October 29th, 2008
Earlier today I read an article by Dean Pritchard of the The Winnipeg Sun. The article, entitled, "Superjuice super risk: Brew fuelling violence" is an excellent case study in sensational journalism. *Updated July 10th, 2009* Since the Winnipeg Sun has seen fit to take this article down, here are the cached copies, (#1 and #2)
The author uses the reader's assumed ignorance to create a boogieman based on false assumptions. The author paints a very lurid scene of gangs, illegal moonshine, rapid crime increases, and the stupefying outcomes of ingesting fermented sugar water, otherwise known as superjuice. I think the author of this article included some very inaccurate quotations without providing a critical evaluation of the quotes.
In the article, Pritchard describes how native Americans living in so-called dry communities in Manitoba have been brewing an alcoholic beverage that they call superjuice. The beverage is well suited to these remote areas. It's a very simple concoction to make, all you need is sugar, water and yeast. As these people have discovered, adding more sugar leads to more alcohol being created during fermentation. Still, fermentation can only produce so much alcohol before the yeast is overwhelmed by the alcohol concentration. Using special strains of yeast, you can achieve 20% ABV in slightly over a week. For comparison, this is four times stronger than the average beer, and half the strength of 80-proof vodka. But since the First Nation (native American) communities mentioned in the article prohibit the sale of alcohol, if they want to drink their only options are smuggling and homebrewing!
Now I'd like to dissect the false claims repeated by the author of the article. It is irrelevant whether the author actually believes what he wrote, or whether he was simply repeating the lies told to him by the local police. As a journalist, it is his responsibility to check the accuracy of the statements he includes in his work, otherwise an unknowing public will assume that the false claims are true.
The primary false claim is that this superjuice is somehow stronger than other alcohol. Fermentation creates ethyl alcohol, otherwise known as ethanol. Except for concentration, the ethanol contained in a 5% beer is no different than that of a 20% sugar wine. At 20% ABV, the juice is only slightly stronger than wine, and half the strength of whiskey. By no means am I denying the problems created by the superjuice either. Drunk people create problems, that's pretty much what they do. But let me tell everyone from experience, fermented sugar water is pretty nasty tasting. It's a drink of last resort for those with little means. The creation of superjuice is a reaction to prohibition. Few people would brew up superjuice if whiskey were cheap and readily available. To prove this point, there is nothing stopping a smart American teenager from buying sugar and yeast and making his own alcohol in a 5 gallon bucket. But yet we never hear about this, because alcohol is readily available, even to those who are underage. Prohibition creates the demand for these foul concoctions.
The second false claim is that the superjuice continues to ferment even after drinking it. The quote from the article is particularly horrifying or hilarious depending on your perspective. While there is a remote possibility that some fermentation could occur (very briefly) in the stomach, the highly acidic environment of the stomach would make quick work of the common brewing yeasts. What is more likely is that the dissolved Co2 contained in a recently fermented beverage gave the individual much gastric distress. The amount of gas released combined with the drunken state of the individual probably contributed to this misconception. While it may seem like a minor point to mention, the inclusion of this quote contributes to the idea that this beverage is somehow a new and uniquely scary creation.
The third misconception created by this article is that the superjuice is somehow a unique cause of violence. The last few paragraphs try to connect superjuice with a string of violent crime that has recently occurred. Again, the only difference between superjuice and whiskey is that of price and availability. Superjuice is not the cause of violence, and it's only slightly more accurate to blame alcohol in general. Aggressive people become violent when drunk, as anyone who's been to a large party can attest. The real source of violence is people who cannot control their anger and aggression. As Charlton Heston might say, "superjuice doesn't kill people, people kill people."
The fourth, and perhaps greatest misconception is that prohibition is either effective or enforceable. Alcohol prohibition in United States was a disaster. Prohibition provided a new industry for organized crime, made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, wasted the time of our law enforcement, gave homebrewing a bad name, and poisoned many people due to poorly distilled spirits. Prohibition also lead to the demise of over 3000 small, local breweries. Over 70 years later, there are just slightly over 1700 breweries and brewpubs in America. Despite this shameful history, many communities across the world continue to experiment with prohibition of various sorts. As Einstein has said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
My final point is a financial one. The article states that superjuice sells for $80 for two liters. To put it in perspective, two liters of superjuice would cost me less than $2 in ingredients. I truly feel sorry for those who are forced to pay black market prices for their alcohol. The primary accomplishment of prohibition is making sure criminals are well paid. So when people start fighting and stealing from one another to pay for their superjuice, the real blame lies at the feet of the prohibitionists.
The author uses the reader's assumed ignorance to create a boogieman based on false assumptions. The author paints a very lurid scene of gangs, illegal moonshine, rapid crime increases, and the stupefying outcomes of ingesting fermented sugar water, otherwise known as superjuice. I think the author of this article included some very inaccurate quotations without providing a critical evaluation of the quotes.
In the article, Pritchard describes how native Americans living in so-called dry communities in Manitoba have been brewing an alcoholic beverage that they call superjuice. The beverage is well suited to these remote areas. It's a very simple concoction to make, all you need is sugar, water and yeast. As these people have discovered, adding more sugar leads to more alcohol being created during fermentation. Still, fermentation can only produce so much alcohol before the yeast is overwhelmed by the alcohol concentration. Using special strains of yeast, you can achieve 20% ABV in slightly over a week. For comparison, this is four times stronger than the average beer, and half the strength of 80-proof vodka. But since the First Nation (native American) communities mentioned in the article prohibit the sale of alcohol, if they want to drink their only options are smuggling and homebrewing!
Now I'd like to dissect the false claims repeated by the author of the article. It is irrelevant whether the author actually believes what he wrote, or whether he was simply repeating the lies told to him by the local police. As a journalist, it is his responsibility to check the accuracy of the statements he includes in his work, otherwise an unknowing public will assume that the false claims are true.
The primary false claim is that this superjuice is somehow stronger than other alcohol. Fermentation creates ethyl alcohol, otherwise known as ethanol. Except for concentration, the ethanol contained in a 5% beer is no different than that of a 20% sugar wine. At 20% ABV, the juice is only slightly stronger than wine, and half the strength of whiskey. By no means am I denying the problems created by the superjuice either. Drunk people create problems, that's pretty much what they do. But let me tell everyone from experience, fermented sugar water is pretty nasty tasting. It's a drink of last resort for those with little means. The creation of superjuice is a reaction to prohibition. Few people would brew up superjuice if whiskey were cheap and readily available. To prove this point, there is nothing stopping a smart American teenager from buying sugar and yeast and making his own alcohol in a 5 gallon bucket. But yet we never hear about this, because alcohol is readily available, even to those who are underage. Prohibition creates the demand for these foul concoctions.
"A lot of the times you can hear them screaming in the police holding cells (because) the stuff is still fermenting in their stomach," he said. "It keeps them drunk too because it is still in their system and still cooking. A lot of the time we have to detain these kids a little bit longer because they can stay drunk for so long."
The second false claim is that the superjuice continues to ferment even after drinking it. The quote from the article is particularly horrifying or hilarious depending on your perspective. While there is a remote possibility that some fermentation could occur (very briefly) in the stomach, the highly acidic environment of the stomach would make quick work of the common brewing yeasts. What is more likely is that the dissolved Co2 contained in a recently fermented beverage gave the individual much gastric distress. The amount of gas released combined with the drunken state of the individual probably contributed to this misconception. While it may seem like a minor point to mention, the inclusion of this quote contributes to the idea that this beverage is somehow a new and uniquely scary creation.
The third misconception created by this article is that the superjuice is somehow a unique cause of violence. The last few paragraphs try to connect superjuice with a string of violent crime that has recently occurred. Again, the only difference between superjuice and whiskey is that of price and availability. Superjuice is not the cause of violence, and it's only slightly more accurate to blame alcohol in general. Aggressive people become violent when drunk, as anyone who's been to a large party can attest. The real source of violence is people who cannot control their anger and aggression. As Charlton Heston might say, "superjuice doesn't kill people, people kill people."
The fourth, and perhaps greatest misconception is that prohibition is either effective or enforceable. Alcohol prohibition in United States was a disaster. Prohibition provided a new industry for organized crime, made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, wasted the time of our law enforcement, gave homebrewing a bad name, and poisoned many people due to poorly distilled spirits. Prohibition also lead to the demise of over 3000 small, local breweries. Over 70 years later, there are just slightly over 1700 breweries and brewpubs in America. Despite this shameful history, many communities across the world continue to experiment with prohibition of various sorts. As Einstein has said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
My final point is a financial one. The article states that superjuice sells for $80 for two liters. To put it in perspective, two liters of superjuice would cost me less than $2 in ingredients. I truly feel sorry for those who are forced to pay black market prices for their alcohol. The primary accomplishment of prohibition is making sure criminals are well paid. So when people start fighting and stealing from one another to pay for their superjuice, the real blame lies at the feet of the prohibitionists.
Previous Post 
