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

Lack of transparency in beer labeling is a non-issue. If a beer drinker cares who brews the beer they drink, they will find out. All one requires is the internet and Google or a knowledgeable beer store employee. People simply don't care.

The growing concern ought to be focused on the quasi-monopolistic nature of the American beer industry. 2700 breweries make up roughly 6% of the market share? This is not a true representation of the free market at work. Let's work on eliminating favorable legislation for the big brewers (keep dreaming...I know) and the archaic franchise laws and three-tier system which holds microbreweries back.

Transparency in beer labeling is a distraction.

 

Speaking of them, Berghoff Dark may single-handedly be responsible for me being a beer drinker.

While it wasnt the first beer I enjoyed (that occurred while I lived in Switzerland in the early 90s), when I moved back to the US and on to Madison, it was the first beer I had regular access to that I regularly enjoyed.

I think I last had some about a decade ago and I found it "meh" at best, but I will always think fondly of it, even if I have moved on.

 

I can't imagine that making the information so much more easily obtained could possibly hurt. Not everyone has the time or technology to run an internet search on every item while in the store, and "knowledgeable beer store employees" aren't super common or necessarily free of pressure from their suppliers themselves.

OK, then let's get it passed quickly so we can get back to solving the "real" problem.

 

Again, the information is out there. It only seems "hidden" to the lazy or the people who simply don't care. If the one or two people who go in to a store to buy "craft" beer suddenly have an epiphany and want to know who actually brews it and are without a smart phone, they can easily ask a store clerk.

I'll agree to the notion that having this information on the packaging is beneficial. But the accusation in the OP article suggests that this lack of information for consumers hurts craft breweries. I just don't think the evidence is there. However, there is plenty of evidence that points to government intervention in the marketplace as the actual culprit for propping up big business and hurting the smaller breweries.

 

Their porter is actually pretty good, for the price and availability that is.

 

I wish I lived near the stores where you shop, where the clerks are all knowledgeable and advise their customers to not buy the products of their biggest suppliers. For many consumers it's not that they're lazy or don't care, it's about knowing that there even is an issue, that there is a group who thinks they should care. That's why it's called an awareness campaign.

 

This is something that seems to have been largely overlooked in this discussion. There is, I suspect, a large number of people who, whether or not they're inclined to even give it a second thought, aren't concerned that their Blue Moon is made by Coors or Shock Top by ABI. Even if they knew about it they'd have no problems buying beer made by a megabrewer because the politics of what they buy is a non-issue for them (hands up how many BAs here who don't buy BMC for reasons of politics go to Wal Mart?) or perhaps because they used to drink a BMC beer anyway, and perhaps still do when they don't drink Blue Moon. The number of people who would stop buying beers like Shock Top and Blue Moon if they knew who made them may well be a lot smaller than the Brewers Association thinks.

That doesn't make it right to hide who the ultimate owner of the company is but it's something that happens in so many other areas of business. It's been a while since I bought a bar of Green and Black's chocolate so I don't know for sure if the wrapper tells the consumer that they're owned by Cadbury now, who are in turn owned by Kraft, a company who I think I'd describe as comparable to SABMC or ABI in their own way, or if it gives the impression - deliberately or otherwise - that Green and Blacks is still an independent company making organic and Fairtrade chocolate. If it's the latter then they're definitely in the same camp as BMC, and it ain't right. It matters to me who I buy from but I don't have the time to research the parentage of every single thing I purchase so transparency and information on a label is something I consider important. That's not the case for everyone.

 

I'll go further. The Bros should give Jesskidden his own forum. Always, always, and interesting read.

 

It may be more comparable than you realize.

Phillip Morris bought Miller in 1969, then sold it to SAB in 2002.

Phillip Morris acquired Kraft in 1988 and spun them off in 2007.

 

I wish I lived in a place like that as well. Unfortunately, I just live in a place where a store expects their employees to answer basic questions about the products it sells...not actively proselytize it's customer base.

 

It's only called "proselytizing" when they're selling something fringe, like craft beer. When they're pushing mainstream stuff it's called "salesmanship."

 

You are right. It was on tap at Buffalo Wild Wings one night. Scrumptious.

 

I am of the opinion that anyone who cares enough to post on this board, should know more about beer than any clerk working in a store.

 

I don't understand the logic of that. I'm of the opinion that anyone working in a craft beer store should know at least as much as, if not more than, the average BA or be a BA themselves. There are bartenders/bar managers/owners/brewers/cellarmen/jesskidden posting here regularly.

The important words are "any clerk" and "should". There are plenty of people who need a job; an opening at a place that sells beer, whether a beer store or a supermarket, comes up and they take it regardless. Some of them will never do more than smile at the customers and collect a wage packet at the end of the week, but it's been my experience over the years that taking a random job in any area of commerce or industry can spark an interest that leads to a new career, or at least a bookshelf with names like Jackson, Mosher and Oliver on it.

 

. . . I think I have 'awareness' fatigue in general, but even for many beer causes, something I'm supposed to be a little passionate about, relatively speaking.

Getting. . . desensitized. . . to . . . causes. Can't . . . type . . . like. . . Shatner, much, longer. . .

 

I don't think it is a non issue for anybody. But bringing politics into the buying of products results in a scale of injury that becomes a list of companies to "boycott". I think most folks are inured to spending money in ways that can be harmful, in fact we routinely spend money in ways that are so incredibly much more harmful than buying Budweiser that they/we tend to ignore any tiny problems.

I will post #1 on my list, then skip to #18,943 on my list of companies to boycott due to problems associated with their business practices/use of their products.

1. Oil companies, due to some of the profits from the sale of oil go directly to Al Qaeda and are used to fund weapons and pay fighters to kill Americans. Further, use of their products pollutes waterways and releases soot and free radicals and other chemicals into the air we breathe and contributes to poor health.
........(skip way ahead)

18,943. Tire companies, due to rubber dust scraped off as normal wear while driving is polluting fresh water across the country and world.
18,944. ABInBev, due to their ruthless grab for shelf space, and underhanded marketing and distribution policies that are keeping craft brewers from growing faster than 13% annually.

ABI could really have gone one spot lower down, but Helium Party Products Companies were seen to be not quite as bad.

 

Very much so. Heck, a decent argument can be made that buying any taxable commodity can be equated with spending money in a ways that can be harmful. I love my country, but can't help not ignore where we're at in the context of history:

No nation has ever incarcerated so many of its own peoples before (2 million and counting). Tax revenue to the government fuels prohibition and mass incarceration (and a bunch of other things that someone might disagree with and snitch the 'report' button).

So, yes, beer corporations who hide the identity of their faux craft fall under the umbrella of bad things supported by our purchase $$. But its really far down on the list in the grand scheme of things.

LEGALIZE FREEDOM!!!

 

Freedom is legal, it's just to expensive for most people!

 

Yes.. it seems there are more and more brands showing up on shelves that look like a craft brew.. and it says nothing about the big three anywhere on the label... but then I find out it is brewed by one of the big three... now I can say I do usually take the time to search a brewery I'm thinking of trying on my iphone, but sometimes I'm in a rush and just grab something quickly.

The first time I had a Leinie's.. I didn't know they had been purchased by one of the big boys...

 

I've been mentally preparing a similar post to this but haven't taken the time to type it out, so thanks! Totally agree with you, and I think we all tend to lose that perspective when it comes to our particular hobbies/interests. The "harm" brought by buying ABI/SABM/etc is insignificant compared to many other things we happily/ignorantly support.

Its fine to avoid AALs because you dislike them, or to prefer to support the craft brewer you know because he contributes to the community, but I think we ascribe way too much evil intent to the big brewer, and over-weight their perceived harm. If you're ready to boycott ABI over their business practices, you should really think about looking at what else you buy that's harmful to someone - its going to be a long list.