Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Craft Brewer Definitions and the BA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Reinheitsgebot and Craft Beer

    Yes, this is a very interesting thread.
    No, the Reinheitsgebot was not a form Ludditism, i.e. it wasn’t a way to keep new technology out of the industry to protect workers’ jobs (that’s what I understand under that term, anyway). Essentially, the reason it was instituted is that (1) at times wheat was in short supply for the unwashed masses, so it was decreed that it should only be used for bread (so folks didn’t starve), and barley, considered a lesser quality grain (at least for eating), was to be used for beer. Also (2), brewers were throwing all kinds of strange herbs and fillers into their wort/beer to make it go further, resulting in illness and even death amongst drinkers. Remember that beer wasn’t an after-work luxury beverage in those days (the 16th century), it was the daily liquid bread of the masses, so everybody would’ve been affected by what brewers did to their beer. (Water was not a reliable thirst-quencher because it often carried dangerous microbes.)
    The Reinheitsgebot should therefore not be view as “nazification” but as consumer protection. The “patricians” of Germany in those days continued to drink beer made of wheat because they liked it and could afford it, hence Georg Schneider became the first “plebeian” to be awarded the rights to brew with it when times started getting better and food wasn’t so scarce.
    As to whether the Reinheitsgebot (today the core of the German Beer Law) stifles creativity, I don’t really think so. Of the three traditional brewing cultures, unlike Belgium and Britain, Germans (and Central Europe in general) still consider their beer daily liquid bread, even though per capita consumption has gone down over the past 50 years, therefore beer, like bread, doesn’t need to be exciting or exotic, but simply good and of good quality, being a basic foodstuff – that’s why everywhere you go in Central Europe you find a Helles/Pils variant, i.e. no crazy fruit or herbs (not that there’s anything wrong with that ). Since the EU, the Reinheitsgebot doesn’t apply anymore, anyway. A brewery, however, cannot include on their label that their beer was brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot unless it complies with the rules laid out in the German Beer Law, which would not be considered a wise marketing move. Today, Germans consider the Reinheitsgebot to be a law which protects their beer from "chemicals", which isn't entirely true.
    I do agree, however, that saying this beer’s craft beer and that one’s not is merely a way to segregate the industry. I think all of us would agree that the Big Three don’t brew “craft beer”; their beer is consistent and has a good shelf life, though. AB does excel at that. I certainly wouldn’t want to define “craft beer” negatively, but the Big Boys might argue that it could be defined as beer with a short shelf life and lack of consistency. Yes, a collective voice to fight the Big Boys dressed in Microbrewers' clothing isn't a bad idea. Perhaps, stating on the label exactly where the beer is produced and by whom should be lobbied to be made into law. The front where most of the war to increase diversity in the industry will most likely be fought will be in state governments by the lobbyists. Laws which cater to big breweries with big money will keep most of the little guys down.
    So, in my opinion, whether you brew beer according to one tradition, i.e. Belgian, British, Central European or American or brew beer that cannot be categorized, it doesn’t matter. Ultimately, I believe if you've stored up a lot of bad brewing karma, it'll come back to bite you in the end. Since the first boom in microbrewing, a great culling has occurred, and I like to think that most of those weren't making good beer (some of course were, though). However, the more diversity there is, the merrier – and the better the American brewing industry is for it.
    Last edited by crassbrauer; 04-10-2007, 06:10 PM. Reason: can't spell

    Comment


    • #17
      Wow! Roughstock, you are sure getting your fill of material here! Your reply definitely gave me something more to chew on! I love stuff like this. You could almost say I'm...passionate about it!

      OK, Steffan, you and I are in agreement about "hands off" as far as the Gov't goes. Of course, (remember my erasable line in the sand?) when I start considering AB, and their deceptive practices, I reconsider. I don't drink Bud, but many people do. That's fine, I have no problem with that! I would actually recommend it to people who don't care for the product I produce. I have enough confidence in myself to know that my product will continue to thrive even though "Bud Select" and "I.P.jAy" are dispensing neighbors. HOWEVER, it cheapens what we do when companies like AB slither into our tap lines disguised as one of us. It's very clever, but sneaky, and those who purchase our beers on the basis of ethics (supporting small business and local economy) are falling prey to false advertising. I'm a capitalist to the bone, but stuff like this makes my blood boil!
      The German Purity Law is great and all, but those who desire will always look for a loophole in the system. Under the Purity Law in Germany (I was told) zinc cannot be added directly to beer, so some breweries just line their pipes with zinc. We all want the rich to pay more taxes in this country, but when they hit a certain bracket, what do they do? They turn their money into real estate, and liquid assets. AB found a way into our backyards. It's not illegal. Heck, by American standards, it's not even unethical. It's just the way the world turns.

      Dave Thomas (Wendy's) was a simple man. He began his business because he loved 2 things: Hamburgers and excellence. Good burgers meant good business. His product was so superb, his simple mom and pop op expanded, and you know the rest of the story. I don't buy Wendy's hamburgers. Wendy's got big, and (by my "food snob" standards) the burgers got bad. What happened? Opportunity knocked, (and after a few minor value system adjustments) he answered the door. Every big thing begins with several small compromises. Dave Thomas made some compromises, for which his daughter, Wendy will forever be thankful. What makes us any different than Dave Thomas? Who wouldn't sell a 6Bbl brewery to buy a 12 Bbl brewery? Why stop there? Some people have dreams of grander. Some people reach for grander because they work hard everyday, usually for little compensation, and feel entitled to it ("I bust my ass around here, it's about time somebody noticed") What keeps those dreams hidden is a combination of pride, and a need to feel a sense of worth. We create an us vs. them scenario, and secretly desire to be like them in the end. Imagine what would happen if we did standardize craft beer. If we did get that "good." We would wind up with a few big fish in a very small pond, that would eventually eat the smaller fish, and move to a bigger body of water, careful to not to expose themselves, and damage the original mission statement. Not to mention, AB, and companies like them, would have the capital to spawn "smaller" breweries that adhere to those standards as well, again robbing our industry of it's "non-corperate" image.

      I have (as well as many others in my industry) established a level of integrity with my bosses, and my and my clientele, and that is the standard I strive for everyday. I don't cheat when backs are turned because it helps me sleep at night. I have a simple philosophy based on my high standards: Only serve beer to others that I would be willing to serve my friends, my family, and myself. Keep it pure, keep it profitable, and keep it delicious. I've been to pubs where the beer was absolutely atrocious! How they manage to sustain themselves is beyond me. But they do, which means we still have a long way to go as far as educating the general public.

      Doing what one has to do, will always get in the way of what one wants to do. Now that I HAVE to brew, and I HAVE to cook, I WANT to do other things (to separate work and play). I freelance write for magazines. I love it. You know why? Because I do it when I WANT. No deadlines, no pressure, no competition, no feelings of impending failure. I can call myself a writer when I WANT. If I screw up an article, I can shrug it off by telling myself I'm not a writer to begin with. Craft brewing is a job. Cooking is a job. I HAVE to do it. I am a brewer. I am an executive pastry chef. These are titles that I (because of the values my father instilled in me) must take seriously. I would LOVE to sit and chat with every home brewer who wants to tell me (at nauseam) what I need to do to improve my beer. I would love to be the guy who gets to stand in front of a t.v.camera, and act like I'm getting an erection when I smell a handful of cascades. I would LOVE to have time to travel the world (by the way, Crassbrauer....We never made it to Germany Maybe next year! Sorry!) in search of the greatest beers. It's just not that way. I love my job, but the grass isn't always greener, if you know what I mean. Real detectives don't watch CSI, real doctors don't watch House, and real chefs get annoyed with Emeril. These shows are sucessful because they entertain the rest of us. CSI has been labeled a fraud, but I still watch it knowing full well, and I still like to imagine real forensic investigators living their lives like that. Chain stores, the internet, and other things like it, have caused us to lose personal connection with one another. Marketing guru Seth Godin believes people must feel a personal connection to the products they purchase. So, give the people what they want, but know this. I go to work every day like everyone else. I sruggle paycheck to paycheck, and while I don't comprimise my values, the situation I'm in drives me to srtive for more. It is a balancing act, my friend.

      I'de love to keep writing, but I have to get back to work.
      Roughstock, I sent you a private email. Thanks for starting this thread. It has been very therapeutic for me.

      "You have to want what you want...but you also have to want what your wants lead to."
      Last edited by mr.jay; 04-11-2007, 07:31 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Ugh, I just wrote a long post to various things people have said and lost it all...


        It sounds like maybe the craft industry—whoever that actually refers to—should focus on consumer education above all. Labeling laws (ingredients, ownership, etc), anything that encourages full disclosure. If a brewery uses isinglass, then they better be ready to be abandoned by the vegan market (totally reasonable expectation in my opinion). If a brewery uses adjuncts, they better be ready to be abandoned by purists. That's the business decision each brewer makes, even now without real full disclosure laws. But it all hinges on consumer education—a.k.a. marketing. And that is what trade orgs are good for (or should be, anyway).

        That and legislation. Distro laws are a good example. The Big Three basically hit craft brewing with a double whammy:

        1. They are starting to pose as indie brewers (this is a gray area, too, because they are both full owners of faux-indies like Wild Hops and partial owners of what were once real indies like Goose Island). But this harms indie craft brewers because the consumer may choose a Wild Hops thinking they are supporting a fully indie biz, thereby taking business away from real indies.

        2. As they undermine indie sales, they are also limiting indie distro by lobbying the hell out of state gov't. So the market ends up being Bud/Miller/Coors and Wild Hops/Widmer/Redhook. What happened to the indies? Are the latter three craft enough?

        Maybe the issue should be split into two:

        CRAFT: Certain limits on ingredients, this is probably harder to define and reach consensus on.

        INDIE: Specific production limits, ownership limits, etc.

        And then the trade orgs could focus on what they should—marketing/educating the consumer and lobbying.

        There are still many gray areas, of course.


        Man, I have a lot to write/think about! When I finally get my thoughts together and have something down on paper, I will be sure to share it here. And by all means, I'd love to keep talking about this.

        —J.

        Comment


        • #19
          Craft beer, schmaft beer

          Why do you want to put a limit on ingredients? Brewers should only limited by what is considered safe for human consumption and their imagination. If someone in a brewpub wants to try their hand at Lite beer, why not? They'll probably fail miserably, when compared to the big breweries' Lite beers. The consumer should be the one who decides these things; however, the consumer does need to be educated at times. The quality of the big three breweries' beers isn't any less than that of craft beer; their beers just taste like nothing, because there's hardly anything in it besides water.

          Craft beer, schmaft beer. Words like "craft", "organic", and "non-processed" are really only useful to marketeers. There are large food producers who create excellent quality products and small ones who make crap. Anyway, grain can be dangerous if it's organic due to the increased level of mycotoxins, especially rye. (Of course, reducing our impact on the environment is important. It should be done rationally not rashly, though.) I know of several organic producers whose products are anything but organic.

          Everybody likes what they like. Some people don't want anything new or exciting; others don't want to live without it. Diversity is the key, so that everybody has what they want and can do what they want. This is why fighting the stifling, immediate post-prohibition laws, which can only benefit the big breweries and their distribution networks should be the focus not creating some trendy, superficial definition.

          Comment


          • #20
            Maybe in the non-macro marketplace Anheuser-Busch is just embarassed that they are AB. If they had pride in all their products and actions why would they need to be deceitful in not telling the world that they make Wild Hop, etc.? Few people would question that they are a very proud company on most occasions.


            I was under the impression that the the Reinheitsgebot was also involved in assuring that only taxed goods were used in making beer, as other ingredients were not taxed. Today in the US, we are taxed on barrels of beer removed but this is not uniform over history and in other countries. Traditionally in the UK for example, it was the gravity and the volume in the fermenters that was taxed, so that losses (or brewer's samples) were taxed as well. This also influenced the popularity of lower gravity, well attenuated brews.
            Last edited by Moonlight; 04-11-2007, 02:54 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Moonlight
              I was under the impression that the the Reinheitsgebot was also involved in assuring that only taxed goods were used in making beer, as other ingredients were not taxed. Today in the US, we are taxed on barrels of beer removed but this is not uniform over history and in other countries. Traditionally in the UK for example, it was the gravity and the volume in the fermenters that was taxed, so that losses (or brewer's samples) were taxed as well. This also influenced the popularity of lower gravity, well attenuated brews.
              That could have been an ulterior motive, but I haven't read or heard anything about that specifically. Being precursors to modern politicians, you never know with royals, and I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Modern sewage was supposedly invented in England because Queen Victoria was losing too many workers to disease during the Industrial Revolution. Now she gets all the credit for her compassion for her people. Yada, yada, yada. I've also read that dry stout got started because of taxes, too. Arthur Guinness got around taxes on malt by replacing roasted malt with roasted unmalted grain. Serendipity has resulted in some great beer styles/traditions.

              Comment


              • #22
                The Reinheitsgebot also specifically allows "yeast", not any "one-celled organisms." Consider that the use of Lactic creatures and Brettanomyces could make more alcohol per kilo of malt, so this could also leverage the ratio of how much alcohol tax per kilo/gallon of wort. There were once at least both British and German beer styles with other creatures than just Saccharomyces.
                Tax money talks.
                See this link: www.europeanbeerguide.net/poundage.htm
                Note: this post seems to contain a factual error...see below!
                Last edited by Moonlight; 04-12-2007, 11:15 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thanks for the interesting link.

                  The Reinheitsgebot does not specifically mention any microbes. The Reinheitsgebot predates any knowledge of microbiology (it was written in 1516). It stated that only water, barley and hops were allowed in beer. Beers at that time were more or less the product of wild fermentation although there is evidence that there was some knowledge amongst brewers that the white-ish sludge at the bottom of the barrel helped make good beer (the German word for yeast, "Hefe", shares a common root with the word "heben" and meant at that time to "raise" or to "rise up").

                  However, microbial contamination could've played a role in the 16th century when the decision was made to ban brewing between the early Spring and Autumn. The beer brewed in the warmer months probably tasted very bad, i.e. sour or buttery, although they wouldn't have known why. Aged beer takes on a rounded sherry-like and sometimes musty flavor rather than tasting spoiled, for example, the aged beer flavor is still preferred by many who enjoy three-year-old gueuze or ten-year-old trappist ale.

                  The Reinheitsgebot really only served as the core of the German Beer Law, which was much wider in scope and was repealed in 1987 when the EU decided it created unfair trading practices between Germany and its neighbors. German brewers have used lactos to create "Sauergut" to acidify mash and wort, so there's no restriction on microbes, except for what pleases and displeases the customers' palate. Traditional beer spoilers in Germany are often desired in Belgium and Britian (lactos, pedios, brett).

                  This is yet another example of why American brewers should be given the freedom to do what they want, rather than having to stick to what someone in "authority" labels "craft beer". If they want to brew with microbes they've grown up from a cow's udder, then so be it, as long as their product is not harmful to anyone and they can sell it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Couldn't disagree more strongly with you Crassbrauer when you state that 'organic' and 'craft' labels mean something only to marketeers. 10's of millions of consumers in North America alone have come to trust organic/vegan/vegetarian/fair-trade certification of products. It creates a level of comfort/trust instantly with the consumer. It is definitely meaningful to the consumer.

                    Why not a 'better beer' mark? It would eliminate the need for ingredient labelling and could be presented to the consumer along something like:

                    Our beers do not contain any of the following ingredients:
                    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                    Other beers might.
                    Contact your local brewer.

                    It would require co-operation, certification, enforcement and a self funding framework. It need not be very restrictive as you might think vis-a-vis ingredients and practices but it MUST draw a meaningful immovable line between us and them to make it appealing to the consumer. Until such distinction is made, the megabrewers' pseudo-micro's will continue to fill their coffers on the coattails of the real craft producers.

                    Other trade organizations define themselves meaningfully all the time. Why we don't, I admit, is beyond me.

                    Love to discuss.

                    Pax.

                    Liam
                    Liam McKenna
                    www.yellowbellybrewery.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Non "craft" brewers to the back of the bus!

                      "... MUST draw a meaningful immovable line between us and them..."
                      With all respect, Liam, who are "us" and who are "them"? Why do you think you produce "better beers"? Who says they're better? What is better about them?
                      None of my beers are reinheitsgebot--intentionally. I use mineral salts to add calcium and bottled CO2 to carbonate. I use adjuncts all the time. Oats, rice, sugar, unmalted wheat, roasted barley, even fruits, spices and herbs! I use chemicals to clean and sterilize my tanks. Processed hops. The latest canning technology. I drive a big gas-guzzling SUV to work. My beers are clean, tasty and wholesome. And yes, they are "craft". And I accept that they may not be for everybody. That's up to them.
                      Full disclosure? Of what? Ingredients? Additives? Intentions & attitudes? Love of beer? Most of us eat more that we drink; why is there no "better food" certification for restaurants? "Better podiatrist" for foot doctors?
                      And why do some people feel that just because a brewery is not "independent" (we're all dependent), that it must make inferior beer? Do you buy your ingredients from independent suppliers? Sell your beer to independent outlets?
                      I don't understand the US and THEM mentality. We all (I think) enjoy our work and take pride in the results--Regardless of the business structure of our breweries or whether we use hop extracts or "organic" whole flowers. We are about beer. Passion is just doing your job well--whatever that is. If there is an US and a THEM, it should be those who love beer, and those who would favor prohibition. Those are the real bad guys.
                      I can do my own due dillegence. For me, if it tastes good then it IS good.
                      Phillip Kelm--Palau Brewing Company Manager--

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Years ago my brewing professor lamented what happened to the once dominant Schlitz..he said they stopped tasting their beer. To me, if the top echelon of a brewery is on the tasting panel every day, it is a craft brewer. If not, it is a Marketing Brewery and has lost the Craft status.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          [QUOTE=Moonlight
                          I was under the impression that the the Reinheitsgebot was also involved in assuring that only taxed goods were used in making beer, as other ingredients were not taxed. Today in the US, we are taxed on barrels of beer removed but this is not uniform over history and in other countries. Traditionally in the UK for example, it was the gravity and the volume in the fermenters that was taxed, so that losses (or brewer's samples) were taxed as well. This also influenced the popularity of lower gravity, well attenuated brews.[/QUOTE]

                          Taxation has been highly influential in the development of beer styles.

                          Between 1830 and 1880, when beer in Britain was only taxed through the raw materials (malt and hops) there was a Reinheitsgebot in force. This was dropped in 1880 when the system of taxation was changed to be based on the original gravity of the wort. It´s pretty obvious from this that the only reason for insisting on just malt and hops was to protect tax revenue.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            labels

                            Originally posted by liammckenna
                            Couldn't disagree more strongly with you Crassbrauer when you state that 'organic' and 'craft' labels mean something only to marketeers. 10's of millions of consumers in North America alone have come to trust organic/vegan/vegetarian/fair-trade certification of products. It creates a level of comfort/trust instantly with the consumer. It is definitely meaningful to the consumer.
                            My point exactly. It makes the customer feel good about his purchase. Marketeers love that, because people like to feel good. How many of these labels are truthful or meaningful? As I mentioned, I have known of several organic producers over the years who label their products organic and use only normal ingredients. Once again, organic can be dangerous in some cases. For example, crops like grain, coffee, pistachios and other foods susceptible to fungal contamination can be more dangerous for the consumer when grown organically than when sensibly treated with fungicides. (A mere pinch of ergot will kill a person, and other mycotoxins aren’t so harmless, either.)

                            By the way, because malting and brewing are like one long washing process, it is extremely rare that residue from pesticides sprayed on grain can be found in beer. Beer is one of the cleanest foods around. Unfortunately, mycotoxins survive the process more intact and can be found to some degree in the finished beer, therefore when viewed only from the standpoint of the finished beer, non-organic malt is preferable. As I stated in a previous thread, organic grains would be better suited for producing organic meat, i.e. used as livestock feed. (Of course, you have to worry about what effect the mycotoxins will have on the livestock.) What is often found in beer to a very small degree are the pesticides sprayed on hops; once again it’s usually negligible due to the “washing” effect of fermentation, filtering, etc.

                            Regarding the term “non-processed” when applied to food: If you want “non-processed” beer throw your yeast, hops and unmalted grain in some water and drink it. Processed foods are often more healthy and better tasting than the non-processed ones.

                            I, of course, support getting the coffee and banana farmers their fair share of the profits and reducing our impact on the environment, which would include eating local produce and reducing or nixing one's meat consumption and cutting down on or eliminating harmful pesticide usage. We have to be rational not rash and judgmental about it. “With us/Against us” world-views don’t work, not even for food producers. The labels being put on food by band-wagon jumpers nowadays are sometimes nonsense, designed to make the customer feel like he's not exploiting or poisoning a farmer or getting his beer made in little loving batchfuls, etc. How much of it is really true or meaningful? I don’t know. I’ve been in some small breweries that make me want to puke, they’re so filthy. Are they “craft” brewers?

                            One more note on the Reinheitsgebot: I think it'd be fair to say that I don't think there's anything that's been more misunderstand by brewers around the world. Barley malt, hops and water were the ingredients decided upon in 1516. This was beer for the unwashed masses. Only later were most of the rules established, when knowledge increased, e.g. the distinction between top-fermented and bottom-fermented beers. Top-fermented beers have been able to be brewed with just about any kind of grain malt but bottom-fermented only with barley malt. Germans almost exclusively use pellets (some American and British brewers I’ve talked to were surprised by this) for the simple reason that the hops are better preserved for subsequent brewing in that form, whether they be 90s or 45s. Germans treat their water, like anyone does. They do not, however, add non-fermentation CO2 to their beer (which is silly at times, e.g. when a tank has a leak, etc.). They use PVPP, DE, silica gel, tannins, filter sheets, etc., etc. These things don’t remain in the beer. This is why one often does not see yeast listed as an ingredient in the beer, because it’s not in the beer, it merely helped process the beer.
                            German brewers don’t really have to do have to do much to “get around” the beer law (it’s no longer on the books, anyway, but sort of a pact amongst brewers). Nowadays, it serves more as a way of distinguishing “traditional” beers from “normal” ones, just like cheese labeled as Emmenthaler or Parmesan or ham labeled prosciutto has to be the product of a certain type of production process. These labels are important for the producers over here, because without them they’d just be expensive products. However, these products do stand out as Emmenthaler or Parmesan or prosciutto or all-malt beer when compared to similar products on the market. This is where Europe has to compete, i.e. in the high quality market, because it can’t compete in large-scale production.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Organic is whole 'nother story...

                              At the risk of taking this completely off-topic, I have to respectfully disagree with you, crassbrauer. While I do agree that organic et al. is becoming a huge marketing boon, its relevance and attraction to consumers lies entirely elsewhere.

                              I believe strongly in labeling laws because it adds to transparency at the corporate/business level that would not otherwise exist. Is it perfect and foolproof? No. But it would be absurd to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," so to speak and simply eliminate all need for labeling because it doesn't work 100% of the time. It works much of the time.

                              As for the scientific argument behind whether or not organics are truly healthier, in beer or otherwise, this, too, is a moot point. Organic agriculture—and by organic, I am not referring to the USDA watered-down definition—is not simply a matter of health. It is a matter of worker safety (synthetic pesticides do nasty things to farm workers), it is a matter of biodiversity (sustaining species and biocultures), etc.

                              Organic does not simply mean "no synthetic pesticides." It also encompasses broader farming practices, which in turn effect economy and environment and so on.

                              I don't think restricting ingredients is necessarily the answer, but I do think "full disclosure" is beneficial for everyone except those with something to hide. Many consumers don't care about what they put in their bodies, so full disclosure won't matter to them. But those who do care should have the ability to make informed decisions.

                              I think you examples of Parmesan et al are good ones—European wine appellations, too. The idea is that the consumer has a right to know what s/he is paying for. Labels and certifications offer a system by which they can make informed decisions.

                              Okay, I'll leave it at that. I still think the average craft beer consumer cares most about taste, and the rest comes after that.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by gitchegumee
                                "
                                With all respect, Liam, who are "us" and who are "them"? Why do you think you produce "better beers"? Who says they're better? What is better about them?
                                None of my beers are reinheitsgebot--intentionally. I use mineral salts to add calcium and bottled CO2 to carbonate. I use adjuncts all the time. Oats, rice, sugar, unmalted wheat, roasted barley, even fruits, spices and herbs! I use chemicals to clean and sterilize my tanks. Processed hops. The latest canning technology. I drive a big gas-guzzling SUV to work. My beers are clean, tasty and wholesome. And yes, they are "craft". And I accept that they may not be for everybody. That's up to them.
                                Full disclosure? Of what? Ingredients? Additives? Intentions & attitudes? Love of beer? Most of us eat more that we drink; why is there no "better food" certification for restaurants? "Better podiatrist" for foot doctors?
                                And why do some people feel that just because a brewery is not "independent" (we're all dependent), that it must make inferior beer? Do you buy your ingredients from independent suppliers? Sell your beer to independent outlets?
                                Gitch,

                                I too use all of your mentioned ingredients/cleaning chemicals. I also take advantage of a lot of new technology. I nitrogenate some of my beers. Believe it or not, I share your thinking regarding purity.

                                Full disclosure of everything you mentioned would be ideal.

                                There are various food certifications and professional trade organizations available to restaurants and most healthcare professionals have professional organizations/colleges which monitor, discipline and respond to consumer complaints. Some consumers are aware of them, some are not. It definitely affect the structure of those industries. For the better.

                                What is better about my beers (or yours it seems)? We don't use any crap in them (see previous email).

                                Us vs. them - while all beer is good beer, some beer is better. Remeber that this industry owes its existence to their mediocrity. We should embrace that, I believe.

                                Here in Canada, annual per capita consumption of beer is about 90l. I can think of no other product consumed in similar quantities where I don't really know what's gone into it. I find this kind of bizarre to say the least.

                                As far as independence is concerned, I couldn't care less who owns the means of production. My concern is the beer itself.

                                Finally, I think Stella tastes good. If it was offered to me, I would graciously drink it. I would never buy it. That's just me.

                                Pax.

                                Liam
                                Liam McKenna
                                www.yellowbellybrewery.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X