"Craft or crafty? Consumers deserve to know the truth"

How can the label for the Sixpoint beer not mention it's brewed in a different state?

 

Because TTB allows you to use either the location of the brewery, or a single location (forget how exactly its worded). I think the reason is to avoid the expense of having to make multiple labels for the same beer bottled at multiple locations.

 

the current Federal regulation is:

​

...and Sixpoint's contract brewing arrangement with The Lion is legally an "Alternating Proprietorship". Apparently the TTB does not think the label is "false or misleading" - although that opinion is not shared by many beer drinkers if a number of threads on the topic are any indication.

 

Thanks for making my post 4 minutes earlier completely worthless by actually looking up the law.

 

Sorry, your post wasn't up yet when I started it...but midway through I stopped and cracked open a beer, so that slowed me down some. Since I'd dug out my old J. W. Lee glass to answer a post earlier today, the glass was still sitting on the kitchen counter and looked so sad, all empty and all. So what else could I do? I pulled a Harvey's Christmas Ale Vintage 2000 out of the beer fridge...

 

This is such a dumb idea:

http://www.cinemablend.com/pop/Craft-Beer-Makers-Talk-Success-Hopes-Future-50478.html

Keep the government out of beer. The President and the COO of the Brewers Association should just offer a trademarked logo when you join! When your brewery becomes a member of the organization you can put the logo on your bottle and people can easily tell it's a "Craft Beer". No need for yet another Gov agency. Keep the independent minded beer community independent! DIY!

 

In my experience the more you try to get people to change, the more they stay the same. Today more than ever. Any type of rally against the Macros will only make their following resent these "****y" beers we like even more than they already do.

But on the bright side, the effect of large scale distribution of Macros introducing "Craft Style" beers to the masses does more for Micros than they might think. When the average consumer sees a 12 pack of Blue Moon next to their "Ol' Faithful" every time they go to the grocery store that's more exposure to a different type of beer. And if they try it, and like it, that's one more step towards them trying something else new. People want to discover stuff on their own.

12 months later they will have a curley mustache, rimmed glasses, and a fitted flannel.

 

Just one of the truths that we consumers deserve to know, right along with ABV and expiration dates.

 

has there been a brewers association representative that has ever replied to your points regarding inconsistencies in their categorization? either in private or here on the forums?

 

If labels are an issue, can't the craft beer makers just prominantly put on their label where they are "brewed and bottled" or BA approved (if you want to go that far) instead of trying to make an industry-wide mandate? For one thing, I think it'd be easier to start doing. Even if a couple of genuinely craft guys choose not to fall in line with the craft labeling, it'll give folks who care about supporting craft (though not enough to look up the brewery before purchasing) a short-hand way to tell which beers available are craft by the BA definition. Just a thought.

 

Wait a second....are you telling me there aren't multiple breweries in Ipswich MA?

 

Funny why the BA didn't try and implement this a few years ago, back when Boston was contract brewing at Miller Brewing Company.

 

Read about the history of Schell's then comment...otherwise you look foolish.

 

Ah, (been waiting for an opening about this topic and realizing you're being somewhat facetious) ---

---but 16 years ago, the Oregon Brewers Guild and a number of other craft brewers DID try to get the Feds (back then, it was still the BATF) to change the labeling regulations concerning the listing brewing city(ies) and the use of 'dba' names on beer labels:

Nation's craft brewers rally behind 'truth in labeling' petition to BATF; more than 50 small brewers cry foul over misleading labels and ads.​

​

and just one quote from the article - "Consumers deserve better than to be misled, and craft brewers deserve better than to be associated with companies that aren't honest about their product."

Of course, the irony is that the quote is from the president of the now "non-craft" Redhook (part of CBA &1/3 owned by AB) and the petition itself was started by an outfit out of St. Louis called Anheuser-Busch.

At the time Boston Beer Co. had started a subsidiary division called Oregon Beer & Ale Co., and was marketing a line of slightly cheaper (than Samuel Adams) beers called "Oregon Originals". BBC was still overwhelming contract-brewed and on the West Coast they used Heileman's Blitz-Weinhard division brewery in (of all places) Portland, OR. Back east, BBC contracted with Hudepohl-Schoenling in Cincinnati [whose brewery they would buy later in the year and would also even use to non-Oregon brew the Oregon Originals beers] and at various other times Pittsburgh (Iron City- their original contractor), Stroh, FX Matt, etc.

In 1996, Pete's (so-called) Brewing Co. was the #2 "Craft-Brewing Co." according to the one of the predecessor organizations (the "craft" half) of today's Brewers Association, the Institute of Brewing's "Association of Brewers". Pete's was 100% contract-brewed, by that time entirely from Stroh, still the #4 brewing company in the US. Stroh was about to buy Heileman, which would put them almost even with #3 Coors in yearly barrelage- close to 20m bbl. Stroh had other strong business connections with Pete's, a Stroh official sat on Pete's board and the company owned a minority (10%) share of the "craft" brewer.

Just about 35% of all "craft" beer came from those two craft contract-brewing company in 1995. As best as I can recall, the IBS/AoB stayed out of that particular fight (for obvious reasons) and the craft brewers eventually dropped out of the petitioning group.

 

Except a logo like that only really means anything if there is some kind of quality control. I mean if all you have to do to get the stamp of approval is be a Brewers Association member and meet their requirements (even if your beer is garbage) then it is totally meaningless. If they want that kind of logo to mean anything there has to be a way to make sure it doesn't go on crappy beer. I mean look at the Authentic Trappist logo. There are over 100 Trappist Monistaries worldwide, but only 8 make beer under the logo. If you are a Trappist monistary and you want to make beer, you have to meet their requirements but the beers are also monitored for quality, because otherwise it hurts the brand. The BA would have to do the same thing otherwise a logo/stamp would be just more dumb branding.

 

Well you guys have certainly convinced me to keep Schell's off of my personal blacklist if I were ever to get a chance to purchase some. I had already decided this for Yuengling (the most bothersome thing they ever did is pull out of my state). Is there a third regional brewery I should be buying against BA advice?

 

Magic Hat makes some pretty good products. But they are owned by a foreign beer/soft drink company so think that is what put them on the black list. Honestly this whole thing seems arbitrary to the point of stupid.

 

Arbitrary, sure, but not that arbitrary. Would you like to try to come up with a cut and dried defintion? Honestly, the only part that seems arbitrary to me is the inclusion of Shiner and Anchor.

 

Uh, you know that the Feds have been involved in "beer" since the Civil War, when the first excise taxes on beer was enacted.

Wouldn't need "another" one, since there is already a Federal agency in charge of beer and other alcoholic beverages, including labeling requirements and approvals, the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau of the Treasury Department. And to make the changes requested by the B.A. would simply mean updating the current rule noted here.

 

What I find interesting in all this talk of parent companies and ownership is that we really are still in the first generation of the "craft-brewing revolution" and a lot of these companies that are really popular now, are still being run by their founders. What is going to happen in the next 10-15 years when those people want to retire and see some kind of a payoff for years of work. Sure some of them might be passed onto kids, and some of them might do like employee buyouts, but that won't be all of them.

And a lot of these companies that have really made names for themselves are multi-million dollar businesses so it is not like there is a huge pool of buyers who could potentially take over. So for a lot of these guys, it will probably come down to the highest bidder, and I would bet that in a lot of cases the highest bidder will either be like an investment firm, or a huge multi-national company (maybe either a beer company like Inbev or an overall alcohol company like Diageo). I wouldn't blame any of these companies for selling to the person with the best offer, so what is going to happen when this sort of thing starts happening (since I think the Goose Island deal was just the tip of the iceberg).