Seems stupid on both fronts

[panerd]

Anheuser-Busch Water Donation Meets Resistance (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=86981)

A moral dilemma is brewing in South Florida over Hurricane Wilma relief donations. Twenty-two pallets of canned water was donated by Anheuser-Busch and was supposed to be passed out to hurricane victims. But, the Alabama Baptist State Convention, who ran a relief center in Clewiston, Florida near Lake Okeechobee, would not give it out.

Volunteers say they have religious objections to alcohol and felt it was inappropriate to hand out water packaged by the brewery.

The American Red Cross has since taken the water and is distributing it elsewhere. In a statement, the Vice President of Operations for Anheuser-Busch says, "Safe drinking water is a critical need following natural disasters such as Hurricane Wilma."

"The company has donated more than 9 million cans of drinking water since Hurricane Katrina, and when called on, we'll continue to provide water to all victims of Wilma as long as needed."

Anheuser-Busch has donated canned water to victims of all 6 hurricanes this season.

1. If the Baptists are really going to let people go thirsty because of moral objections, then who the fuck is being moral?

2. My bet is the canned water says Anhueser Busch on the side. If water is a critical need will Anheuser Busch offer to donate water without their name on it? If not, they are no better (if not worse) then the Baptists.

How fucking stupid on both sides! (apologies to either side if I am wrong. Which I highly doubt I am)

[Joe Canadian]

Arrgghhh!

[JeeberD]

Ugh, Bud water... ;)

Edit: Or...how is that different than Bud Light?

[kcchief19]

Are these the cans of Bud Water you're supposed to be drinking while playing Water Pong?

[Dutch]

Anheuser-Busch Water Donation Meets Resistance (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=86981)



1. If the Baptists are really going to let people go thirsty because of moral objections, then who the fuck is being moral?

2. My bet is the canned water says Anhueser Busch on the side. If water is a critical need will Anheuser Busch offer to donate water without their name on it? If not, they are no better (if not worse) then the Baptists.

How fucking stupid on both sides! (apologies to either side if I am wrong. Which I highly doubt I am)

I'm sure not all Baptists and not all Budweiser employees agreed to this. Probably just a bickering feud between a handful of people.

[Joe Canadian]

2. My bet is the canned water says Anhueser Busch on the side. If water is a critical need will Anheuser Busch offer to donate water without their name on it? If not, they are no better (if not worse) then the Baptists.

To be fair... unless I missed it, the article doesn't say that (a) the name is on the label, and (b) they're refusing to take it off if it's there. I'll concede that the companies name probably does appear somewhere on the label... but I doubt they've even been approached to take the name off of it, especially before this article was written.

It's more likely that the media jumped all over a story of a select few radical members of a baptist church trying to make a statement about something when it wasn't the time.

[Dutch]

It's more likely that the media jumped all over a story of a select few radical members of a baptist church trying to make a statement about something when it wasn't the time.

That's probably really close.

[Lorena]

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/images/news/DONATION-CAN.jpg

[Joe Canadian]

http://www.anheuser-busch.com/images/news/DONATION-CAN.jpg

Ok, so we've determined that the logo was on the can. The other part I said still holds, though.

[Greyroofoo]

who cares if the logo is on the side? Donated water is donated water. I doubt any of the victims care.

[st.cronin]

I don't agree with the Baptist's decision, but that is one obnoxious donation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, this is definitely not the first time I can recall hearing about an A-B water donation being declined on these grounds. It's a fairly slow news weekend though, so this will probably get more play, but I've heard this sort of story several times in the past.

(The plant where the water comes from pretty often isn't too far from where I grew up, so I probably notice stuff involving it a little more than the average person).

[panerd]

FWIW, this is definitely not the first time I can recall hearing about an A-B water donation being declined on these grounds. It's a fairly slow news weekend though, so this will probably get more play, but I've heard this sort of story several times in the past.

(The plant where the water comes from pretty often isn't too far from where I grew up, so I probably notice stuff involving it a little more than the average person).

I don't think it was very major news, I picked it up off a local television wesbite. I just thought it was interesting. The gull of the Baptists to refuse help. But my problem is more with Anheuser-Busch. Like I said in the first post, if A-B's decision is completely altruistic, then why not just send clear bottles of water? (Especially if like Jon said they have had previous trouble) They obviously want the press attached with helping out in times of need. I guess I always had more respect for my next-door neighbor growing up who helped out at a local hospital during his retirement then the person who calls a press conference to donate money.

[RendeR]

I don't agree with the Baptist's decision, but that is one obnoxious donation.
How and Why is this donation "obnoxious"? They gave MILLIONS of cans of clean drinking water away for FREE.

The only people being OBNOXIOUS are the baptists who need their heads pulled from their asses on this one.

[tucker342]

U know what? even if the bottle of water says Anhueser Busch on the side and it is so obviously just some ploy by the beer company to just get more sales or some shit, for the church to not pass out the water (which is badly needed) is just fucking ridiculous. The people not passing it out should be ashamed of themselves for pulling that shit...


just my two drunkin' cents:)

[Raiders Army]

Couldn't somebody from the Baptist Church just bless the water and they be done with it?

[Izulde]

Were it not for the hubbub this is raising, I'd say it was an excellent marketing ploy by A-B. But really, this is water people need and it's free. Moral principles are all well and good, but then take the water, but ask them in the future to please remove the logo and whatnot.

No need to raise a shitstorm about it.

[TroyF]

If there was a family that went a day without water because of this decision, they should be ashamed of themselves and were I a part of the Baptist church there, I no longer would be.

[Dutch]

If there was a family that went a day without water because of this decision, they should be ashamed of themselves and were I a part of the Baptist church there, I no longer would be.

I haven't heard of any people going without water because of this.

[TroyF]

I haven't heard of any people going without water because of this.

Then who the hell cares?

[Dutch]

Then who the hell cares?

Well nobody *really* cares.

[Airhog]

I don't think it was very major news, I picked it up off a local television wesbite. I just thought it was interesting. The gull of the Baptists to refuse help. But my problem is more with Anheuser-Busch. Like I said in the first post, if A-B's decision is completely altruistic, then why not just send clear bottles of water? (Especially if like Jon said they have had previous trouble) They obviously want the press attached with helping out in times of need. I guess I always had more respect for my next-door neighbor growing up who helped out at a local hospital during his retirement then the person who calls a press conference to donate money.


It would be no different if Evian or any one of the other number of water or soda producing entities did this. Should they not be allowed to put their corporate logo on the bottle or can. If it was coca-cola donating canned water, would you have an issue with it if they put their logo on the side?

And besides, if someone gives me a can of water, I am going to want some sort of label on it, that tells me who bottled it. That way I know im not drinking water that was bottled from the heart of mexico city or some shit like it.

[Dutch]

It would be no different if Evian or any one of the other number of water or soda producing entities did this. Should they not be allowed to put their corporate logo on the bottle or can. If it was coca-cola donating canned water, would you have an issue with it if they put their logo on the side?

And besides, if someone gives me a can of water, I am going to want some sort of label on it, that tells me who bottled it. That way I know im not drinking water that was bottled from the heart of mexico city or some shit like it.

Makes sense to me.

[nfg22]

Well after thinking about this for a while. Christians are called to be "a bright light shining as a witness for others." Jesus also said "let your religion be widows and children", in that meaning people that are disadvantaged. The apostle Paul also says many times " I live a life blamlessly so other will not be able to disclaim my statements.

Me being a radical Christian on most accounts, would see the church at fault here. How can the greatest mission the bible points out, which is telling people about the saving gospel, be so damaged by a logo? So what if they are doing it with advertising purposes, the bible doesnt say to do it unless people are being fooled by someone else, no in fact in the book of Phillipians in the New Testament Paul says "some people are preaching the Gospel with selfish motives but I say all the better because it is being preached". So if you can serve like Christ served and as He called us to do and preach the gospel because of it then who cares whether its a beer company or not.

[st.cronin]

How and Why is this donation "obnoxious"? They gave MILLIONS of cans of clean drinking water away for FREE.

The only people being OBNOXIOUS are the baptists who need their heads pulled from their asses on this one.

It's obnoxious to use a disaster as a marketing tool. Of course, the baptists are being obnoxious as well.

[Chubby]

It's obnoxious to use a disaster as a marketing tool. Of course, the baptists are being obnoxious as well.
Just like they did for the other 5 hurricanes right? Hmm, I don't seem to remember hearing about them donating water before the idiot baptists decided to be fools...

[Rizon]

FWIW, this is definitely not the first time I can recall hearing about an A-B water donation being declined on these grounds. It's a fairly slow news weekend though, so this will probably get more play, but I've heard this sort of story several times in the past.

(The plant where the water comes from pretty often isn't too far from where I grew up, so I probably notice stuff involving it a little more than the average person).

Yup, this has happened before.

Also, does anyone know, aren't the bottles required by law to have a label anyways?

[Rizon]

Yup, this has happened before.

Also, does anyone know, aren't the bottles required by law to have a label anyways?

Looks like AB does this all the time. Also, not the first time they donated water to Florida:

hxxp://www.anheuser-busch.com/misc/search.html

Type in DONATE DRINKING WATER in the search field, without quotations.

[Rizon]

Also, does anyone know, aren't the bottles required by law to have a label anyways?

The law requires the manufacturers label on the bottle (not sure if this applies to both For Sale and Donation):

Code of Federal Regulations: Food Labeling 21 CFR 101
hxxp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/FCF101.html

"Sec. 101.5 Food; name and place of business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor.

(a) The label of a food in packaged form shall specify conspicuously
the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or
distributor."

hxxp://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-ind4c.html
What guidance does FDA have for manufacturers of Bottled Waters?

A: The FDA has established standards of quality for bottled drinking water (21 CFR 165). Bottled water is defined as water that is intended for human consumption sealed in bottles or other containers with no added ingredients except that it may optionally contain safe and suitable antimicrobial agents. Fluoride may be optionally added within the limitations established in Sec. 165.110(b)(4)(ii). FDA has established maximum allowable levels for physical, chemical, microbiological, and radiological contaminants in the bottled water quality standard regulations. Therefore, all bottled water products that meet the bottled water definition must comply with the quality standard.

FDA has also established Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) Regulations for processing and bottling drinking water (21 CFR 129). The CGMP regulations for bottled water apply to all waters sealed in bottles, packages, or other containers and offered for sale for human consumption, including bottled mineral water. Under the CGMP regulations for bottled water, the source water to be bottled must be from an approved source that is in compliance at all times with the applicable laws and regulations of the government agency or agencies having jurisdiction. Moreover, the CGMP regulations require that bottled water be processed, packaged, transported, and stored under safe and sanitary conditions. Furthermore, the CGMP regulations require producers of bottled water to monitor their source waters and their finished products at specified time intervals for contaminants to ensure that their products comply with the quality standard regulations for bottled water.

Bottled water, because it is a food, must comply with the general requirements for food labeling contained in 21 CFR 101. Nutrition labeling must be provided on the label of any bottled water product that contains more than insignificant amounts of any of the nutrients or food components that are required to be listed under the nutrition labeling requirements, or whose label, labeling, or advertising contains a nutrient content claim or any other nutrition information in any context. Furthermore, any health claims made on bottled water products must comply with the requirements that FDA has established for the use of health claims that characterize the relationship of a food component to a disease or health related condition on the labels and in labeling of foods (21 CFR 101).

The Food and Drug Administration established standard definitions for various terms used on the labels of bottled water. They include the terms mineral, spring, artesian, well, distilled, and purified. You may contact the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages (HFS-306), 200 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20204 (telephone number (202) 205-4681) for additional information.

[Raiders Army]

Well, that ends that.

[Dutch]

This could have been a good news story instead of a bad news story. I'm no journalist, but just because it's written so it's bad news does not make the story automatically accurate. Below is how is could have been written so that the Baptists didn't look like "evildoers".

Anheuser-Busch and Anti-Alchohol Baptist Group Works Together

A moral dilemma in South Florida over Hurricane Wilma relief donations was need for some quick thinking by opposition groups. Twenty-two pallets of canned water was donated by Anheuser-Busch and was supposed to be passed out to hurricane victims. But there was a problem. The pallets were distributed to a group long known for their opposition to the consuption of alchoholic beverages, the Alabama Baptist State Convention, who ran a relief center in Clewiston, Florida near Lake Okeechobee. They felt uncomfortable giving out water to the victims, many of them, their constituants that also objected to alchohol.

But, a little quick thinking by both Anheuser-Busch and the Baptist group led to the pallets being swapped at The American Red Cross for a different supply of pallets. In a statement, the Vice President of Operations for Anheuser-Busch says, "Safe drinking water is a critical need following natural disasters such as Hurricane Wilma."

"The company has donated more than 9 million cans of drinking water since Hurricane Katrina, and when called on, we'll continue to provide water to all victims of Wilma as long as needed."

Anheuser-Busch has donated canned water to victims of all 6 hurricanes this season.

The Baptists of South Florida have also donated and volunteered their time and efforts in all 6 hurricanes this season.

But in a time of crisis, the two sides came together to work out a solution to their own differences to help the victims of Hurricane Wilma.

[Easy Mac]

except your story says that the Southern Baptists decided to give the water to a different group, whereas the original story says it was the decision of the Red Cross. You therefore changed the occurence of the events in order to spin the story. Nowhere does it say the groups worked together for any solution.

[Dutch]

This could have been a good news story instead of a bad news story. I'm no journalist, but just because it's written so it's bad news does not make the story automatically accurate. Below is how is could have been written so that the Baptists didn't look like "evildoers".

Or better yet, would you have been as emotionally charged if you had read the story in this light?

[Dutch]

except your story says that the Southern Baptists decided to give the water to a different group, whereas the original story says it was the decision of the Red Cross. You therefore changed the occurence of the events in order to spin the story. Nowhere does it say the groups worked together for any solution.

Nowhere does it say the Red Cross initiated anything, be careful how you read it.

[sterlingice]

But with that good news, Dutch, where's the moral outrage? Where's the moronic talk show fodder? ;)

SI

[Easy Mac]

Nowhere does it say the Red Cross initiated anything, be careful how you read it.
The American Red Cross has since taken the water and is distributing it elsewhere.
Methinks you should heed your own advice.

[Dutch]

Methinks you should heed your own advice.

Ugh. Nowhere does it say that the Red Cross initiated the dialogue. Regardless, it also doesn't say the Baptist group or Budweiser had any resistance to the solution they all agreed to.

[cuervo72]

Late to the program, but really, if Evian had donated water, you think they'd remove their usual label?

[Chubby]

This could have been a good news story instead of a bad news story. I'm no journalist, but just because it's written so it's bad news does not make the story automatically accurate. Below is how is could have been written so that the Baptists didn't look like "evildoers".
maybe if the events you described had actually happened you could write it like that :rolleyes:

[Raiders Army]

I betcha those will be collector's items. I wonder if they're on ebay?

Edit--yep.

http://search.ebay.com/anheuser-busch-drinking-water_W0QQfromZR8QQpqryZanheiserQ20buschQ20drinkingQ20water

[Chubby]

Ugh. Nowhere does it say that the Red Cross initiated the dialogue. Regardless, it also doesn't say the Baptist group or Budweiser had any resistance to the solution they all agreed to.
Nowhere does it say that the Baptists had anything to do with the water going to the Red Cross. Feel free to continue your revisionist history.

[Dutch]

Nowhere does it say that the Baptists had anything to do with the water going to the Red Cross. Feel free to continue your revisionist history.

You are right, but as Easy Mac pointed out, it could be interpreted that the Red Cross definately did initiate and solve the crisis. But it doesn't say that either.

At best it's sloppy journalism, at worst it's half the story.

[st.cronin]

At best it's sloppy journalism, at worst it's standard journalism.

fixed

[monte_mcguire]

Its been awhile but,,,,
Didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Maybe they should of done a Jesus act and turn those cans of water into Mad Dog 20/20 !!!

[Ragone]

Well nobody *really* cares.


pretty sure if some place ran outta water.. they'd care



"oh, we got all these can's of ab water.. but we can't give them to you.."

[Dutch]

pretty sure if some place ran outta water.. they'd care



"oh, we got all these can's of ab water.. but we can't give them to you.."

Certainly if people ran out of water and the article didn't mention that either, we could mark it down as sloppy journalism instead of poorly written bias.