Beer Fraud?

I'm all for that if you can make that happen. Perhaps an 'update' to Truth in Labeling regulations?

If for whatever reason (e.g., lack of specific hop variety(s) availability) changes need to be made, go for it. But brand that beer using a different name. What is so hard about creating a new brand name? Other Half does this on a weekly basis.

Cheers!

 

I would absolutely watch that.

 

I wonder if it’s as serious as mail fraud…?

 

I highly doubt suing the OP is worth the time for any lawyer regardless if they own the place...this is absurd just name the brewery...love how it's crickets now that OP has been taken to task....Law and Order: Hop Fraud Unit... lmao

 

In search of disturbed IPA... get down with the sickness

 

Haha. Freudian slip. My mind is disturbed.

 

Sucks was once a great beer, the first two years I bought it any time I saw it as it was not easy to find if at all. The recipe changed, Tony said no but in his cryptic posts he did allude to hop shortages. The ABV changed, mouth feel changed and it was not the same beer. 40oz arrived and again a different beer. Sucks went from not sucking to sucking big time. Did we call Lagunitas out as cheating liars only here to over profit? No. I complained and will continue to. Others backed my change in this beer up and some did not. My guess is those that did not never had the original two batches. I stopped buying said beer and moved on. I suggest OP do the same. Is fraud the correct term to use?, I doubt it. It would be nice if brewers would note changes on their web sites to let us know what changed and why.


Enjoy

 

Citra has notes of grapefruit too. Just saying.

Also, I'm still not sure if OP is being satirical or not.

 

In my work world, substituting an ingredient would clearly be considered as adulteration - using an undeclared ingredient. The label itself would be in violation for not having an accurate ingredient statement as well as the product itself. A specific "poster child" example I recall is using beet sugar when the label stated cane sugar (not my company) - that's pretty blatant. There have been some pretty subtle cases I have read about as well. Obviously this is a huge difference between the beer world and the food world. The only reason we think we know what's in a beer to begin with relies on whatever the brewery is willing to reveal and whatever we can discern with our taste buds - far different than the laws related to food labelling.

I'd agree with those who've said simply rename the beer if you have to make that radical a change in the formulation, but it also seems to be a huge gray area since there's no requirement for a brewery to disclose their ingredients. Seems more of a moral/ethical (or maybe just goodwill with your consumers) question than a legal issue.

 

I was told drinking Bud Light would make me popular with girls.

That was a fraud.

 

"Wondering why that beer tastes like grapefruit? Well I have some important and damaging info that you may be interested in..."

 

If the brewery advertises a beer as "made with Citra, mosaic, and galaxy hops" then that explicitly leaves the door open for there to be other hops in the mix. Perhaps there's centennial in every batch but Hop lot variation and varietal availability make it more noticeable in some batches than others.

 

My only question is why bother continuing to buy from them at all. Not to mention with this fickle group (BA) anything with wide distro means you should have stopped along time ago as they have obviously sold out.

 

Outside of BA(thanks to the mods for keeping things tight) opinion is clearly holding more weight than truth and fact but I digress.

 

Strange. I've literally never seen anyone on this forum accuse a brewery of "selling out" solely by virtue of having wide distribution. Maybe you're confusing criticism, or something?

 

I'm just referring to the idea that some have opinions on what's legit and what isn't based on the macro or what's owned by macro etc. and I see that all the time on here, people not patronizing for any number of reasons, sold out to macro, owner is a bad boss or gropes the staff etc etc.
Plus with the amount of options in the beer world, move on and hopefully find something you like that's all.

 

Oh. For sure. That strikes me as pretty different from denigrating breweries simply on having a wide distribution footprint which is why I said something, so thanks for clarifying that you meant something else.

 

At this point, brewers are probably inundated with paperwork getting new names and labels approved by the state and Fed authorities. Recycling a name is probably pretty common, and less work and time than starting fresh. I bought new Brooklyn Pilsner (now subtitled Crisp Pilsner) and see no relation between it and the previous version (or a real Pilsner) They reused the name but changed the label, at least. I have had other more local beers that have undergone taste changes without a name change. The last hazy IPA I had (I try to avoid them) actually was labeled West Coast style IPA.

 

I appreciate the OPs post but life's too short, if you feel you've been had keep moving and screw that brewer. Cheers