The retailer's web site advertises a factory pack of yeast of 15grams. It uses the image of the originating company to mislead consumers that the product carries with it the reputation and goodwill of that company's products.GalBrew said:
Fermentis is a big company and would have lawyers on staff. They don't have to hire one to talk to.wide eyed and legless said:
So if the pic on the website was of the repackaged yeast in the foil pack then you would be fine with it? It is still us-05 yeast in the pack after all. I think you would be pretty ignorant to see yeast (or anything for that matter) packed in a plain silver foil bag with the shop's label on it and think that it originated out of the factory.Feldon said:
If you are asking would I be fine with the retailer opening an 11.5 gram pack, topping it up to 15 grams with more of the same yeast, and resealing - no I wouldn't be fine with it. The retailer has degraded the product by opening it to atmosphere.I should be confident when I buy Fermentis yeast that it hasn't been opened since it left the factory.GalBrew said:
I agree, if that was to occur then that is uncool. What does happen is that a brick of yeast is split into 15g aliquots and then sealed in foil bags. While I will concede the point about the website photo (that is not an accurate representation of reality), I personally don't see the problem with this practice, in effect it is identical to what occurs with hops and there are multiple retailers around who do this. So long as the consumer is aware of this (which could be better explained on the website) and doesn't care, what is the problem?Feldon said:
Did they actually say that the yeast cannot be repackaged and called US05?Yob said:
With reference to the way hops are repackaged, varieties like Galaxy and Amarillo are brand names and trademarks. Breaking up bales of these hops and re packaging is in my eyes the same as the yeast, where there are no assurances on the QC of the product. Re packaged hops have also been exposed to the atmosphere and have undergone some level of oxidation in the packaging process (not that I care). Additionally who is to say that some unscrupulous operators aren't 'cutting' their high demand varieties with something else, potentially damaging the good name of a particular trademark?Yob said:
Of course they are very different, but that isn't what we are talking about any more is it? We are talking about potential damage to specific brands through poor product handling and potential breaches of consumer law. The same thing can be said about growler fills too right? a third party re-packaging a branded product and letting it out into the public without any input from the producer. Anyway I've had enough of this one, the point I was trying to make is that we are all getting sand in our collective ******s over what one retailer does with yeast, when **** like this happens all the time, everywhere with everything and no one bats an eyelid. I could understand if this repackaged yeast was ruining people's beer en masse, but has anyone ever had an issue with it?Yob said:
A. That's not what I meant.Yob said:
Not even remotely the same. Aside from the fact that amarillo is a patented hop variety and various distributors are authorised to onsell those to retailers, it's the assumption that when you see fermentis branded labels, you have the right to expect fermentis packing standards have been met because yeast is a micro-organism. They even supply in their pdfs an expected level of various other microorganisms for each strain - something made totally redundant if someone else opens then repacks.GalBrew said:
I think Galbrew has a point right there manticle, also who is to say that the dates are fair dinkum, as for the repackaging of the Fermentis, it would be easy for them to stop the practice if they were concerned, and as KK also put there logo on the packaging we all would know that it has been repackaged, apart from maybe the 'new starters'GalBrew said:
