Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Update on Latrobe Brewery

By

I was away this weekend camping with the family and some friends — which also meant I missed a great beer festival in Santa Rosa — and I’ve been trying to catch up on what I’ve missed. It seems there’s a lot of information flying around about what’s going on with the Latrobe Brewery sale/closing.

I read one forum post on the BrewBoard by a prominent (or at least active) member who took the position that Rolling Rock’s beer isn’t actually great craft beer and the Latrobe Brewery hasn’t been owned by the community for a long time now so what’s the big deal that it may be closed. It may be an unpopular position, but there is a lot of truth to it. InBev has owned the brewery for years and even my first post when the sale was announced I wrote about Rolling Rock’s faux micro status. It’s been marketed as a craft beer but generally the only people who bought that were bridge buyers and casual beer buyers. No hardcore beer geek thinks of Rolling Rock as a craft beer. But the potential closing of a an over sixty-year old brewery is another matter and erases any negative thoughts I have about the beer itself. Why? For one simple reason. I believe our brewing heritage should not disappear. I have mourned too many brewery closings in my brief lifetime. Back in the golden age of brewing — the latter quarter of the 19th Century — there were something like almost two-thousand breweries in this country. After Prohibition we lost more than half of them in one fell thirteen-year swoop. Over the subsequent half-century the number of breweries continued to steadily decrease until by the early 1980s there were only a few dozen left. If you read the Breweriana magazines you’ll quickly see how many abandoned and ruined breweries there are out there. And not all of them closed a long time ago. My wife and I visited the Olympia Brewery in Washington on our honeymoon not quite ten years ago. Olympia, of course, didn’t make a great beer but the brewery itself was beautiful and they had an unbelieveably amazing collection of beer steins. But it’s closed now. The Henry Weinhard brewery in downtown Portland — itself a beautiful brick building — was torn down only a few years ago. Now I didn’t drink either of those beers, either, but I still mourned their passing. And the same is quite appropriate for the Latrobe Brewery, too. The effort to save should be supported by all of us who love beer, regardless of personal feelings about Rolling Rock itself. It’s the history and heritage that is worth saving.

Here’s a round-up of recent news about the efforts to save the brewery:

On June 1, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, John Murtha, Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania’s 12th District, announced his intention to broker a deal for the Latrobe Brewery and Pittsburgh Brewing, itself in financial trouble. The makers of Iron City Beer have been in Chapter 11 (reorganiztion) bankruptcy since last December. Funding would likely have to come from state resources. Latrobe Mayor Tom Marflak doubted this plan out of hand.

The next day, the Tribune-Review quoted Pittsburgh Brewing president Joseph Piccirilli was willing to meet with Representative Murtha regarding the purchase of the Latrobe Brewery. Piccirilli further stated, in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, that “The Latrobe Brewery is a beautiful facility. I’m in the beer business and it’s practically in my back yard. We are in the midst of union negotiations and we are working very hard to turn our financial situation around. But if we can schedule something, I’ll speak with the congressman.”

Friday, June 2, a spokesperson for Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell told reporters that Renaissance Partners, LLC, of Pittsburgh, “has been contacted by the state to study the Latrobe beermaking facility. Renaissance Partners works with the Governor’s Action Team on a regular basis.”

Yesterday, Governor Rendell said “he’ll offer incentives to any company that wants to buy Latrobe Brewing,” according to WTAE Channel 4 in Pittsburgh. From their coverage:

“The commonwealth’s going to come in and sweeten the pot a little bit and give some training money and incentive money so we can keep the jobs in Latrobe,” Rendell said. “There’s no guarantee, but we’re sort of getting our battle plan together.”

Monday, the Governor had spoken to InBev — the current owners of the brewery — and they informed him that “they had some interested investors in the facility.” According to the Tribune-Review report, InBev is “supposed to get back to [the state] this week.”

Today in a news brief, Governor Rendell says he is “guardedly optimistic” that a buyer can be found for the Latrobe Brewery, “including possibly finding another brewer to take over production or convincing private investor groups to buy the facility and develop a new brand.” The Governor’s made these remarks after a speech at the United Steelworkers Building in downtown Pittsburgh yesterday.

And as of this afternoon — around Noon — almost 18,000 people had signed the online petition to save the Latrobe Brewery. That’s three times as many signatures since the petition began almost two weeks ago.

With less than two months before the deadline passes and the brewery closes, at least there’s a lot of activity going on to try to save it. I tend to be pessimistic about these things but, as they say, hope springs eternal. Let’s prepare for the worst, but strive to do whatever each of us can to support the efforts to save the brewery. We owe it to every worker who ever set foot in a brewery to preserve what we can of the heritage that has brought each of us so much enjoyment throughout our lives.

What Makes Beer Organic?

By

Since I’ve been talking about Wild Hop Lager and Stone Mill Pale Ale, and the fact that it’s being sold to an unsuspecting organic customer, I thought it would be worthwhile to examine exactly what makes a beer organic. Unsurprisingly, it’s the ingredients used to make whatever product is going to be called or labeled “organic.” Several years ago, the standards for organic products varied from state to state, but in 2002 the federal government instituted the National Organic Program (NOP) that standardized the requirements for organic labeling nationwide. This made it easier for companies to sell across state lines without having to worry about individual and possibly conflicting standards between states. Some states did complain, of course, because it undermined their own efforts at defining what it means to be an organic product. The standards in Oregon prior to the NOP, for example, were more rigid than the national standard adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But this intervention did make it easier for regional and national breweries to more easily meet the requirements for a larger market.

The USDA does not do the certification process directly, but rather they have “deputized” independent certifying agents, which in some cases do include the former state certifying agencies. Currently, there are about sixty such agencies. Among these are the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and the Oregon Tilth. In addition to the actual certifying, they also investigate noncompliance complaints and check records, monitor label usage, etc. There are now essentially four levels of organic labeling: “100% organic,” “organic,“ “made with organic materials,” and “some organic ingredients.” The differences in these four are listed in the table below:

Organic Labeling Differences

100% Organic

 Must contain 100 percent organically produced ingredients, not counting added water and salt.

Organic

 Must contain at least 95% organic ingredients, not counting added water and salt.

Must not contain added sulfites.

May contain up to 5% of:

  1. nonorganically produced agricultural ingredients which are not commercially available in organic form; and/or
  2. other substances, including yeast, allowed by 7 CFR 205.605
Made with Organic Ingredients

 Must contain at least 70% organic ingredients, not counting added water and salt.

Must not contain added sulfites; except that, wine may contain added sulfur dioxide in accordance with 7 CFR 205.605.

May contain up to 30% of:

  1. nonorganically produced agricultural ingredients which are not commercially available in organic form; and/or
  2. other substances, including yeast, allowed by 7 CFR 205.605
Some Organic Ingredients

 May contain less than 70% organic ingredients, not counting added water and salt.

May contain over 30% of:

  1. nonorganically produced agricultural ingredients; and/or
  2. other substances, without being limited to those in 7 CFR 205.605

 
 

While this is undoubtedly a good step, the fact that there are four of these and they sound so similar it seems to me this is still confusing for consumers, especially the casual consumer who is not likely to be familiar with the precise differences. The “made with organic ingredients” designation, for example — which only requires 70% of its ingredients to actually be organic — seems to convey a false impression of how organic the product really is, at least in my opinion. A company could use 30% of complete crap and still make a consumer believe their purchase is organically sound. This undermines the very idea of organic products. It seems to me products should either be organic or not. This slippery slope of degrees is bound to cause nothing but confusion and perhaps even ill will. The FDA has approved some sixty plus chemicals for use in the manufacture of beer. Are they all bad? Certainly not, and even craft brewers use some of them on occasion. But health and beer is all about perception. A brewery could theoreticaly use many of them and so long as it’s less than 30% of the total ingredients say their concoction is “made with organic ingredients.”

All beer is in effect natural, especially those that use only the four basic ingredients. This begs the question of how much better is organic beer vs. a typical craft beer? I’d say in the end it has to do with how it makes the customer feel on an emotional level. I think that’s true of almost all organic products. People buy them because it makes them feel good, like they’re doing something good, both for themselves, the environment and perhaps even society as a whole. They feel like they’re helping out small farmers. This is why the labeling is so important. And not just the organic designation but also the truthiness of the entire package. A customer should be able to feel good about what they’re buying, but if details are left out — no matter how legal it is to do so — then this damages the emotional response that is so central to buying organic.

This is the very reason big companies hide behind dba’s and buy up health food companies. Colgate recently bought Tom’s of Maine. Will that make Tom’s a bad product now? Probably not, unless Colgate takes over production and relaxes standards. But some people will likely still think twice about buying Tom’s knowing it’s just another product line in Colgate’s massive portfolio. It’s all a matter of what perception will be created in the mind of the consumer based on that new information and what the change of ownership means to them. Some may not care at all, of course. But what happens if this information is not disclosed on Tom’s packaging? At that point it goes beyond simple ignorance and becomes a calculated lie-by-omission.

There will almost certainly continue to be a market for organic and healthier products that maintain a small niche within the wider market. What will allow it to grow is directly proportional to the confidence that the market has for the products within the niche market. That’s the exact reason the labeling standards are so important. But doing the minimum required for purely business reasons in order to sell a product is just not enough. Common sense standards will also have to be adhered to as well in order to gain customer confidence. This will vary from company to company but makes sense in relation to the product. For example, an organic farmer who refrains from using pesticides but hires slave labor would not be adhering to a common sense standard, in my opinion.

By and large, I think the majority of organic beers available today do adhere to a good set of standards, both the mandated ones and the common sense ones. But as larger companies begin to compete for these niche markets, the line becomes blurred. Some will leave the smaller companies they’ve purchased alone and some will swallow them whole. New ones created within larger companies will suffer the same problems. And then who knows what will happen to common sense standards.

Below is a list of many of the organic beers and beer producers available today.

Some Organic Beer Producers

Domestic Organic Breweries

 
 

Domestic Organic Beers

  • Big “O” Organic, Snake River Brewing; Jackson Hole, Wyoming
  • Biologique Dupont Beers (5), Brasserie Dupont; Tourpes, Belgium
  • Kaya Organic Pale, Fitger’s Brewhouse; Duluth, Minnesota
  • Kraftbräu Summer Moon Organic Ale, Kraftbräu Brewery; Kalamazoo, Michigan
  • Mothership Wit, New Belgium Brewing; Fort Collins, Colorado
  • OGA (Organic Golden Ale), Lucky Labrador; Portland, Oregon
  • Organic Amber, Bluegrass Brewing; Louisville, Kentucky
  • Organic Bock, Big Horse Brewpub; Hood River, Oregon
  • Organic ESB, Lakefront Brewery; Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Organic Porter, Brooklyn Brewery; Brooklyn, New York
  • Tree Hugger Organic IPA, Redfish New Orleans Brewhouse; Boulder, Colorado

 
 

Organic Breweries Abroad

 
 

Organic Beers Abroad

 
 

Statistics Damned Statistics

By

piechart
Somehow I missed this little tidbit in last Sunday’s paper — oh, yeah, I was out of town for Memorial weekend — but I feel compelled to address it now. The S.F. Chronicle quotes a statistic from a survey by Merrill Research of San Francisco that a “survey of 1,398 wine consumers shows that between 2000 and 2005, the U.S. wine drinking population increased by 31 percent among adults in households with income greater than $35,000.” This is cited to support the statement that “[w]ine continues to steal drinkers’ attention from beer and spirits.”

Okay, let’s break that down. It’s a survey of “wine drinkers,” that is people who already drink wine rather than other alcoholic beverages. Does that strike anyone else as odd to use in an article comparing the rate of consumption of different drinks? Essentially the way I read it people who already prefer wine drank more of it over a five year period. Hooray! So what? Not exactly ground breaking, is it? Am I missing something? Plus, it further narrows the study by restricting it to households that make more that $35K, which is almost twice the amount where the poverty line is drawn and falls somewhere in between the second and third fifths of median income nationwide. So basically the study further says that people in the middle-class or upper middle-class (depending on where you draw that line) and up to and including the über-rich are the only people whose opinions were counted in determining wine drinking was up. So what was everybody whose income was below $35,000 drinking? Apparently is doesn’t matter, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say perhaps beer might be involved.

Of course, this number manipulation skews the results and thus the conclusions being drawn therefrom. We all know statistics lie, so why bother? I think the reason is twofold. First, it may be simply that people only read headlines and maybe the first paragraph or so and they tend to look for support for their beliefs and so would be expected to read this much less critically than I would. After all, this article was part of the newspaper’s wine section. Where is the newspaper’s beer section? Don’t ask. Second, putting statistics out there in print, even false or misleading ones, gives them a kind of legitimacy. One thing I learned as a Billboard reporter in the 1980s when I ran a record store was that people are often sheep. They want to be seen doing whatever is popular which is why sales charts, popularity contests, etc. are so useful to business. There’s a kind of snowball effect when something is perceived to be popular, that very fact makes it more popular as people jump on the bandwagon to be “with it” or whatever. So just by saying something is more popular and saying it with statistics, even questionable ones, can go a long way to making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the Chronicle article isn’t finished mangling things:

“Wine continues to steal drinkers’ attention from beer and spirits, according to a recent survey, with three varietals proving particularly enticing to novices. Consumers who are decreasing their beer and spirits consumption but increasing their wine consumption are drinking more Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah/Shiraz and Pinot Grigio than the rest of the wine-drinking population.”

I’m not sure what the point of this is, and the study mentioned is never cited but I don’t think it’s the same study that began the article. The article continues. ” At the same time, the percentage of U.S. adults who drink beer and spirits but not wine declined by 25 percent.” Again, where is this data coming from? It appears on the small amount of information and citations used that these conclusions are drawn from comparing two and possibly three different studies, a fool’s game if ever there was one.

But when you look at the dollars involved, the numbers paint a different picture. In 2004, for example, American consumers spent $82 billion on beer, $49 billion on spirits and only $23 billion on wine. And the price of many wine bottles exceeds, and in some cases greatly exceeds, that of the average six-pack. This suggests to me that the actual number of beer purchases vs. wine purchases is even greater than the disparity in total sales indicates. There are all sorts of reasons to suggest that people answer poll questions with a certain bias. As a result, sales figures seem far more accurate a measure to me.

Given wine’s incessant snob appeal, I’m not really sure why they’re trying to use statistics to turn it into the people’s drink. Perhaps the media is trying to justify its pathetic coverage of beer. And I guess stories that buck conventional wisdom, and indeed logic and the real unvarnished statistics, are deemed more interesting. After all, that’s why famously nobody wants to read a story about a dog biting a man but vice versa it’s front page news. Everyone already knows beer is the second most consumed manufactured (meaning not water) beverage in the world (tea is number one) so anything that throws that into question is likely to become news because it goes against conventional wisdom. Plus — and this may be a California thing — alcohol law differences between beer, wine and spirits make it very difficult for beer to spend money on advertising but frighteningly easy for wine and spirits. Thus, wine and spirits advertising spending greatly outnumbers beer and newspapers are keenly aware of who pays the bills. No matter how you slice it, beer seems to be perpetually on the losing end of of our media’s coverage.

“Lager Carries the Load” or Get a Load of This

By

The New York Times food critic Frank Bruni reviewed Café d’Alsace, the new restaurant in New York City with its own Beer Sommelier. That fact has been written about already and has garnered a bit of press on its own, but the review is another reason I hate it when the mainstream press sends a wine and/or food geek to do a beer man’s job. Jules at The Bruni Digest already did a great job dissecting the review but I want to address the beer aspects of his review.

His review begins in a futile search for cloves:

CLOVE?” I asked, not quite sure I had heard him correctly.

“Clove,” he answered without hesitation.

“Huh,” I said, for two reasons. The first was that I was already hoisting the beer to my lips for another sip, so I had to be quick and economical with my syllables. The second: I was flustered. Try as I might to latch onto them, the promised notes of clove in the brew eluded me.

But I had hope. The beer sommelier had also foretold currents of orange, and their presence in this Leffe Blonde from Belgium was incontrovertible. He had talked about the “aromatics” at work, and there was indeed a citrusy, flowery perfume.

Could he be wrong about the clove? I concentrated. I searched my palate for what was behind the orange or maybe in front of the orange or possibly on the side of the orange.

No clove, at least not for me. But I was having what I suppose I should describe as a heady time rooting around for it.

Frank begins his review with the word “CLOVE?” in all caps with a question mark like he’s found a hair in his soup, like there’s meat in his veggie burger, like he’s surprised as hell that cloves should be one of the aromas in a beer. In other words like he’s an idiot, at least in beer sophistication. Because even your average beer aficionado would be unsurprised, indeed would expect, to find cloves in many different Belgian-style beers (not to mention German and even Americans craft beers making those same styles) and would know it’s not magic, but simply a result of using particular strains of yeast. The fact that he couldn’t find such a pervasive aroma in Leffe Blonde speaks volumes as to how undeveloped his palate is. I might expect that from the average person, but Frank is the food critic for the New York Times for chrissakes. He’s supposed to be familiar with all manner of aromas and tastes. Is it too much to ask that he have some passing familiarity with beer, especially when reviewing a place known for its beers? Hasn’t craft beer and great imported beers been around long enough that no food critic’s education is complete without knowing about beer? We certainly expect a food critic to know wine and spirits, in fact any beverage that compliments the food. So why do so many get a pass when it comes to beer? At a minumum Frank should have been man enough to step aside and let someone else, someone who knows a little about beer — say Eric Asimov — review the restaurant in his place.

We should expect food critics to recuse themselves when in unfamiliar territory just like I would never presume to review a wine. I enjoy wine but lack the sophistication to tell others more than whether or not I like it. If I tried to describe a wine, I’d sound like an unsophisticated wine drinker, which of course is what I am. But at least I know that. And as a result I restrict my wine descriptions to friends and loved ones. Frank Bruni and many of his colleagues do not seem to realize that they should stick to talking about what they know, too. I wish they cared enough to learn about what they don’t know, but that seems fated to never happen. You’d think given the efforts of Garrett Oliver in New York City that so prominent a critic as Bruni would take the time to become a complete food critic. Apparently you’d be wrong.

Next he remarks that Café d’Alsace “has more than 110 kinds” of beer and “[i]t assigns them bin numbers and groups them under different headings: “wheat,” “bock,” “lambic.” Uh, those “headings” are called styles, and they’re like varietals you moron. Think of lagers and ales like whites and reds, if you have to, and “bock” and “lambic” as pinot and cabernet. Is that too hard? If so, how about simply the different “headings” taste different? Is that simple enough? I know I’m sounding churlish, but I find this kind thing completely unacceptable, especially when it’s from someone who’s supposed to be so well respected and associated with one of the most quoted and well-regarded newspapers in the country, if not the world. If they can’t get it right and indeed go so horribly off the tracks then what hope is there that small town newspapers will competently cover beer?

Okay, cut to the finale:

Let’s face it: I also got a buzz from the beers. One night I tried the effervescent Belgian Deus Brut de Flandres, which comes in what looks like a Champagne bottle and is served in Champagne flutes. Another night I ventured into the sour realm of the lambic — and beat a hasty retreat.

And yet another night I heeded the advice of Aviram Turgeman, the beer sommelier (I had to use the phrase just one more time), and started out with the Belgian golden ale Duvel, which he said would “cleanse the palate and awaken the stomach.”

That seemed like a lot of responsibility for a beer. But time and again, we’ve asked as much of wine. Why not, on occasion, let a lager carry the load?

He got a buzz from the beers? Why should we have to face that? Even most of the strongest beers weigh in at 10% a.b.v. or below, well under the strength of your average wine. How many of his reviews contained the phrase “let’s face it: I also got a buzz from the wine?” I’m willing to confidently guess that number is zero. So are we to conclude he can handle his wine but not his beer? Or is it more likely he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

Next he summarily dismisses sour lambics — they’re called Gueuze, Frank — and while they’re clearly not for everyone he never explains why he “beat a hasty retreat” from them. I could guess, but I’ll leave it to your imagination. Most Gueuze lovers I know have more sophisticated palates than Frank demonstrates, that’s for sure.

But the ending is the real kicker. Frank extolls his enjoyment of Duvel, though he seems hesitant to believe it capable of doing as much for the food and his enjoyment as wine is capable of, despite his admission it does just that. And here it is, his final thought, and it’s about the Duvel and it’s ability to work with food. Frank suggests since wine is so hard working, from time to time we should “let a lager carry the load.” I’ll pause here to give you a chance to throw your head back and laugh heartily. Hey Frank, you bonehead, Duvel is an ale. That’s like confusing Silver Oak Chardonnay with Opus One. You wouldn’t do that would you, Frank? Frank?
 
 

All of a Sudden, Nothing Happened

By

Here’s an interesting editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal. It concerns the Dane County Fair held last weekend in Wisconsin. It’s the world’s largest brat fest and this year organizers added a beer tent for the first time. Neo-prohibitionists, naturally, had been complaining since at least 2000 when the idea was first floated. The neo-prohibitionists predicted all manner of horrors, none of which came to pass. In the words of Monty Python, “all of a sudden, nothing happened.” As the editorial puts it:

Despite wild predictions of problems, the rides, entertainment and youth exhibits went off just as wholesomely as before.

The editorial continues:

But moderate drinking can be relaxing and healthy, doctors tell us. Drinking responsibly also can set a good example for young people who, before long, will be old enough to drink as they choose.

Family events such as the Brat Fest, Dane County Fair and Rhythm & Booms close before midnight, which discourages heavy drinking. Organizers also tend to use wristbands, designated areas and other precautions to ensure beer is served and consumed sensibly.

The sizeable crowds come for the entertainment first. The beer is just one small option for those adults who want it. It’s not even close to being the main event.

So lighten up, alarmists, and respect the vast number of Wisconsin residents who drink responsibly especially at daytime and early evening events catering to families.

The fact that people can and some people do abuse alcohol has been used by temperance groups and the modern neo-prohibitionists for time immemorial. People abuse food, too, but I’m not about to give it up or argue for its prohibition. For any pursuit, hobby, or activity you can name there’s at least a couple of people who will take things too far. That seems to be a facet of our human nature. But the vast majority can enjoy any pursuit, including drinking beer responsibly, without becoming a burden on society or corrupting our youth. As usual, the potential corruption of our youth was the bulwark that the neo-prohibitionints in Dane County tried to raise to keep beer out of the brat fest. But the reality is that adults should be allowed to enjoy adult pleasures in the presence of children without the fabric of society unraveling. If kids never see their parents or other adults drinking responsibly how will they learn to do so when they reach the arbitrary age of consent?

Anheuser-Busch Reiterates: No Interest in Rolling Rock

By

As of around Noon today, over 13,000 people had signed the online petition to save the Rolling Rock Brewery in Latrobe Pennsylvania. The effort is being made after Anheuser-Busch bought the Rolling Rock brand on May 19 from InBev.

But as Greg Clow, of The Bar Towel in Toronto, reminded me, the petition is likely doomed to fail for the simple reason that A-B does not own the brewery and is not the one selling it. Christina Gumola, the woman who wrote last week’s open letter to August A. Busch IV, later wrote to tell me that she did also simultaneously write a letter to InBev and attached the letter she wrote to A-B.

Still, Greg brings up an excellent point that I, and many others, haven’t been focusing on. I think we all got caught up in the moment but the truth is A-B can’t sell what they don’t own. It’s still possible, albeit very unlikely, that public pressure could cause A-B to ask InBev to renegotiate the deal to include the brewery in the sale but adding another $50 million to the deal — which is the rumored asking price — seems pretty farfetched at this point. Undoubtedly, that’s why the two were separated in the original deal. A-B doesn’t need another brewery and now InBev has one with nothing to brew in it.

Today’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review makes even that remote possibility virtually impossible. In the article, Dave Peacock, Anheuser-Busch’s VP of business and finance operations, “yesterday reiterated the company has no interest in buying the brewery.”

“Because Anheuser-Busch owns 12 breweries and has the ability and capacity to brew Rolling Rock, we elected to purchase only the beer recipes and brand names, not the brewery operation,” Peacock said. “Like others, we hope InBev is able to sell (the brewery) to a suitable buyer who will maintain the employment.”

Sure he does. That’s just spin control, as Tom Dalldorf pointed out when we spoke Friday, the big breweries (A-B and Miller primarily) have been gobbling up and shutting down historic breweries for decades. That’s what big corporations do, they crush their competition and damn the consequences. In economics parlance, that’s called “externalities.” It’s a euphemistic term like “collateral damage” or “friendly fire” that disguises its true meaning. Externalities are the costs that society pays when big businesses wheel and deal. They’re the brewery closings and unemployment, the loss of tax revenue for a small community and the loss of heritage for everyone. And it may be the way business is done, but it’s those very decisions that are destroying so much of what used to make America great. As big businesses get bigger and bigger, merging with one another to create ever larger Frankenstein-like mega-corporations and international conglomerates who do their banking offshore to avoid paying taxes, it’s you, me and the people of Latrobe who are picking up the bill.

Anhesuer-Busch, in their negotiations for the purchase of Rolling Rock from InBev, knew exactly what the consequences would be for the brewery and the employees who toiled there making Rolling Rock since 1939. They knew InBev would have a devil of a time trying to sell the brewery, knew the employees would lose their livelihoods, knew another piece of American brewing history would die. They simply didn’t care and indeed weren’t allowed to care. Their shareholders wouldn’t let them. So those costs were externalized, meaning A-B and InBev didn’t have to concern themselves with what happens to Richard Pavlik, Christina Gumola’s father. That he will lose his job of over twenty years is somebody else’s problem.

But despite my dire pessimism and even with so much against it, the fight to save Rolling Rock is still worth fighting. Sometimes hopeless battles must be fought on principle alone. It’s the effort that is important. Sometimes it’s enough to know at least you tried.

In the words of Christina:

Of course my efforts may seem far fetched; however if people just accepted being told “no” and didn’t fight for what they believed in then chances are they are not too happy. I’ve always fought for what I believed in and most of the time had positive results by doing so. I am also a realist and understand that nothing may occur as a result of my efforts. At least I know that I tried! Fight for what you believe in — you won’t have the chance for what you want if you just let it go!!

Amen.

Daughter of Latrobe Brewery Employee Sends Open Letter to August A. Busch IV

By

The letter posted below was forwarded to me by a good friend and colleague. It’s an open letter to August A. Busch IV regarding Anheuser-Busch’s plans to move production of the newly acquired Rolling Rock brand to Newark, New Jersey and sell the Latrobe Brewery. The town of Latrobe is in Western Pennsylvania, a little over 40 miles from Pittsburgh. It’s a small town, with a population of around 9,000 people. Arnold Palmer was born there, and so was Fred “Mr.” Rogers. It is believed the first professional football game was played in Latrobe (September 3, 1895) and the first banana split was made there (in 1894). Since 1893, it has been the home of the Latrobe Brewery and by and large, most people know the town of Latrobe because of Rolling Rock. Having grown up in a small town in Pennsylvania, I understand how seriously people take their history and heritage, how much it means to them. Sure there are economics involved in Latrobe, too, but it isn’t just about that. It’s also about people, small town loyalty and a real sense of community pride. So when the brewery employees were summarily told they had two months and then not only their jobs would be lost, but also a piece of the town’s heritage, it must have felt like the proverbial rug had been pulled out from under them.

That’s why I was surprised that the same day Anheuser-Busch announced the purchase of the Rolling Rock brand from InBev that they would also sour that news by mentioning that the Latrobe Brewery would be sold or closed. I’m sure it was simply an economy of scales argument, a business decision. But it would have been far more prudent to have waited to drop that bombshell until after the purchase story was out of the news cycle. Because, as the letter points out, A-B has been waxing poetic in ads and press releases about their corporate citizenship, their affinity for family, community and heritage. Of course that’s just propaganda, corporations don’t really care about those things, they just want to appear to care about those things because it improves their image. Corporations only have one function, making a profit, and are responsible to only one group of people: their shareholders. Oddly enough, though, when companies spin themselves as good guys, people actually expect them to act that way.

So Christina Gumola, the daughter of a Latrobe Brewing Company employee, sent the letter below to the president, vice president, and other board members at Anheuser-Busch regarding their recent purchase of Rolling Rock last Friday.

An online petition has also been set up to collect signatures with the goal of keeping Rolling Roock in Latrobe and keeping the town’s brewery open. As of 9:30 this morning, almost 6,000 people had signed the petition.

It’s doubtful that any emotional appeals to decency or a sense of family will carry any weight, which is ironic since A-B presents itself as a family company and has had numerous family members at its helm stretching back to its inception in the mid-1800s. I wish I wasn’t so realistic about this — some might say cynical — but unless the shareholders are convinced that profits will suffer by moving production and closing the brewery in Latrobe, I can’t see this decision being changed. But who knows, perhaps if there is enough of a hue and cry they may at least postpone the decision and wait until the furor has died down before closing the brewery.

But hope springs eternal and I certainly support the effort and wish them well, whatever the outcome.

An Open Letter to Anhesuer-Busch from Christina Gumola:

It was on Friday May 19, 2006, when I received a phone call from my father Richard Pavlik, who is a 22 year long employee of Latrobe Brewing Company, when I got the news. “The label was bought by Anheuser-Busch for $82 million.” I quickly asked about the future of his job in which he replied, “I have 60 days then I no longer have a job.” Immediately I broke down in tears for many reasons, one of which was my concern for the well-being of my parents and the effect this job loss will have on their lives. I have to admit that along with my sadness, I was very angry. “How could someone do this to, not only my father and the other 200+ employees of Latrobe Brewing Company, but to a whole community whose livelihood revolved around their pride and commitment to Latrobe Brewing Company-more specifically Rolling Rock beer.”

Despite my anger, I understand that Anheuser-Busch’s purchase of Rolling Rock was a decision based on business. However; I feel that this decision was made without an understanding of the devastating impact that the removal of Rolling Rock would have on the people of Latrobe and the surrounding communities. In addition, I feel that Anheuser-Busch may not have thought enough about how keeping Rolling Rock in Latrobe could help their own company from a business standpoint.

Ever since the announcement of Anheuser-Busch’s purchase of Rolling Rock and the plan to move it out of Latrobe, it’s as if a large dark cloud has settled over Latrobe. Not only has this decision gloomed the employees of Latrobe Brewing Company, but it has gloomed those who are also committed to the greatness that Rolling Rock brings to Latrobe. It feels as if someone took something so important out of our lives that we can never get back. I know that I am speaking for everyone who has pride in Rolling Rock when I say that we are truly hurt and devastated for this loss.

I found a noteworthy quote in an article dated March 30, 2006 from Anheuser-Busch. This article was titled ‘Who Would You Have A Beer With?’ Robert C. Lachky, executive vice president, global industry development, Anheuser-Busch Inc. is quoted saying that “Beer is about sharing moments and creating memories with good friends and family.” This quote could not be truer. Rolling Rock beer has allowed us to create these memories with our friends and family here in Latrobe. Though these moments and memories cannot be taken away, the opportunity to create more of them with our loved ones has been.

After Anheuser-Busch’s purchase of Rolling Rock, Mr. August A. Busch IV, president of Anheuser-Busch Inc. hit the nail head on when he was quoted for saying, “We have an ideal opportunity to grow this historic brand. This beer is not like others, and it’s consumer following is EQUALLY DISTINCTIVE.” It is apparent that Mr. Busch and other’s in Anheuser-Busch see Rolling Rock for what it is and for what THE PEOPLE OF LATROBE have made it. While Anheuser-Busch may be able to brew Rolling Rock beer using the same “time-honored” recipes, it is virtually impossible to replicate the committed employees of Latrobe Brewing Company and people of Latrobe, which go hand-in-hand with Rolling Rocks craftsmanship and heritage.
The history of Anheuser-Busch states that in 1864, Adolphus Busch joined the fledgling brewery that later became known as Anheuser-Busch. Though the early years were demanding, Mr. Adolphus Busch continued to have a keen vision for the success of the company. The history further indicates that the distinctive contributions made by each succeeding generations of the Anheuser-Busch family clearly show that the history of Anheuser-Busch isn’t a story about a company-it’s a story about people. People with dreams and perseverance. Like Anheuser-Busch, the story and history of Rolling Rock is not a story about a company, but a story about people. The Tito brother’s wanted a unique beer that could represent the heart and soul of Latrobe. As a result, Rolling Rock beer was introduced in 1939 and since that time, it has become more than a beer and a product of a company. Rolling Rock indeed became the heart and soul of the people of Latrobe. Telling someone that “I’m from Latrobe” is accompanied with an enormous sense of pride.

August Busch Sr.’s vision and determination to keep his company going during the Prohibition resembles the vision of the Latrobe Brewing Company employees and the people of Latrobe. We are determined to keep producing Rolling Rock beer in Latrobe where it belongs. History reports that August Busch Sr. was able to keep many of his skilled workers employed and his equipment up to date during the difficult time of the Prohibition. Obviously, he was able to see the importance of dedicated and skilled employees. I feel August Busch IV would be proud to employ the current workers at Latrobe Brewing Company. They are, indeed, highly skilled and committed to producing Rolling Rock. It is important to note that there has not been a labor dispute at the Latrobe Brewing Company in over 24 years. This is a clear indication of the dedication and loyalty of the employees in this establishment. Also during the Prohibition, Mr. Busch Sr. kept his equipment up to date. Likewise, recent additions and modifications to the equipment at Latrobe Brewing Company have been made to keep up with the demand of the highly sought after Rolling Rock beer in this competitive field.

After researching Anheuser-Busch’s history and values, I feel that a partnership with Rolling Rock, if kept in Latrobe, can be more beneficial for Anheuser-Busch as a company. The employees at Latrobe Brewing Company have these same values and commitment to the product that they make here.

Anheuser-Busch is known for, and prides itself, for their unique commitment to their belief statement, mission, and values. In fact, the Anheuser-Busch web-site relates that these values are “a concern for people, communities, and the environment.” I am asking that you please follow these values and show your support for our people and our community whose lives and passion revolve around having Rolling Rock Beer brewed in Latrobe. Please rethink your decision of taking the pride and passion out of our lives.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Statement of Beliefs includes the following belief: The understanding that well-trained and motivated employees acting with the highest integrity are critical to our success. As a former part-time seasonal employee at Latrobe Brewing Company, I have witnessed first hand how the employees making Rolling Rock beer contribute to the company’s success through the dedication and pride the employees have in their jobs and the product they produce. I’ve also witnessed this dedication from retiree’s, such as Albert Pavlik my grandfather, who is a 35 year veteran of Latrobe Brewing Company.

Finally, The Vision of Anheuser-Busch states: Through all of our products, services and relationships, we will add to life’s enjoyment. We dedicated consumers of Rolling Rock beer and the employees of Latrobe Brewing Company understand how the product adds to life’s enjoyment. Please allow us to work together in Latrobe to accomplish the vision of Anheuser-Busch.

I sincerely thank you for your time,

Christina M. Gumola
Proud daughter of
Richard L. Pavlik-Employee of Latrobe Brewing Company

A-B Buys Rolling Rock

By

Last week it was just a rumor, today it’s now official. Anheuser-Busch, in it’s drive to pick up new brands, has agreed to purchase the Rolling Rock brand from rival brewing giant InBev for $82 million.

Since Rolling Rock is not technically a craft brewer, buying them is perhaps a little more curious than their courting of other craft brands. But Rolling Rock was sold, nationally at least, beginning in the 1980s as if it were a microbrewery. This was done quite successfully and it did in fact create a pretty good image for itself when their weren’t very many national micros. Those of us who grew up in Pennsylvania weren’t fooled but generally speaking the unsophisticated beer consumer believed — and perhaps still believes — Rolling Rock is a craft beer. And I think it’s that very quality, it’s status as essentially a faux micro, that makes it ideal as an A-B product. A-B is very good as selling brands as much more than they are in reality so this will, I think, be a marriage made in heaven, albeit a heaven with no real beer.

From the press release:

Introduced in 1939 by Latrobe Brewing Co. and acquired by InBev’s Labatt U.S.A. in 1987, Rolling Rock is an historic American lager that is well-known for its distinctive, full-bodied taste and painted green bottle. Rolling Rock has established itself as an authentic, iconic American lager with a loyal following.

Anheuser-Busch acquires the Rolling Rock brands and recipes with the transaction, and will now start to work with the existing Rolling Rock wholesaler network and Anheuser-Busch wholesalers to define plans for the future. Anheuser-Busch will begin brewing Rolling Rock and Rock Green Light in August using the brands’ same time-honored recipes, maintaining Rolling Rock’s craftsmanship and heritage that its fans expect and appreciate. Internationally, Rolling Rock will continue to be sold in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

“We have an ideal opportunity to grow this historic brand,” said August A. Busch IV, president of Anheuser-Busch Inc. “This beer is not like others, and its consumer following is equally distinctive. We live in a diverse world where consumers are hungry for variety. Acquiring Rolling Rock enables us to reach a new audience and to continue building our broad portfolio of products that meet the wide-ranging needs of consumers.”

InBev plans to sell its brewery in Latrobe, Pa., separately to focus its U.S. business on imported beers. It is in discussions with potential buyers to determine the best available options for the brewery and its employees.

“The decision to sell the Rolling Rock brands was based on InBev’s strategic approach to the U.S. market, which is to focus on the high-growth import brands in our portfolio,” said Doug Corbett, president of InBev USA. “Our sales and marketing efforts will emphasize our leading imported beers, including Stella Artois, Bass Pale Ale, Beck’s, Brahma and Labatt Blue.”

Beer and Cinema

By

According to an article in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune, a movie theater in Oceanside has filed for a license to serve beer at screenings. The ABC is quoted as saying there are currently three other such theaters in the state, two in L.A. and one in Oakland. I’ve been to the one in Oakland, the Parkway Theater, several times when I used to live there a few years back, and it was great fun. They also have pizza and subs to eat and bring your food directly to your seat. You can buy pints or pitchers of about half a dozen craft beers. They also serve a number of wines, too. The theatre itself has sofas, comfy chairs and tables scattered about the hall. If you want a good spot, like a sofa, you have to get there early because it’s very popular. They also have a baby brigade night where infants are welcome and we took Porter there when he was very little. It’s very family oriented that night but otherwise is over-21 only. I really like the place and was unaware of any problems with such a place.

So I was surprised by two things in the piece about the San Diego theatre trying a similar idea. First, supposedly they’ve gotten a lot of protests about it. Apparently the way the place is laid out, it will be fairly easy to make a section of the multiplex adults-only and that’s the only place alcohol will be served. Naturally, that’s still not good enough for the neo-prohibitionists who are coming out in droves to complain. These people will not be satisfied until alcohol is once again made illegal, despite what a disaster it was the last time we tried it. They’re still worried young people might be able to get their hands on it. Gasp. I am so sick to death of these people. If you don’t want to drink, don’t. Stop pretending this is about protecting the children and admit it’s just about wanting to push your beliefs on the rest of us. For a country that was supposedly founded on the idea of freedom, it constantly amazes me how so many people see nothing wrong with trying to restrict their fellow citizens from doing whatever they find personally distasteful. Please, live your own life however you want and leave the rest of us alone.

The second thing I found disturbing was even more troubling. A spokesperson for the local police is quoted as saying the “Oceanside Police Department routinely objects to any new liquor license.” (my emphasis.) What!?! Why would they do that? Is that their job? That would be an emphatic no. It’s the job of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department to approve or deny applications. The police’s job is to enforce the law, not determine policy or meddle with how a state agency does their job. But to say they object to “any” is the same as saying they object to every single application. And that is overstepping their authority by leaps and bounds, in my opinion. Not only that, “[b]ut in this case, [the police spokesperson] said yesterday, both the police chief and the city manager have asked that the protest be more vigorous.” Huh!?! Are we told why in their opinion a more vigorous protest would be appropriate? Nope, not one whiff of evidence is offered for the police taking such a position. The author of this story seems to just take it for granted that her readers will accept such a position without evidence. She probably knows her audience better than I do, but I’m more than a little frightened that there are places where such a statement can be made and accepted without comment.

So if you live in San Diego and this beer and wine license is approved, please patronize this theater. Not only do we have to be vigilant against the big brewery attacks on craft beer, but also the neo-prohibitionist attacks on all alcoholic beverages. These people are scary, especially when they get an imprimatur from local government and law enforcement. We have to remind these people that beer is legal and that we have the right to openly enjoy it. And that’s a right that needs to be protected.

Kung Fu Fighting

By

Apparently Jackie Chan is a beer person. Who knew? Perhaps it keeps him limber for his fight scenes. A Jackie Chan posted a comment today to my first post about the new cans at 21st Amendment. Jackie also left an e-mail address at goodbeer.com. Now goodbeer.com is the domain name of Speakeasy Ales & Lagers in San Francisco. I spoke to brewery co-owner Steve Bruce this morning and he assured me Jackie Chan does not work for them. I was certainly glad to hear he was still making movies.

Here is the comment from Mr. Chan:

Unfortunately, they [21st Amendment] are not canning the beer with a real canning line; they have an extremely labor-intensive, slow 2-can filler and separate seamer requiring them to physically handle every can and move them around before they are seamed. The air-levels will not come close to that of a real canner (or even a good bottler), there are substantial microbio issues as the system is slow and not sealed, and there will likely be massive variance in carbonation (and probably taste as a result of all the factors I have listed). In a nutshell, these cans will have terrible shelf-stability and it will probably be a crapshoot every time you crack one open.

A real canner is great for beer… but this ain’t that.

So either someone else who works there and wants to remain anonymous is unhappy with the idea of 21st Amendment having beer cans to sell or someone who doesn’t work there wants me to think that. I suppose it could be a coincidence and goodbeer.com was chosen at random but that somehow doesn’t seem likely to me. The commenter certainly sounds knowledgeable and appears to know the basic process, which means he sounds like someone who may be a brewery worker. But Jackie is apparently unaware that I showed the hand canning process in great detail two weeks later, including that it is slow and done by hand. I did pitch in and saw that each can is, of course, sanitized and the process seems as hygienic as any other bottling I’ve seen. There are currently twenty-five small breweries hand canning, three in California, and many more in Canada and abroad. If there really were such a bad sanitary and consistency problem we’d have heard about it by now. And people have been hand bottling 22 oz. bottles for decades. That’s how most microbreweries started offering packages in the 1980s and early 1990s. Many still do. They’d have all the same problems Jackie brings up yet I’m not aware of any endemic problem with hand bottling.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it’s not really my job to defend canned beer. I think it’s an interesting trend that’s not likely to go away anytime soon so I personally thought it best to learn as much as I could about it. And I also wanted to keep an open mind since I, too, have long thought the can inferior to the bottle. But through this adventure that’s starting to change. Plus, we’ve all seen so many bottling lines that I thought this was something different and worthy of attention.

When I told Steve Bruce why I was calling him, he didn’t think anyone from Speakeasy would have send that message. And overall, I tend to agree with him. I like Speakeasy and I love their beer. Big Daddy and Double Daddy are two of my favorite big, hoppy beers. I wish them all the success in the world and would do whatever I can to support them in their efforts to bring good beer culture to the masses. So it certainly seemed odd that whoever sent it used their domain name.

In the end it’s hard not to view this comment as sour grapes, regardless of its origin. And that brings me to the point of this dreary post. Infighting. Which from now on I will continue to refer to as Kung Fu Fighting in honor of Jackie. Both Sam Calgione, of Dogfish Head, and Dave Buhler, of Elysian Brewing, in their respective speeches at the opening of this year’s Craft Brewing Conference stressed the importance of the craft industry working together. It’s been a subject we’ve all been talking about at least as far back as Kim Jordan’s keynote address at the New Orleans CBC three years ago, though the idea of course was not original to her. In fact, as long as I can remember one of the things I’ve liked best about the craft beer industry is that it’s like an extended family. Brewers help each other because most realize we’re all in this together. When one succeeds we all succeed.

I know, of course I know, that that’s a romantic ideal that’s not exactly the reality we face. There is Kung Fu Fighting. There always has been and there probably always will be. Even the closest family members sometimes root for or revel in the failure of their siblings. We don’t want to believe it’s true but sometimes it is. But doing so is counterproductive, in my opinion. Otherwise we’ll never reach a tipping point where a majority of Americans realize what we already know: that better beer and the culture of great beer enhance the pleasures of this life. Good beer makes almost everything a little better. The food we eat, the company we keep, and our enjoyment of life are all improved by having a vibrant beer culture. Don’t think so? Imagine your life if all you could drink was American-style lager and virtually nothing else was available, roughly the situation our parents lived through. My father thought Heineken was the pinnacle of what life had to offer. Today, I wouldn’t drink that swill on a bet. Can you imagine a world with no organic food, no slow food movement, no great coffee, no gourmet cheese, no artisanal breads, no fine wine, and no craft beer? So many different kinds of products have evolved over the last few decades that it’s almost unimaginable to think of life without them. How dull would our lives be if reduced to only Maxwell House, Wonder bread, Kraft cheese, Blue Nun and a Schlitz.

But here we are. We have choices that were unthinkable a generation ago. Whole new industries have grown up before our very eyes. But the makers of all the mass-produced foods and beverages have not gone away, nor will they anytime soon. They are huge, massive companies with immense resources. And they’ve been losing market share for decades. They have but one goal in mind: to crush their competition and get back on top. In our case, it’s the big breweries, both domestic and foreign. They’ve turned beer into a commodity, a highly engineered food product. In my opinion, beer is best when it’s a balance of art and science, and the big breweries have raised the science of brewing to such heights that the art has been lost in the process. Technicians work at big breweries, artisans at craft breweries.

But after several years when the industry was losing ground — when the predicted shakeout took place in the late 1990s — craft beer suddenly stabilized and started a slow steady period of growth again that has continued to the present. And it’s been growing slowly now for a number of consecutive years and in fact even the gains have been increasing. We’re still a drop in the barrel compared to the Goliaths. Fourteen-hundred breweries still account for less than 4% of total beer production in the whole country. And now in the last year the biggest Goliath, Anheuser-Busch, has engaged in price wars with the other big breweries and is losing revenue. In fourth quarter last year they experienced a 54.7% drop in income before taxes. To keep their fingers in the dyke, the big breweries have been signing distribution deals (or in some cases trying to) with both import beer and microbreweries. At least one has tried a half-hearted PR campaign to celebrate beer in general. And we’re seeing more stealth micros, products from the big breweries masquerading as craft beer. So despite having a market share the size of a gnat, the giants are coming after us. What will be most important in the coming months is how we respond.

That’s why this morning’s comment rankled me so much. Because whatever prompted it and whoever posted it, at first blush it appears to be Kung Fu Fighting. It appears to be another brewery raining on the parade of another’s good news, throwing water on a fire just as it’s being built, or just trying to spread dirt on a fellow craft brewer. Whatever your metaphor, I don’t think it’s good for the industry to have any infighting, no matter how juvenile. We should be helping one another, not putting each others kegs in the street, so to speak. We need to all stick together and work together toward the common goal of reaching more and more people until we reach a tipping point of critical mass. Where is that point? I don’t know, but I believe we’ll know it when we get there. And in the meantime, no one, not even Sierra Nevada or Boston Beer, is big enough to reach enough people alone. We need each other, now more than ever. I hate war metaphors, but if there is an “enemy,” the enemy is out there. He most definitely is not or should not be among us. We cannot afford to engage in martial arts. We can’t be fast as lightning against each other because yes, it is a little bit frightening. And we’re going to need expert timing for the coming battles. We have to stop Kung Fu Fighting.

As I see it, there won’t be a better time to start working together then right now. This is it. Or at least this could be it, our time. This could be the moment we look back on and say this is when it all began. 2006 was the year when things started to change. The year when the media started paying attention to craft beer, when consumers in ever growing numbers started seeking out beer with flavor. The year when people choose the perfect beer to have with their ham, instead of trying to force wine to do a job it’s not well suited to do. The year people stock their kitchens with several types of beer glasses so they’ll be prepared when friends drop by with a bottle of Cuvee de Tomme or Pangaea to share. But in order to attain a goal of that magnitude, we unequivocally MUST work together as brothers and sisters on a quest, be able to trust one another implicitly and take pride and celebrate the successes of our brethren.

“You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.” Hey, it’s a better song than Kung Fu Fighting.

Let’s eradicate Kung Fu Fighting in our lifetime.