lot over even just the past couple years, because the corporations know that no one is going to come after them for it.
Hell, at my work, we replaced a court-ordered anti-smoking sign with a giant wall of cigarettes, so that we could make room for a bunch of new fruity flavors of nicotine pouches so that kids can become new addicts.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 3 pts · 4d
You didn't like the smooth draw of a candy cigarette as a kid?
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 4d
I can almost taste the chalk now.
Dingo_Kidneys@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 4d
It's always been the goal to get children consuming products. It's a known function of humans that they usually stick to whatever they were doing when they were kids well into adulthood. It's harder to convince an adult with pre-established routines and preferred products to switch over.
You're right though that it's getting pretty blatant now, but that's to be expected as we dismantle food and drug regulations.
Atomic@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
I suspect this is legal because "under aged" in the US doesnt explicitly mean "under 18", since the legal drinking age is 21.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 1 pts · 4d
To be fair, under aged also doesnt mean child.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
If you can die in an industrial accident at 14, you should be able to enjoy the great taste of beer after work - even if you still have to wait for the alcohol.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 1 pts · 4d
Not just the children - under age also includes teenagers and young adults in this case. Honestly, indoctrination has always been the case, since there is a push that drugs are harmful for all, why not indoctrinate the youngest of all: children. By the time they grow up to be teens they will be addicts.
foggy@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 4d
kid beer
Raw_Toast@fedinsfw.app · 2 pts · 4d
I raise you, Kids Extacy.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 4d
They saw that younger people aren't drinking nearly as much, so they thought this might be a solution? Get kids used to the flavor earlier?
Sadly, I'm sure there are plenty of shitty parents who would buy this for their kids.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 4d
I don't think there's many parents that would buy this for their kids. I grew up knowing friends parents would would just straight up buy you actual beer. But knowing them, if they saw this, I imagine them saying "Then what's the fucking point??? Pussyass bullshit!" While at the same time putting 2-24packs in the cart, and then saying "For you and your little friends when they get here."
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 4d
Just what we always wanted.
The enjoyment of beer without all that pesky euphoria.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
Alcohol never did anything for me except make me sleepy. And now with kidney failure I can't have social anyway.
I keep na beer because I like the taste and probably every month or so have one with pizza or something.
Even cheap beer is fine.
TwinTitans@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 3d
It says on the bottle not to be consumed by those under legal drinking age.
SteveLeo@piefed.social · 13 pts · 4d
What a desperate piece of signage
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 4d
"Great for drivers!" If you still want to smell like alcohol when you get pulled over but without having drank any.
BigBenis@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 4d
I still get carded often when I buy NA beer. Often the cashier will even acknowledge that it's NA but say that they still have to card me.
filcuk@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 4d
I quite enjoy 'Supermalt', a malt drink with NO alcohol. It has a large warning for 18+ on the shelves at Tesco, yet I'm not carded on checkout.
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 4d
We can also buy 0.5% shandy at any age.
echodot@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 4d
That will have been because whoever shelved it didn't know what it was.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 4d
I always thought it was because there is alcohol in it still. NA beer I thought was classified as .5% or less. So legally they are still regulated.
Alcohol free is 0%. Edit: This might not be true either, I just saw saying alcohol free may also have alcohol up to .5%
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 4d
Fruit juice naturally has around 0.5% alcohol. It's just a side effect of wet sugar.
There's no legal federal limit, it's all state law. Some states go by that 0.5%. others go by a definition that includes "things sold as beer" essentially.
"You are holding a container. It is labeled beer. Do not give it to anyone under 21.”
Other times stores just assume and card everyone because it's waaay easier than nuance and you're not legally required to sell non-alcoholic beverages to minors.
robin@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 4d
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a soda or something
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason.
Even the grocers (and even manufacturers) get it all messed up. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
Another counter example that disproves the misunderstanding is kombucha. Kombucha has naturally occurring alcohol, but it’s not classified as some other category. The legal categories are “Alcoholic beverage” Or “Not alcoholic beverage” and it’s less than 0.5% so it’s “not alcoholic beverage” and therefore is available for anyone to buy and has nutritional information on the container.
Similarly, NA “beer” should have the full nutritional information on the can and be sold to anyone. It just “feels” like it should be different somehow, and no one is updating or enforcing policies. You might notice that none of them actually say, “beer.”
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 4d
Apple juice can contain around 0.5% alcohol though?
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app · 2 pts · 4d
Bread also.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
Because people aren't making irrational claims yelling at companies who make juice. Eating a banana or drinking juices that are higher in glucose aren't going to hurt you in any measurable way that the sugar won't hurt you so drastically more.
robin@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 4d
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category
But the grocers just do whatever. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
robin@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 4d
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category
But the grocers just do whatever. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 1 pts · 4d
The 0.0% on the poster must legally be without alcohol whatsoever. What you have in mind is a confusingly named non-alcoholic beer which goes under the official alcoholic beer radar.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
yeah that's what I was saying
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 4d
I think a lot of it is due to stupid shop policies. I have been refused sale of a teaspoon for not having ID.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
Yup. I got carded at Home Depot when buying a saw blade because "it could be used as a weapon".
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
... That's everything at home depot. I don't know that they have a product that isn't able to be weaponized, and not just in the most literal sense.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 4d
Please hold still while I saw you
bangupjobasusual@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 4d
Kid beer
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
I wonder how they will advertise their grape flavored beverage...
Monte_Crisco@thelemmy.club · 10 pts · 4d
Now we just need a platform for kids to gamble away their crayon colors so that they’re ready to do the same with their very first paycheck.
lemmygarden@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 3d
Loot boxes are gambling for children
Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 4d
We have purchased the N/A Corona from time to time. I still have to flash my ID to purchase N/A drinks.
uberfreeza@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 4d
I think it depends on where you're at. I've been taught to ID even for N/A beers (because usually when advertised as such, they are allowed something like 0.5% or less ABV). But also, what kid would enjoy the taste of beer? Even the stereotype that's how teens want to drink all the time, the lack of alcohol takes all of the fun out of that stereotype. As an adult, I only drink ciders and wines, which has kid versions of soda and grape juice.
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social · 2 pts · 4d
I drank beer more often at 16 (which was the drinking age when I was growing up) than I do now. And I did it for the flavour. Though granted I had better choices than american "Budweiser".
robin@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 4d
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a food
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a food. But they don’t.
Counter example: kombucha has naturally occurring alcohol, but you don’t see anyone getting carded for it and you have the regular nutritional label on it.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
yeah same
thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 4d
N/A is allowed up to 0.5% alcohol, 0.0% contains none.
Jiral@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 4d
Not only 0% alcohol, also 0% taste and 0% beer. There are great alcohol free beers out there btw. This ain't it.
Blanka@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 4d
If you try them in Europe they are great. And even there underage kids are not allowed to buy them
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
What's this actually taste like? I figure it's basically what they added to bud light to make bud select if it wasn't just water. Bud light - 110 calories, 4.2% alc. Select - 55 calories 2.1% alcohol.
I remember looking at it when it came out and thinking they filled half the bottle with carbonated water and sold it for slightly more.
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 4d
What is it with Americans and bud light anyway. It's the worst version of the product and yet for some reason it's really popular in the US.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 4d
Because you can drink it all day and still drive home.
I'd say this is sarcasm, but I live in a rural area and have heard it calls 'driving beer' before. And looking in the ditches, it appears to be true.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
It's like McDonald's. It isn't haute cuisine but it's fine, as much as people feel better about themselves for looking down on it. People like judging other people.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
It's common and they were already in place when prohibition ended.
So after a good chunk of time with all the breweries becoming unavailable, they were fast to start selling and it just became a common brand.
Having the three key elements to an alcohol consumed for social purposes rather than taste also helped: cheap, available and cheap.
We've got others around, but they're generally not everywhere.
I don't know that I've ever heard anyone say they like the taste though. I think the closest I've heard is someone saying they like how it's cold.
richardisaguy@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 4d
Yeah, teach them kids to drink from a young age, i'm sure it will be good for them
saltesc@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
I mean, most countries drink 3-5 (some 7) years before Americans. By 21, people have kind of gotten over it and having beers for weekend chats and hangs is just normal. Drinking with intent or excitement to drink doesn't exist without underlying mental issues.
This advertising wouldn't exist because it would be aimed at actual kids and teens. Whereas in the US you join the military, kill people for them, then after a few years of that, you've earned a beer with some alcohol in it.
richardisaguy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
Yeah... In my country we can drink at 18
baronvonj@piefed.social · 2 pts · 4d
I have more than once witnessed 18-20 year old service members drinking openly and legally in bars and restaurants by using their military ID.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 1 pts · 4d
Thats the thing about it, we're concentrating on the sake of children not teenagers - this is the easiest mass to essentially manipulate and indoctrinate. Even if the whole thing applies to teenagers aswell, the children have it the worst in this case due to biological factors and that some parents are in on it.
In an ideal world drugs shouldnt be advertised to Anyone: children, teenagers and adults alike.
mufkin@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 4d
Fucking yuck
Dzheyk@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 4d
Yucking fuck
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 4d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_cigarette
njordomir@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 4d
Nonalcoholic beer could very well be a healthier choice than cola.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online · 4 pts · 4d
Yes. The sugary cola. The diet version is not as bad as they say, though
ramenshaman@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 4d
I live in California and they card me at my local grocery store if I buy 0% beer.
cooltrainer_frank@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
I've never seen a beer with 0% alcohol before, they are all usually .5% and less if marked NA or such
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 4d
https://youtu.be/FepbNahnsE4
denaggels@feddit.org · 1 pts · 4d
That's what I immediately thought of as well
ICastFist@programming.dev · 4 pts · 4d
So, just shitty barley tea being advertised by ai slop
HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
jesus christ this is blatant child advertising and child harm. Fuck Budweiser.
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 4d
Seems fake. It's also not legal AFAIK to sell non alcoholic beer to minors since it's still got some alcohol in it. Then again I guess vanilla extract and mouth wash does too.
thisisbutaname@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 4d
There's a difference between non-alcoholic (or alcohol-free) and 0.0% alcohol (like it appears in the poster). The former allows for up to 0.5% ABV, while the latter means absolutely no alcohol whatsoever.
Still I don't think it's a good idea to get children used to the idea of drinking alcoholic beverages.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 2 pts · 4d
To be fair, teenagers should also not think about alcoholic beverages.
robin@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 4d
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a food
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason.
Even the grocers (and even manufacturers) get it all messed up. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a soda.
But the larger companies that sell it are just misclassifying it and creating problems to be as lazy and risk avoidant as possible.
Lasherz12@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Yeah, I know in restaurants alcohol free requires no ID. It'd be nice if those terms were a little more clear.
robin@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 4d
They say “contains less than 0.5%” because that’s the cutoff that makes something legally beer. It more than likely has none, much of the time. That’s just the law (US):
> 0.5% it’s beer and subject to alcohol laws
< 0.5% it’s not beer, technically a food
So they label it as <0.5% simply to show that it’s in the latter category. This creates a lot of confusion for some reason. Hell, half the brands don’t have required nutritional info (beer doesn’t need it, soda does) but the real problem is that:
The regulatory agencies are captured and don’t do shit anymore. TECHNICALLY the FDA should be stepping in and making them put full nutritional information on all the brands of NA “beer” and making sure it is labeled and sold like a food. But they don’t.
Counter example: kombucha has naturally occurring alcohol, but you don’t see anyone getting carded for it and you have the regular nutritional label on it.
kungen@feddit.nu · 4 pts · 4d
Only >0,5% ABV is classified as an "alcoholic beverage" federally.
flying_sheep@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d
So apple juice, bananas, …?
ech@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 4d
Can't even bother to make propaganda without sloppifying it. This is a real low point for humanity.
ceenote@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
Oh, look, it's that YouTube thumbnail I'm seeing all over my feed...
MutantTailThing@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
355ml
Wildly infuriating!
yermaw@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 4d
echodot@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 4d
I don't know if this is a hot take or not but alcohol free beer is pointless. I don't believe anybody actually drinks beer for the taste because it objectively doesn't taste all that great, people like beer because of the association it has with having a good time with your friends, nobody drinks it as a refreshing beverage.
The fact that beer doesn't actually taste all that good is why people invented cocktails.
YeahToast@aussie.zone · 9 pts · 4d
I disagree as I find craft beer quite delicious . I try not to consume alcohol though as I don't need to kill my brain anymore than I have..
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 4d
Not true at all. I love the taste of beer alone, AND in combination with certain foods. Not all beer of course, they make so many different kinds that it would be impossible to love them all.
I'm not going through the trouble and expense of cooking a steak if there isn't going to be a beer accompanying it.
ReluctantZen@feddit.nl · 4 pts · 4d
That's like, your opinion man.
Plenty of people, like me, drink beer for the taste. I'm not all that fond of sweet drinks, so I actually tend to dislike cocktails or mixed drinks.
MyButSmellsBat@feddit.org · 3 pts · 4d
I actually like the taste of beer, especially the bitterness and a bit of fruity taste without being sweet.
And i am very glad that here in Germany there is a lot of analcoholic beer available, because very often i want the taste without the drug.
Still i agree with you that the memory of good times with beer makes it even better. I know a lot of people that don't like the taste so much. So probably i am the outlier here.
insomniac199@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
Great.
daychilde@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
I don't drink sparkling water but I like ma beer. It's light and refreshing and nice to have very occasionally.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 0 pts · 4d
The alcohol is the only reason to choke down the horsepiss that is beer; 0 alcohol beer's only consumer base are self-loathing masochists.
Polisheocket@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 4d
It helps my sober friends that used to down a 12-30 beers a night not lose that flavor. But to market to kids is pathetic
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 4d
I love a good beer. Budweiser is not a good beer, and the thought of a zero version sounds even worse.
But there are great beers and even very good non alchoholic ones.
My issue is that beer is a lot of calories, particularly the good ones. Even the zero alcoholic ones.
Don't drink your calories is a good rule of thumb.
ramenshaman@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
You mean, like, all beer? I love that you have your own preferences, it's a human right. It's definitely an acquired taste for most people.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 2 pts · 4d
I've had one beer I thought tasted pretty good (a Sam Adam's Cherry Wheat lager). It tasted like cherries. Like a slightly carbonated cherry juice; not beer with a hint of cherry.
I've never seen it being sold anywhere since. :(
Pretty sure I just hate the taste of hops. I have no tolerance for bitter flavours. Really sucks when my dad or sister cook, because I can hella taste when they burn any garlic used in it as it becomes super bitter.
ramenshaman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
I really hope you find that cherry wheat lager again.
Tujio@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
I was in a restaurant last week that had Milwaukee's Best N/A for sale. My brain turned off. It might be the worst beer I've ever tasted. The only reason we drank it was because we were trying to get a dozen teenagers as fucked up as possible for under $10.
Waitress said it was one of their best sellers. The Beast N/A. Fucking disgusting.
Tujio@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 4d
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app · 0 pts · 4d
I went to a microbrewery/restaurant recently that had kid's beer in the menu. It was just juices and stuff, but it still felt fucking scummy.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 4d
I'll bet there is a "subscription" involved somewhere.
daggermoon@piefed.world · -9 pts · 4d
Aside from mindless fucking consumerism, what's the issue?
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 4d
It’s like marketing a vape with no nicotine to kids
Pennywise@piefed.social · 7 pts · 4d
Oh, like candy cigarettes and big league chew.
TheFogan@programming.dev · 7 pts · 4d
Yeah... Which was also a bad idea... of which most of the world won't accept in the modern age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_cigarette#Sales_laws
Big league chew, I guess was a bit more on the fence because it's less obvious and it avoids any words that directly link it to chewing tobacco.
Pennywise@piefed.social · 0 pts · 4d
Amazon sells candy cigarettes.
grue@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 4d
Amazon sells a lot of illegal shit. That doesn't mean it's okay; that just means law enforcement isn't doing its goddamn job.
TheFogan@programming.dev · 1 pts · 4d
yeah I saw that on another post... and did look it up myself, in the US they can be sold, but legally they cannot include the word cigarette anywhere in the labeling or packaging, on amazon they do indeed put it in the title of the listing, which is against the law, but not particularly well enforced, the packages themselves though you can also see clearly they don't use the word cigarette for exactly that reason.
tdawg@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
you leave my Spider-Man cigarettes out of this!
(The 90's were crazy)
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 17 pts · 4d
Because it's clear they want kids to start drinking budweiser young. It's marketing budweiser to minors, whether it has alcohol or not. And it's marketing alcohol ("it's BEER for under age") to youth... Beer by default has alcohol. This is marketing beer to literal children.
What do you think all that marketing does? Gets them drinking more budweiser as adults, and probably interested in alcohol while underage. Shady as fuck.
Mantzy81@aussie.zone · 11 pts · 4d
You know how you can't buy those sugar "cigarettes" anymore? Same reason.
You also can't buy snortable children's Tylenol.
Pennywise@piefed.social · -5 pts · 4d
You can, actually. They're on Amazon.
Snortable children's Tylenol... That's a great idea. Do you work in marketing?
TheFogan@programming.dev · 2 pts · 4d
It's interesting because, in the US technically they aren't allowed to be labeled Cigarettes (in most countries they are outright illegal), Just did check amazon, and you can see the actual packaging just says "bubble gum", or "candy". Though I think the amazon listing using the word, may actually not be within the law.
WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 4d
I think these people haven't been aware of near-beer sales to kids going back over 60 years. Kids have been able to buy them here in Canada for longer than that, that is just the oldest person I have know to buy a 6pack of near-beer as a 5 year old kid.
Pennywise@piefed.social · 2 pts · 4d
Well the industrious kiddos just go to the store and buy some juice, sugar and yeast.