A brief history of 'low alcohol beer' in Denmark

The limit for 'non intoxicating beer' in Denmark was fixed to 2.25 volume when beer tax was imposed in 1891. The term 'non intoxicating beer' indicates that the beer is not alcohol free, but you must drink a lot and fast to be intoxicated from it. There were a lot of discussions about this limit in 1891. 

The main discussion was about the necessity to keep traditional beer as an important part of the nutrition for the workers because 'sweet bottom fermented beer' was viewed as a good calorie supplement for a hard working man, however a 'light pilsner' with the same low alcohol content could be viewed as just a substitute for 'real pilsner' and therefore making the drinking of the intoxicating 'real pilsner' beer attractive to workers. 

A national workers brand of the International Order of Good Templers (IOGT) was organized in 1892 called Nordic Independent Good Templers (NIOGT). They wanted to be able to organize workers. Therefore they as a compromise used the 2.25 % (weight) limit as 'non alcoholic', and the even made the workers brewery produce this, however it was the 'light pilsner' kind of 'non intoxicating beer'. 

They used to measure in 'weight', so the volume value of 'light pilsner' might have been 20-25% more - about 2.8% (volume) 

Due to the low price the usage of 'light' (nearly) tax free beer was relatively common until end the 1950 due to the low price compared to pilsner beer (3,5 weight) or now 4,6 vol. (pilsner)

Light beer in Denmark was abandoned because the impact of the beer tax on real pilsner 4,6 vol. compared to light pilsner were reduced from the 1960's and 1970's.




Afs: Sidsel Eriksen, lektor Ph.D.,  E-mail: [log in to unmask] Kontor: 15.2.70, Tlf. direkte: (+45) 35 32 82 92  
Post: SAXO-instituttet, Afdeling for Historie, Njalsgade 106, Københavns Universitet, 2300 København S.


-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Alcohol and Drugs History Society [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne af David Fahey
Sendt: 15. juni 2010 16:26
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: 3.2 beer

Thanks,  Robin. If my memory hasn't failed me, the Good Templars in
Denmark allowed low-alcohol beer. Is there any significance to these
precise figures for alcohol by volume: 3.2 for a time in many places
in the USA and the lower ABV for various purposes in Sweden?  Or did
legislators take the numbers out of a hat?  David

PS: Time (May 24 2010) reports the trend to super-strong beer, a trend
led by the Scottish microbrewery BrewDog and the German brewer
Schorschbrau.  The Scots issued a beer 32 percent alcohol by volume,
six time as strong as Budweiser.  The Germans responded with one that
was 40% ABV, similar to vodka.  The Scots replied with a 41% beer,
The Germans answered with a 43% beer.

On 6/15/10, Robin G W Room <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> David and David,
>   3.2 beer lasted in California as the only beer sold in off-sales within a
> mile of Berkeley, Davis, and I think at least some other California campuses
> until the 1970s.  Below are abstracts of two studies which looked at this
> change.
>   Incidentally, the current rule in the European Union allows beer up to
> 2.2%
> to be treated as a nonalcoholic beverage (as Sweden does, for instance -- it
> is
> legal for Swedish kids to buy and consume it). Sweden counts 2.8% beer as
> being
> an alcoholic beverage, but does not apply an alcohol tax to it.
>      Robin
>
> Fillmore-K-M; Wittman-F-D. Effects of availability of alcohol on college
> student drinking: A trend study. Contemporary Drug Problems, 11(3):455-492,
> 1982. (075597)
>    Repeal of a California law banning sales of alcohol within one mile of
> university campuses provided an opportunity to examine the effects of
> availability on college students' drinking patterns. Questionnaires were
> mailed
> to random samples of students on two campuses when the repeal became
> effective
> in January 1979 and again two years later. Shelf stock of alcohol in outlets
> was used as the availability factor. After repeal of the sales ban, existing
> stock space increased, but few new outlets opened. Students were asked about
> quantity and frequency of drinking by beverage in the past week; setting
> where
> beverages were consumed; time, place, and companions for drinking; drinking
> problems and experiences; purchase patterns for the past week; and
> demographic
> variables, including place of residence. During the two-year period, other
> factors affecting purchase and consumption of alcohol occurred, including a
> price war. The demographics of students surveyed changed, and their
> disposable
> income rose. The second survey showed a downward trend in consumption of
> alcoholic beverages, particularly liquor and wine, and an increase in
> abstainers. As predicted, older students drank more than younger students,
> and
> males drank more than females. However, students drank more at home and when
> alone than predicted. Consumption in the middle ranges seems to have
> stabilized, perhaps as a result of saturation of the market or price rises
> as a
> percentage of disposable income. 32 Ref.
>
> Wittman-F-D. Tale of two cities: Policies and practices in the local control
> of
> alcohol availability. Berkeley, Alcohol Research Group, Oct 1980. 190 p.
> (049923)
>     Effective January 1, 1979, the California Legislature repealed
> restrictions
> on the off-sale of wine and liquor close to University of California
> campuses
> in nine cities throughout the state. Prior to repeal, the UC campuses had
> been
> ringed by "dry zones" of from one to three miles within which only beer
> could
> be sold off-sale, i.e., for consumption off the premises where it was
> purchased. This study uses the aftermath of the repeal to investigate
> generally
> the operation of policies and practices in the local control of alcohol
> availability, and to observe specifically the local effects of the repeal.
> The
> progress to date on a continuing study of two of the nine campus communities
> is
> summarized. 57 Ref.
>
>
> On 2010-06-15, at 00:13, David Fahey wrote:
>> David--Envy your time in Paris. Will check your book re 3.2. By the
>> way, in early 1933 the Ohio legislature considered a slightly less
>> alcohol beer than 3.2.  Ohio communities that voted against the repeal
>> of state prohibition in November 1933 were mollified by acquiring a
>> local dry status without an additional separate vote.  I don't have
>> all the details, but I assume this explains how Westerville reverted
>> to a dry status in November 1933 after a few months when 3.2 beer was
>> sold in the "dry capital of the world."  Have you read Mark Lawrence
>> Schrad, The Political Power of Bad Ideas: Networks, Institutions, and
>> the Global Prohibition Wave?  A political scientist, Schrad looks at
>> three case studies: the USA and Russia which adopted prohibition and
>> Sweden which did not.  Schrad reads both Russian and Swedish.  David
>>
>> On 6/14/10, David Kyvig <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Dear David:
>>>
>>>
>>> An interesting aspect of this story that you haven't dealt with is why
>>> 3.2 became the new standard in April 1933.  The preceding extreme 0.5
>>> definition of "intoxicating beverage" was written into the Volstead Act
>>> legislation by Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon League in 1919 in the
>>> exuberance of victory after the Eighteenth Amendment was adopted.  By
>>> the mid-1920s a movement for modification had arisen among those
>>> critical of prohibition but who despaired of repealing the
>>> constitutional amendment.  The only option they saw was redefinition of
>>> the Eighteenth Amendment's vague term.  The American Federation of
>>> Labor, among others, embraced this position and so it went on the table
>>> for wet Democrats well before the election of 1932.  Exactly why and
>>> when the moderationists settled on 3.2 as the standard may be buried in
>>> my book Repealing National Prohibition but I don't remember for sure and
>>> I don't have a copy at hand.  I'm spending two months in Paris where my
>>> wife has a fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Studies.  I'm using
>>> my time in a feeble attempt to duplicate Scott Haine's research on the
>>> culture of the French café, but as a non-French speaker I'm finding it
>>> challenging, if pleasant.  Never a 3.2 limitation here.  Good luck with
>>> your project.  I wonder if the list can come up with other schools
>>> claiming or complaining that they were the 3.2 beer capital, just as
>>> there are many contenders for the title of top party school.
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> David Fahey  06/14/10 9:54 AM >>>
>>> I am writing a short book on the Women's Temperance Crusade in Oxford,
>>> Ohio.  In my epilogue I offer an explanation for why this college town
>>> allegedly became America's 3.2 beer capital.  In 1917 the village had
>>> enacted local prohibition of intoxicating beverages.  When the state
>>> and the country repealed prohibition, the mayor initially assumed that
>>> the local law would continue to ban all alcoholic drinks.  For 3.2
>>> beer, this did not turn out to be true.  My explanation is this: while
>>> waiting for the ratification of a constitutional amendment repealing
>>> the Eighteenth Amendment, Congress in March 1933 changed the Volstead
>>> Act definition of an intoxicating beverage as more than 0.5 alcohol.
>>> The new definition was more than 3.2 alcohol.  In other words, 3.2
>>> beer became legal in April 1933, several months before the repeal of
>>> National Prohibition.  The Ohio legislature enacted parallel
>>> legislation.  For most of the state and the country, 3.2 beer became
>>> irrelevant in December 1933 when the Eighteenth Amendment was
>>> repealed.  In Oxford, 3.2 beer became legal in April 1933 because the
>>> state had defined it as non-intoxicating.  Local government had no
>>> power to prohibit it.  In December 1933 there was no change in Oxford
>>> because the local law still prohibited 6.0 beer, wine, and distilled
>>> drinks.  In 1979, after a previous rejection by the voters in Oxford
>>> as a whole, two precincts (student housing and commercial buildings)
>>> voted to allow their sale by the drink.  This belatedly killed 3.2
>>> beer.
>>>
>>> I suppose that 3.2 wine must have been legal too, but I have never
>>> seen it sold in Oxford, Ohio (where I have lived since 1969).
>>>
>>> Any suggestions?  Comments?
>>>
>>> David Fahey
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David M. Fahey
>> Professor Emeritus of History
>> Miami University
>> Oxford, Ohio 45056
>> USA
>


-- 
David M. Fahey
Professor Emeritus of History
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056
USA