NH Growler Bill

Of these requirements, I believe the tamper-sealed will stay, to comply with open container laws, and that the beer inventory requirements will be lowered for on-premises.

Nobody but some NH brewers wants training, and the shared growlers violates the sanitation argument, so I hope that goes away.

Finally, the labeling with NH branding might run afoul of TTB labeling requirements.

If you want to be able to buy growlers to go at various locations in NH, or are a retailers or non-NH brewery that would participate, I urge you to write the NH House Commerce and Consumer Committee and attend any subcommittee hearings.

 

That's great - I'm excited there is some activity around growler fills.

If anything, reading through the bill makes me even more sure that NH breweries could indeed fill any glass so long as they 're-brand' or put stickers on growlers ala Blue Lobster of old.

 

What do you mean by 'nobody but some nh brewers wants training'?

Also, what is 'the sanitation argument'?

 

Ugh, brewers are so dumb. Why make it harder for people to buy your beer!?!?!!? Why not ban draft beer too--there's always the risk of dirty lines, dirty glasses, old beer, etc. Sheesh. I hope all these guys bitching about this have exceedingly clear best-by dates on their packaging if they're so concerned about their beer being presented in tip-top shape.

 

Hi all,

I know the "if it works there it should work here" argument isn't the best, but when the customer goes to a retail outlet or restaurant and asks for a method of packaging they have enjoyed elsewhere (or in the case of NH, a growler can be filled fresh at a brewpub, nano or other brewery taproom), then shouldn't that retailer be able to explain in a better manner than "it's against the law for us".
We at Prodigal support this discussion about how to offer this to the consumer because You asked for it. I think it's prudent to find ways to give our customers what they want. Also, we produce several beers that don't translate well to bottles to sit on a warm retail shelf (most of our wheat beers in the summer).
Finally, I am open to more options for choice in this state. I do not fear competition, I embrace it. I think that a high tide raises all boats. I make beer, it's what I love to do. I just happen to run my own brewery, because that's the only way I can make what I want, where I want, for whom I want. I think that this discussion really needs to be customer driven. If this is something you want , let someone know. If this is not something you want, let someone know. Let's all relax and drink great beer. More time enjoying and less time driving and waiting in line.

Cheers,
Paul Davis-Brewer
The Prodigal Brewery
Effingham, NH 03882

 

NH State Liquor Commission does not want to come up with a sanitation training program ... NHSLC has cops and accountants, no bartenders. No expertise. Why would I want a department with no expertise in bar sanitation to come up with a training program? Who pays for it?

 

Yeah, kind of my point. The brewers pushing the sanitation issue want an exemption from sanitation guidelines and training for themselves.

If it's a good idea, why would brewers be exempt? TTB license is the right to pay taxes, no sanitation training or inspections.

If quality is a concern, why not push a line cleaning bill?

The bottom line is that the brewers want a monopoly on growler fills of their beer, but opt-out isn't enough. They don't want anyone else filling growlers nearby, because it might cut into their business. So they are asking the General Court to protect them from this competition.

This is the very definition of crony capitalism.

 

re: Sanitation argument. I am not clear what the parade of horribles is with sanitation. Create some standard that applies to restaurants and grocers, but not brewers. Enforce said standard. But then allow shared growlers. In fact, enforce shared growlers, but only for the retailers. It makes no sense at all.

The brewers who do growler fills right, in my opinion, don't refill growlers brought to them, they exchange them for fresh, clean growlers, and clean the returned growlers.

We still have milk in glass bottles around here. You exchange for new glass, even at the dairy. Right?

 

First hearing was yesterday; follow this link:

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=681&code=H43

 

Interesting discussion here. I'm glad it's getting some attention at least. You'd kind of think that brewers would be happy to have another way to reach customers. I mean, they are still selling the kegs to the retail outlet anyhow, just maybe at a lower margin. For that lower margin they don't have to pay people to fill growlers, seems like a trade-off to me.

Maybe part of the reason is that the customer wouldn't get the full experience if they weren't at the brewery, getting the background, story, merch, etc.

 

The Commerce Committee is ready to vote ITL based on the brewers' concerns. This is rather unfortunate, as NH brewed beer makes up less than 5% of NH beer sales ... so no Stone Vanilla Smoked Porter on tap in the granite state any time soon, as most brewers can't handle the competition!

 

It's not about beer quality, it's about protecting profits.

 

Worse, Smuttynose claimed they didn't support growler fills because they have quality and sanitation concerns about filling operations, and prefer to only package in own-branded containers.

But Smuttynose is available at Growler Garage in Burlington, Vermont, an opt-in state, where a brewery must actively seek to have beer poured. What gives?

 

@JayT what sayeth thou?

 

An on-premises or off-premises licensee maintaining an inventory of at least 200 different beer products only

that's like 3 places in the whole state

 

Yes, and that is still three too many for some NH brewers.