News BA Takes Stance on ‘Faux’ Craft Beer

The Brewers Association issued the following statement regarding the increase in production and promotion of craft-like beers by large, non-craft breweries:

An American craft brewer is defined as small and independent. Their annual production is 6 million barrels of beer or less and no more than 25 percent of the craft brewery is owned or controlled by an alcoholic beverage industry member who is not themselves a craft brewer.

The community of small and independent craft brewers has grown as beer enthusiasts embrace new, diverse beers brewed by their neighbors and friends who are invested in their local communities. Beer drinkers are voting with their palates and dollars to support these entrepreneurs and their small and independent businesses.

In 2011, small and independent craft brewers saw their industry grow 13 percent by volume; in the first half of 2012, volume grew by an additional 12 percent. Meanwhile, the overall beer industry was down 1.3 percent by volume and domestic non-craft was down 5 million barrels in 2011.

Witnessing both the tremendous success and growth of craft brewers and the fact that many beer lovers are turning away from mass-produced light lagers, the large brewers have been seeking entry into the craft beer marketplace. Many started producing their own craft-imitating beers, while some purchased (or are attempting to purchase) large or full stakes in small and independent breweries.

While this is certainly a nod to the innovation and ingenuity of today’s small and independent brewers, it’s important to remember that if a large brewer has a controlling share of a smaller producing brewery, the brewer is, by definition, not craft.

However, many non-standard, non-light “crafty” beers found in the marketplace today are not labeled as products of large breweries. So when someone is drinking a Blue Moon Belgian Wheat Beer, they often believe that it’s from a craft brewer, since there is no clear indication that it’s made by SABMiller. The same goes for Shock Top, a brand that is 100 percent owned by Anheuser-Bush InBev, and several others that are owned by a multinational brewing and beverage company.

The large, multinational brewers appear to be deliberately attempting to blur the lines between their crafty, craft-like beers and true craft beers from today’s small and independent brewers. We call for transparency in brand ownership and for information to be clearly presented in a way that allows beer drinkers to make an informed choice about who brewed the beer they are drinking.

And for those passionate beer lovers out there, we ask that you take the time to familiarize yourself with who is brewing the beer you are drinking. Is it a product of a small and independent brewer? Or is it from a crafty large brewer, seeking to capitalize on the mounting success of small and independent craft brewers?

There was also a column in the St Louis Post this morning written by BA staff regarding this same issue.

What are your thoughts?

BA Takes Stance on ‘Faux’ Craft Beer posted in:

0 Comments on “BA Takes Stance on ‘Faux’ Craft Beer”

  • YSBrewer

    says:

    I posted the op-ed on our FB page… I’m all for educating the public! If the tables were turned, the Macros would be litigating all of us small brewers out of bizness.

  • nateo

    says:

    I don’t really understand what the point of the BA’s stance is. Do they really expect A-B to put a sticker on Shock-Top that says “Bud Inside”?

  • Helltown

    says:

    I am not opposed per se to the macros making good beer, in fact when Michelob made that dunkel weizen I thought it was really good and would buy more, their others not so much. Regardless, if there is a need for a true delineation then maybe the craft industry should have a “mark” that is put on all labels that designates it as such. Similar to the Trappist breweries. Just a thought and somewhat playing devils advocate. 🙂

  • BrewinLou

    says:

    It is pure and simple deceptive marketing. Just put the damn actual name and place where the beverage was brewed and packaged on the side of the label not some BS fictitious wonderland nonexistent place. Seems to me it should be a TTB directive more than a BA decision. Maybe BA should push the TTB for a more truthful label.

  • Helltown

    says:

    BrewinLou;90574 wrote: It is pure and simple deceptive marketing. Just put the damn actual name and place where the beverage was brewed and packaged on the side of the label not some BS fictitious wonderland nonexistent place. Seems to me it should be a TTB directive more than a BA decision. Maybe BA should push the TTB for a more truthful label.

    I agree with this!

  • liammckenna

    says:

    More crap from the BA. DO you really think consumers care about their ‘definition’. They only recently changed their definition of ‘small’ from 2 to 6 million bbls per year. How many consumers care if their ‘local’ brewery is owned by another brewery? (which I’d actually prefer vs ownership by a bank, which knows nothing about beer). And I suppose if I wanted to start a brewery making ‘craft’ rice beer I’d be shit out of luck.

    Until ‘craft’ brewers define themselves based process or ingredients, others will take advantage of our crap definition and continue to hollow out this word.

    As advertisers say, there’s lots of ‘truthiness’ in the term craft. Some other ‘truthy’ terms would be ‘authentic’ ‘original’ and ‘premium’.

    Sigh…feel like I’ve been saying this for twenty years…oh wait, I have.

    Pax.

    Liam

  • grassrootsvt

    says:

    liammckenna;90595 wrote:
    Until ‘craft’ brewers define themselves based process or ingredients, others will take advantage of our crap definition and continue to hollow out this word.

    As advertisers say, there’s lots of ‘truthiness’ in the term craft. Some other ‘truthy’ terms would be ‘authentic’ ‘original’ and ‘premium’.

    Sigh…feel like I’ve been saying this for twenty years…oh wait, I have.

    Pax.

    Liam

    We could keep discussing this (and will) for 20 more years. “Craft” might describe some blanketed semantics within the BA itself…(6,000,000 and less barrels of production) but it still fails to identify the vast disparity between the large members and the small. Essentially, a small 1,000 barrel operation, with no interest in growth, is lumped into the same category (“Craft”) as Boston Beer, New Belgium, and so forth. The only commonality, really, is that Craft = that which is other than BMC. Personally, I think it is a lame way of defining an industry… difference through the harshness by which it opposes the conventional brands… and the acceptance of those homogenous brands in everyone’s homes… Personally, I’m not a “Craft” brewer. And I would never use that term to define what it is that we are doing here. We’re just a small brewery…

  • nateo

    says:

    I liked Schell’s response too. It’s pretty willfully ignorant of brewing history to claim American lagers don’t ‘traditionally’ use adjuncts. I agree it was pretty embarrassing, and a stupid move for the BA to open themselves up to such easy criticism.

  • Che

    says:

    I am curious if Schell is still using 6 row malt for this larger, and if not why they are still using corn?

  • nateo

    says:

    Che’;90611 wrote: I am curious if Schell is still using 6 row malt for this larger, and if not why they are still using corn?

    I don’t know, maybe they just want to? Why does it matter? Are you not a real painter if you use watercolors, instead of oil paints?

  • Che

    says:

    I was not trying to poke the bear, only asking a question.

    Their reasoning was that by the time 2-row malt was available their customers were already used to the recipe. So by that logic, I was curious if they were still using 6-row? If so I would be surprised. I doubt their are many 6-row malt beers with as large a production.

  • LongLiveLagers

    says:

    I find it silly that the Craft Brew Alliance is out of the BA but 6 million bbls a year Boston Beer is in. They’re both publicly traded companies that have to please their share-holders. The only difference is that AB-I has 35% equity in the CBA. That sounds like a great situation for the CBA, they get AB-I’s pricing on malt, hops, glass, etc. and national distribution but still retain control over the beers they make. Oh, and they make some of the best “craft” bottled product in the Northwest.

  • gitchegumee

    says:

    So apparently I’m not “craft” because I use adjuncts in my best selling beer? What absolute garbage! And since when is an IMPERIAL BLACK DOUBLE IPA traditional? IMPERIAL PILSNER? Since when is using supercritical CO2 extracted liquid hop extracts traditional? Or for that matter, using new breeds of high alpha hops? Where in the history of traditional brewing does hopping the mash come in? Use of adjuncts in US breweries almost DEFINES the US tradition. I’m happy that those schmucks over at BA do NOT represent me. And I’ll call myself a craft brewer if I damn well please. Get off your high horse. Don’t you have something better to do?

  • jesskidden

    says:

    Che’;90618 wrote:
    Their reasoning was that by the time 2-row malt was available their customers were already used to the recipe. So by that logic, I was curious if they were still using 6-row? If so I would be surprised.

    According to a recent pamphlet from Schell with all their regular and seasonal beers listed and described, of their two “heritage” adjunct lager brands Schell’s Deer Brand is brewed with “Pale 2-Row Barley, Corn, Cascade hops” and their Grain Belt is “Pale 2-Row Barley, Pale 6-Row Barley, Corn, Domestic hops”

    Che’;90618 wrote: I doubt their are many 6-row malt beers with as large a production.

    According to their brewers’ websites Pabst Blue Ribbon is “…crafted with a hefty infusion of 6-row barley…” and Yuengling’s beers are brewed with a “…balance of American six-row and imported two-row barley malt…” (both Top 20 brands)

    Not sure (and it’s a lot of work checking all their websites and having to type in an over-21 birthday and not all the sites are that specific re: ingredients) but I think many of the Pabst-owned, Miller-brewed “heritage” brands still are brewed using 6-row.

  • schlosser

    says:

    The BA continues to make itself look foolish in its narrow, contrived definition of Craft Beer. Oh, you can’t use adjuncts, but if you make a Iced Tea malternative (a beverage that is labeled as beer and considered a beer for tax purposes) it isn’t counted against the 2 Million BBL limit (now 6 Million). The BA is trying to exclude when it should be promoting more quality beer.

    My favorite ‘Non Craft’ brewery example when people ask my about the BA definition is Brewery Ommegang. They are not craft (by BA definition only) b/c of ownership, but they make some truly spectacular beers. When I tell people that Ommegang is ‘not craft’ by BA definition they are extremely perplexed and pretty much realize that by excluding great breweries the BA definition isn’t worth the paper its written on.

    The BA professes 3 attributes: small, independent and flagship not brewed with adjuncts. All do not work when looked at.

    1. Small – they have proven that this does not matter in the least due to the fact that they keep raising the limit for Sam Adams. There is no doubt that Sam’s is a craft beer and they prove that the Small limit does not apply.

    2. Independent – There are a bunch of breweries that have ‘non-independent’ ownership but make some wonderful beers. And isn’t that what it should really be about?

    3. Non Adjunct Flagship – August Schell’s response says it all. Sorry BA, but craft beer can be brewed in the same brewery where American style pilsners are made. Maybe someone should explain to them that it is the same process using same equipment but if you use different raw materials you can get different results.

    To me, 3 strikes and you are out! The BA does some good things but pushing this agenda is not one of them. Get off your high horse and celebrate good beer wherever and by whoever its brewed.

    Cheers,
    Dave

  • LuskusDelph

    says:

    schlosser;90694 wrote: …Get off your high horse and celebrate good beer wherever and by whoever its brewed.

    Absolutely right.
    I’ve been saying the same thing for years.
    What ultimately matters most is what’s in the glass.

  • panadero

    says:

    I must have missed the mention of adjuncts. I read the first post here, and the st louis post linked to. I do agree with the comments, however. Adjuncts have always been a part of brewing. Maybe the germans had their law, but it was never universally applied. The history of the american lager is not the constant weakening of beer, it is a constant change in the consumers desire. Lighter beer was the thing, so everyone got on the bandwagon. Bud and pbr were both amber lagers before they were pilsener types, according to books I have read put out by the BA. Brewing with corn and rice actually cost them more than straight barley malt. British beers have almost always included invert sugar of one degree of color or another, not because it was cheaper, but because it could lighten the body of a beer.
    We are BA members, but as we are in our first year, I am not too familiar with the inner workings. I remember a lot of flack going to larry bell, if I am correct, last year for his stance against raising the 2 million bbl limit to 6 million. There is nothing wrong with growth, but at a certain point the term craft has been diluted to mean whatever the assc wants, rather than the handmade definition people associate with craft – think craft markets at christmas.
    That said, I agree that blue moon and the like, as much as people like them, should be clearly labeled as to where they are from. They may be independent from coors in some fashion, but they started huge because of coors, not because they grew from a small craft brewery the way sam adams has. Growth is good, so is proper labeling.
    People who drink microbrews tend to know about blue moon and shocktop and the like, so I do not think too many people are being tricked into buying them.
    2 cents, cheers!

  • YSBrewer

    says:

    This is very interesting to me… The BA was the single most important entity besides actual breweries that helped me get started. While I agree that there message was somewhat confusing, they are still the only organization that is going up to bat for us.

    You can say that “quality” is the number one concern and i’ll agree with that. It still doesn’t change the fact the big guys will push us right off the shelf quality or not! So, i’m all for calling some attention to the issue at hand. Confusing or not…

  • irishsnake

    says:

    My problem with the BAs stance here is that “transparency” is hardly well practiced in “craft beer” land (and that’s not to even touch the ludicrous definitions of what “craft beer” is). Yes, Blue Moon and Shock Top are “stealth” macros, but how many consumers really know that that nice little local brewpub that has bottles on the shelf are actually having them brewed elsewhere? Maybe it is on the side of the can/bottle, if you look – but maybe not. Joint proprietorship laws allow one to say “brewed in SF” even though you are actually brewed in San Jose (for example).

    Really, this is a can of worms and I don’t understand why the BA wants to open it. We have to stop defining ourselves, as an industry, by what we are not. This anti-macro horsecrap has been going on for years and it is just stupid. Maybe back in the 80s there were some clear lines but they have gotten a whole lot fuzzier over time (5 million barrels is small?).

    Anyway, there are plenty of “crafty” micros – for every little guy who would rather collaborate than litigate, there’s another that would rather sue you over a celtic cross. It is not a white hat/black hat world, and we should stop pretending it is.

  • nateo

    says:

    irishsnake;90749 wrote: Really, this is a can of worms and I don’t understand why the BA wants to open it.

    I agree there are a lot of small brewers being ‘crafty.’ There are small brewers who contract out to meet demand without disclosing who actually brewed the beer. One of the coauthors of the BA’s article in the St.L-Post, the owner of Schlafly, contracts out a portion of their production.

    I read that in a chat he did, so it’s not exactly a secret, but you wouldn’t know that if you just looked at their website and saw the giant ‘Brewed in Saint Louis’ logo on every page. They have kegs of their Pale ale brewed in Nashville, and to their credit they label the kegs as “brewed in Nashville,” but if you’re a consumer at a bar drinking that keg, you’d have no reason to suspect it wasn’t brewed in St. Louis. That’s very similar to hiding information in the small print; the most informed people will know, but most consumers won’t. I’d say the “average” well-informed beer drinker knows that Blue Moon = Coors, but probably doesn’t know their Schlafly Pale may have come from Nashville.

    I don’t think you need to be a saint to criticize others, but if the people spearheading “transparency” see a reason to obscure where their beer comes from, or at least don’t want to advertise they don’t brew all of their beer, that’s a tacit admission that being “crafty” is good for business.

    [disclaimer: I love Schlafly and I don’t care where their beer comes from, as long as it’s good. I also think it’s good that Schlafly is sharing the wealth by giving business to other breweries with excess capacity.]

  • yap

    says:

    interesting that the BA article on their website now contains this “update”

    “Update: In lieu of listing domestic non-craft breweries that fall outside of the definition of a craft brewery, the Brewers Association will post a list of 2012 craft breweries that meet the small, independent and traditional criteria, along with a press release on craft brewing industry statistics, in the first quarter of 2013.”

    I’m guessing they’ve been catching some flack for their approach on this matter…

  • ChesterBrew

    says:

    I don’t understand why they stuck their junk in that hornet’s nest in the first place.

    I’m sure at least some of the companies they chose to highlight in their original list are BA members.

  • irishsnake

    says:

    yap;91079 wrote: interesting that the BA article on their website now contains this “update”

    “Update: In lieu of listing domestic non-craft breweries that fall outside of the definition of a craft brewery, the Brewers Association will post a list of 2012 craft breweries that meet the small, independent and traditional criteria, along with a press release on craft brewing industry statistics, in the first quarter of 2013.”

    I’m guessing they’ve been catching some flack for their approach on this matter…

    I wonder if their “good guy” list will include “craft” breweries that hide where they actually produce their beer behind joint proprietorship laws. You know, since this all started with their call for “transparency” re:Blue Moon and Shock Top.

    Somehow I think not. Transparency is for the “other” guys.

  • barleyjac

    says:

    I see it as the BA attempting to define their membership and who they represent. No problem there. However, I think it went too far when they said you can not be a craft brewery if you are not a member of the BA, which is what they actually did in a roundabout way.

    The BA has done a lot for this industry and I truly believe a lot of us would not be where we are without them. (If you are not a member, please consider joining.) However this industry will never be black and white. In fact it is only going to get more confusing as the industry matures.

    While this really was about calling out Blue Moon and Shock Top, it also brought up a lot of other discrepancies and hypocrisies. Shameless self promotion here: to see some examples, check out my blog.

    For me, it has always been about the beer. If I like the beer, its story and its “reason for being”, I buy it. If I don’t, I won’t buy it. End of story.

    Cheers,
    John

To top