The craft beer industry: beer quality problems

Since LeRose works for a company that fits my grocery store example I was hoping he might be able to provide some input on that question.

 

Did you really mean to say that? Or can you clarify? I'm surprised at this statement. Because I the opposite; that beer production/processing/distribution is much more like crackers or milk than fresh produce. Being able to consistently produce the same beer over time is integral to beer quality. I do not expect [or tolerate] variations in my Triscuit crackers any more than I do my beer. I accept that produce may be under- or over-ripe, off-color, have seasonal/weather variability, dirty, or even have bugs in it... I don't accept any of that with my beer. Even sour beers, which can be variable, I expect a base line of quality/consistency that is higher [in a relative sense] than what I expect of fresh produce.

 

I was trying to be mindful of the fact that we always talk about beer as an agricultural product having to contend with the vagaries of year to year differences in barely, hops, etc. You're right that we wouldn't stand for the differences we tolerate in produce with beer, but I was just trying to highlight that beer is meaningfully subject to those variances in a way that most grocery items don't really need to contend with*.

Ritz crackers or ice cream are processed to the point where I can't imagine the nuances of this year's wheat or milk harvest are much of a concern. Though I suppose maybe if there was "Ritz Cracker Advocate" there would be folks who complain about batch variation

*ETA: it occurs to me that perhaps it's harder to keep e.g. ritz crackers consistent than I am giving them credit for. But nonetheless, to get back to my original question, I think consumers have been trained to think that packaged foods/drinks available at established stores all meet some basic level of quality/QC, so I'm not sure an additional "seal" indicating such would be meaningful to the average shopper.

 

While the consumer landscape is constantly shifting (implying "innovation" is a key marketing strategy), what they want is to know when they buy your product today and ten weeks or a year from now that it will be consistent. It doesn't matter whether that product is a cash cow or a brand new shiny, they want to know it will taste good each time they buy it, which is also consistent with our brand's reputation. These days, they sometimes expect "healthy" to be included in that brand image. While I think consumers are given too much credit at times, it is not as simple as it was when I started - make stuff that tastes great, go forth and sell.

What we see is there is a lot of segmentation. Examples - while there are small but boisterous enclaves of "organic" and "non-GMO" consumers out there, they are still in the (vocal) minority and you are only going to sell so much volume to those segments - kind of a niche market, but they do have an effect on everyone. Think of it like us here on BA versus everybody who drinks beer - we're the equivalent of that vocal minority. We probably don't carry as much "stroke" since we aren't on TV or Facebook telling people what they should think/do. The average consumer, by what I see, just wants products that taste good (ie, products that they "like"), satisfy their hunger or thirst, and products that are safe for them to consume. If it carries a bit of healthy baggage along then that is great too.

The QC and process control programs and the money we spend on these programs are all transparent to the consumer. What it does is fuel brand equity - how the consumer views the company overall. The consumers don't really know, but they kind of assume that a company with a great reputation must have great QC programs, but it doesn't matter beyond building trust in the brand. They have no idea what it takes for us to produce products all over the country and have it taste and look the same, nor do they care.

I'm in R&D engineering. What do I know? But I do pay attention in meetings once in a while ;-)

 

And by the way - I agree that the zombie shoppers are certainly conditioned and that quality/QC is a given. And you are also correct - anything to do with baking or drying of a product is a royal pain in the ass to keep consistent. How much do you want to spend on process control is the first question.

To me, being on the "inside" of the industry, a seal proclaiming quality would be meaningless. All it would mean is that the internal systems exist. We just went through the agony of getting our R&D mini-line up to speed with the Food Safety Modernization Act. Same product goes in the package using the same methods it did before, but now we are compliant and have the paperwork systems to prove it. Not a bad thing - protects the company from us doing something stupid, but there's not much there that matters to the shopper. Everybody is supposed to be in compliance.

 

@drtth regarding the beer you just reviewed on NBS (the Italian Trappist one), my bottle is not dated (it has some cryptic code though). I couldn't say if yours was or wasn't dated (or if the case was). I'm not trying to catch you with some sort of pointless finger-wagging (not living up to an unrealistic absolute doesn't invalidate anyone's point or efforts)... but I respectfully bring it up to simply add a more fleshed out picture of the realities rather than to take such a black and white stance.

When I bought my bottle of that beer, it was new to that particular store shelf, but I've been burned before at the same store by buying "new" stock that was probably very old before it got to the store. Even though the beer was very expensive, I decided to roll the dice because I wanted to try it. That's the bottom line. I also buy beer at bars and I never personally look at the dates on the kegs. Surely, most of the people here would say the same. In my experience, draught beer is certainly not guaranteed to be "fresh." Not even at "trustworthy" places.

 

Well, the piece linked below from the Chicago Tribune today is timely. I probably didn't need to read it right after reading an article about a new brewery opening an hour away from me operated by a group of friends with a total of two years of homebrewing experience. I've been brewing for five years and am nowhere ready to even entertain the thought of go pro. I wish them well, but color me skeptical.

Anyway, I digress and the final paragraph of the Tribune piece says it all for me.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...c-beer-craft-crap-quality-20180911-story.html

 

Apologies for creating confusion with my wording. We have some family members who live in Rome visiting the US for a month of vacation and travel around some sites on the East Coast. The beer was a gift during their stay here at our place so I didn't make a point of looking to find/decipher any information about the code. But there was, as you indicate a code of some kind. Since I thought the beer was worth trying again I'll check out a couple of the shops where I buy beer and see what the Beer Managers have to say or what they know about the beer and its dating. If I find out anything more I'll let you know. However, historically the Monks have dated their beer, see this review:

https://anotherdreamytraveller.com/tag/abbazia-delle-tre-fontane/


As for drinking beer on tap, my original comment was made/intended in the context of following several prior posts about bottle/can dating so I took the questions I was asked as about my comment as a follow on and also being about cans and bottles. So I answered the questions I was asked with that in mind--I don't buy undated or out of code cans/bottles or cans and bottles. However your point remains that dealing with freshness of draught beer is a legitimate issue for concern.

In my personal case there are only two places where I spend money on draught beer. One is in the city and I know both the owner and most all of the servers on a first name basis. The other is in one of the suburbs and they have a real time online listing of what's on tap and what's in their queue to go on tap so it's possible to track periodically their turnover, etc.

Do I know that they aren't lying to me when we talk about freshness or when I ask a server about it and s/he checks with the bartender? No. Do I know that they aren't being lied to by their distributors? No.

Do I have lots of circumstantial evidence that both places are telling me the truth or believe they are? Yes.

 

The only thing you should be apologizing for is the fact that I don’t have family like yours.

 

Pretty good analogy. Brewing is very much a melding of science and art. Quality control does not stifle creativity, it creates consistency. Consumers want consistency. When you pick up your favorite beer, you want it to taste like your favorite beer, not a slightly different or “off” version of that beer. There are a general set of common QC issues that can result in “flawed” beer. Put an oxidized IPA and the same IPA free of this flaw in front of someone with even an untrained palate and they will prefer the non-oxidized version 9 times out of 10. Tasting panels have taught us this. When we are talking about quality control, we are talking about objectivity and not subjectivity. The objectivity helps us consistently eliminate (or at least reduce) what are deemed as undesirable flavors or features in the beer. This leads to beer that is better objectively, and for most palates subjectively as well.

In parallel to the tire example, breweries also employ quality control not only to brew beer consistently, but also to track and rectify potential quality or safety issues in the product they release. Date codes and manufacturing codes aren’t just there to make sure the consumer can tell if the beer is fresh; they provide vital information so the brewer, distributor, and retailer can track beer by batch should they ever need to issue a recall. Mistakes do happen. Exploding packages, infections, glass or debris packaged in a bottle- these are a few things I’ve seen happen over the years. Issuing a recall can save not only a brewery’s reputation, but also protect them from potential lawsuits and help protect the consumer from harm.

As mentioned above, the BA and other organizations do make educational materials and opportunities available to breweries. There’s no excuse for pleading ignorance. I don’t care how small a brewery is- at this point in the game there is no reason to not establish a basic QC system and acquire the necessary lab equipment. Work it into the business plan. I have no sympathy for those who don’t.

I think the Quality seal would be a great idea. It would communicate something concrete to the consumer and (hopefully) help to goad brewers who may not be on top of their game into bettering themselves and their beer. It would at least attempt to address what I think is one of the most pressing concerns in the industry right now. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that the BA may not be equipped to execute something like that. How are we to expect them to handle the auditing of potentially six thousand-something breweries? Do the have the funds to employ a third party? I don’t know, I am speculating myself.

 

Nail on the head with the brand equity comment. Some breweries, such as Ballast Point and Sierra Nevada, have taken this a step further by hiring Field Quality teams who not only monitor conditions and educate at the distribution and retail levels, but also engage directly with the consumer for the express purpose of making QC more visible in the hope that it adds value to the brand. I echo all of your sentiments in that post.

 

I’d be happy just to know that a standardized QC system existed in any brewery using such a seal. As it stands right now, the beer industry is in a sad state concerning the lack of such systems, particularly in small and brand new breweries. I think simply having them would greatly advance things for the better. I would also hope that if the BA decided to implement such a seal, they would get behind it with a marketing campaign, however grassroots, to get a message across to consumers as to what it means and why it matters. Much the way they have done with the independent seal.

 

We may have to agree to disagree... I don't think you're giving Nabisco or Hood enough credit. Beer malt and hops are sourced from all over the world, dried, processed, and boiled to extract the essences necessary for beer. Brewing water is almost always treated or at least monitored closely for consistency. I think those activities are closer to an industrial food operation than a produce farm.

 

I wasn't comparing the creation of the beer to a produce farm, I was comparing the potential degree of variability in beer as experienced by the consumer being closer to produce than to crackers (though admittedly not terribly close to produce).

If we thought beer was being produced as consistently as crackers wouldn't this whole thread be moot?

 

Very much agreed.

Completion of classes to initially obtain the seal and CE classes to maintain it. They don't even have to be in-person classes. They could easily be set up online.

 

Creating a consistent food product has WAY less variables than does making beer, due, mostly, to fermentation, as both use variable agricultural products.

 

Yes. But some craft beer is not being produced as consistently as crackers... that's [part] of the quality problem. It's not impossible to produce beer consistently either as evidenced by beers on shelves all around us that have been consistent for years, even decades... e.g. Sierra Nevada Pale All, Bell's Two Hearted, Stone Enjoy By, *cough*Budweiser*cough* and many, many, many other examples.

 

Minor side note, if the BA set up a quality certification program, BA's larger non-independent brewer members should easily pass any quality program requirements. Offering a quality certification/seal could be a small olive branch to their larger member brewers who for years have dealt with the BA's backhanded slaps at their non-independence.