Brewers Association Defines "Quality Beer"

"Wholesome ingredients"

Lulz times infinity. This is so dumb. What a self-serving joke.

 

I assume from reading the statement that there are things going on towards that behind the scenes.

 

Agree. But if so, I find it that much odder to release such a statement at this stage.

 

Is it just me, or is this akin to legislating morality?

 

As with all previous threads on this forum dealing with quality, there is a significant number - perhaps even a majority - who equate "quality" with "I like it". If you think about it, that is a completely useless definition.

 

That's the key statement in all of this--the good stuff is coming later.

Nothing to see here.

 

I've been thinking about that, and have probably fallen into that trap myself. What word to use instead in those situations, though? Characterful? Tasty? So far nothing really rings my bell.

 

That doesn't really hit me the same way; it's pretty much just a 'you gotta start somewhere' sort of announcement. Maybe it's odd because some of the language makes it seem like more has happened at this point, other than just formalizing a plan.

 

Yes, that is part of what is throwing me. It seems prescriptive, but without giving any details of what is in the prescription.

EDIT: as a result, it feels very "insider-ish" at this point -- which would seem to contradict its stated mission to unify. Again...odd.

 

I'm interested in very deliberate use of the word traceable. People clamoring for date coding should be too

 

from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/quality.html#ixzz3QGwD55nz

Given the huge diversity in craft beer, not just in style but in individual brewer objectives, the definition by the BA must necessarily be loose enough to allow for this diversity and creativity to continue and even increase. Yet, the brewing process must be controlled in order for the brewer to achieve his objectives. And, when a beer is released, it must live up to the beer drinkers expectations for the style and what the brewer promised to deliver. And, this expectation must be met as well with the 12th batch as with the 4th batch.

There is a very highly regarded brewer near me that brews a very highly regarded beer. Yet, there was a recent thread discussing how different the various batches of this supposedly same beer have been. The taste has varied, the clarity has varied, etc. Unless this was done intentionally by the brewer to adjust or change the beer, this is a real-life example of a quality problem. If the BA is serious about providing such small brewers with the tools, technology, and techniques to avoid this unintentional batch to batch variability, this will be a good thing.

 

Admittedly, I have a weakness for both bad puns and bad portmanteaus, but in my opinion you win the internet.

 

Like other have said, this reads kinda vague. Almost corporate mission statement-like: "We'll shift the paradigm to provide synergistic quality leveraging competencies to provide best-practice solutions and quality."
Hopefully more will come later. I really can't be against anything that encourages brewers to keep their game up.

 

The BA's headquarters are in CO....explains a lot how they come up with these ever changing definitions.

 

If this quality initiative eventually in some way leads to brewers releasing fewer technically flawed/off-flavored beers then I'm all for it. Sounds like they are looking at educating brewers and researching those types of issues so I'll be cautiously optimistic for now.

 

Arbitrary!

 

@JackHorzempa firstly, perhaps GMO doesn't meet "wholesome".

Secondly, by many definitions Budweiser IS high quality, their buying power allows them to buy the highest quality ingredients, and their brewing process is second to none in terms of producing a consistent product.

You, or I, or all of Beer Advocate may not prefer their product (I sure don't) but they do deserve a lot of respect for making a product that so incredibly consistently meets the expectations of the brewer and their target customer base.

 

@TongoRad perhaps try "pleasing" on for size, a bit less informal than "tasty". I also like "successful" but that doesn't necessarily capture the right sentiment.

 

After all the choking and spewing about the verbiage of this. (possibly well deserved), Hey, it just might be some kind of call for brewers to have a coordinated response to complaints about spoiled/bad/out of date/infected beer.

 

I read the post twice and still don't understand what the hell he's talking about