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.
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.
Comment