Apart from the Yuck factor these drinks may not legally be called "Beer", at least in civilised countries.

While I share your sentiments about what can (or should) be called "beer" (nitpicker that I am...) I have to point you towards our Belgian friends. They have (I believe) one of the highest number of breweries per capita, and a very wide variety of beer. Think about e.g. Krick (with cherries) or Geuze (with chocolate). I cannot drink more than one of either, they are not "quaffable", but an enjoyable experience nonetheless. Neither can I drink more than a small glass of Gewurztraminer (perfect with cheese, I think), still nobody would question that it can be a high quality wine.

Same with beer. There are some that you can drink all night, there are some where one glass is enough. They all have their place on the menu / in the world.

I think the Reinheitsgebot would have a thing to say about what constitutes beer and what doesnt... ;)

The Reinheitsgebot has been updated since it was first written and exceptions are available (and not entirely uncommon). Chiefly, natural ingredients have to be used.

But, of course, we don't drink to get pissed, we just like the taste of it.

They haven't banned the beer, they've banned its sale in packaging that a child might mistake for a chocolate drink. Totally different things, but I get why it's going to attract more attention to claim the beer has been banned.

Yeah, I'm hoping this doesn't represent a new trend in clickbaity headlines for El Reg. That would be a drop in standards.

So what if the child mistakes it for the sickly gloop? Unlikely to down the lot in 3 seconds, and more likely to spit it out. What sort of parent leaves super sugary food and drink around for a child, that's not able to read, to help themselves?

Although, my boy when he was about 3, you couldn't put a tinny down anywhere in reach, he'd casually saunter up, take a swig of lager, put it down, and wander off and get on with whatever he was doing!

if it's sweet it's an alcopop. The whole point of those is to encourage underage drinking. Just admit you'd rather have squash with vodka in and we can all get along.

... or the ideas.

* First, to make a chocolate-flavoured beer. If you're into that thing, and think you could sell it, why not. But ...

* Second, why on earth make the packaging similar to the chocolate drink?

Every time there's a new article about vs code, there are ton of comments going 'what's wrong with vim'

if they can't handle new text editors, they're going to depise anything which isn't ruddles

I don't think "modern" has anything to do with it. I just don't think the tasty and subtle wonders of the hop could be improved by the addition of powdered chocolate biscuits.

Feeling compelled to go along with trends, no matter how stupid, holds back properly good new ideas, both in beer and tech.

There are a number of cholate beers available in the UK, a large number of which, probably the majority are not sweet.

cocoa, naturally a bitter flavour, fits well with hops in a dark malty beer. I agree completely that packaging it in similar packaging as a product aimed at children is not smart.

While possibly in danger the advertising iceberg, Plum Porter is an excellent beer for those that prefer sweet dark beers.

The same brewery produces a Cappuccino Stout that is served best with a shake from the cocoa shaker typically used on Cappuccinos.

Don't knock it before you try it!

For everyone else, Milo is called Nesquick. Why the brewery though it was a good idea is beyond me, though

The child mistook it... in a shop and bought it? Found it at home? Either way, hardly the fault of the manufacturer.

The child mistook it... in a shop and bought it? Found it at home?

RTFA. (A = article)

I did thanks.

"That packaging decision, as explained by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR), led to "a complaint from a concerned parent after their child thought the can of Choc Milk Stout in the fridge was a can of Nestle's chocolate milk product, Milo"."

Doesn't say who's fridge that was. A shop's fridge? Their fridge? Their friend's fridge?

Bitter chocolate beer, cappuchino beer.

No no no no no.

But then I dislike stouts as well.

I'm not sure how these companies get away with packaging their product to look like one made by another manufacturer in the first place. I'm sure if Nestle had got wind of it, it might have resulted in a sueball coming their way, so perhaps this was a better result for the brewery in the long run.

The story doesn't even say the child actually open the can or drank any of it. It just says: "a complaint from a concerned parent after their child thought the can of Choc Milk Stout in the fridge was a can of Nestle's chocolate milk product, Milo".

So me thinks this 'concerned parent' got $$ in their eyes thinking they could get a big payout if it went to court. As if it was in their fridge at home then they obviously didn't see the packaging was an issue when they bought it.

Here in CA Marijuana/CBD "edibles" (usually sweet) are legal, as well as other mongrels such MJ spiked coffee.

That really is a huge danger to kids because the taste is that of a normal brownie (for example).

But I can't imagine a kid expecting chocolate milk to do anything else than spit out chocolate beer.

Furthermore, they've hijacked the word "edibles" - which use to mean stuff you put in your mouth in order to sustain life.

I'm not a fan of the overly sweet stuff, but Youngs Double Chocolate Stout hits the spot. A vanila note to the stout without being sweet or overpowering. I've tried a few where the brewer has turned the dial to 11 and the result is only usable in cooking. Or for emptying a pub if that's all you're serving...