Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

Craft Beer Up 11% for First Half of 2006!

By

It’s been exactly ten years since the craft beer industry has seen double-digit growth. Back in the heady days of 1996 it seemed like a new brewery was opening every week. But that came to a screeching halt and things calmed down, the media turned its attention to the next big thing, and brewers got on with the job of making great beer.

Then a curious thing happened several years ago. Slowly but surely the craft beer numbers began to rise. Slowly at first, but more importantly it was happening consistently year after year. Now more great news today. So far in the first half of this year, craft beer sold looks to be 11% over the same period last year.

Said Paul Gatza, Director of the Brewers Association professional division, in a press release today. “The rate of growth in the craft beer segment appears to be accelerating. This is the third straight year we’ve seen an increase in the craft beer growth rate.”

Also from the press release:

The current surge in growth comes on top of strong performance by the nation‚s small, independent and traditional brewers over the last two years. In 2004, the volume of craft beer sold increased by 7 percent and in 2005 it rose by 9 percent.

“This growth represents strong performance by established craft brewers over several years,” said Ray Daniels, Director of Craft Beer Marketing for the Brewers Association. “Unlike the early days of our industry, newly founded breweries do not add significantly to industry-wide production.”

“The current trend in craft beer sales increases demonstrates a growing consumer preference for the diverse and flavorful beers made by craft brewers,” said Gatza.

Now that puts a smile on my face.

Russian River Beer Revival & BBQ Cook-Off

By

Saturday I took the whole family to the Russian River Beer Revival & BBQ Cook-Off in Guerneville, California. It was held at Stumptown Brewery at a perfect location right along the river. I’m doing a story about the festival and the brewery for the next issue of the Celebrator Beer News, but in the meantime here are some photos from the event.

Stumptown Brewery on River Road in Guerneville.

The festival booths making barbecue and pouring beers was right along the Russian River.

Vinnie Cilurzo pouring a big bottle of Damnation.

Vinnie and Natalie.

Carla and Peter Hackett. co-owners of Stumptown Brewery, along with Natalie Cilurzo, the brains behind the success of Russian River Brewing.

Some people paddled their canoes to the festival.

Natalie snuggles with my daughter Alice.

The food and beer was great, with booths of fruits and vegetables along with all the barbecue. Throughout the day, several bands entertained the crowd, many of whom took to dancing.

Your Beer Personality

By

I enjoy personality quizzes, actually quizzes of almost any kind, so I’m not necessarily predisposed to find fault with them. But this one is another story. There’s a website called Blogthings that has literally almost 300 quizzes for people to use on their blogs, presuambly to spice them up with something fun. Most are five questions with several choices each. Their tagline is Cool Things to Put In Your Blog.

A friend sent me this one, it’s “What’s Your Beer Personality?” Five questions, six possible answers to each one, and it purports to tell you your beer personality by determining what beer you are based on your answers. There are 7,775 different possible ways to answer the five questions but as far as I can tell from playing around with the quiz, there are only six different personalities possible: Bud Light, Guinness, Heineken, Olde English and Sam Adams.

I realize this things are just for fun, they’re not meant to be taken too seriously. But it seems to me they should bear at least some passing resemblence to reality. Whoever put this quiz together apparently knows nothing about beer and thinks there are only six personality types. I certainly wasn’t expecting a Westmalle Tripel personality or Rodenbach Grand Cru but not even a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? And the beers don’t really seem to fit the personalities, but they do say a lot about stereotypes many people have about beer and what certain brands mean or have come to mean through marketing and advertising.
 

Here are the 6 beer personalities:

You’re not fussy when it comes to beer. If someone hands it to you, you’ll drink it. In fact, you don’t understand beer snobbery at all. It all tastes the same once you’re drunk! You’re an enthusiastic drinker, and you can often be found at your neighborhood bar. You’re pretty good at holding your liquor too – you’ve had lots of experience.

Okay, this one’s near the mark. If you’ll drink this beer, you will drink anything and not notice the difference. It all tastes the same, even if you’re not drunk.

You don’t drink for the love of beer. You drink to get drunk. You prefer a very light, very smooth beer. A beer that’s hardly a beer at all. And while you make not like the taste of beer, you like the feeling of being drunk. You drink early and often. Sometimes with friends. Sometimes alone. All the party needs is you!

How could you, at least not if this is your choice. “Hardly a beer at all.” Hilarious. Corona was the answer to the question “what is your least favorite beer?” when posed to Michael Jackson when he was a guest on the Conan O’Brien Show in April of this year.

You know beer well, and you’ll only drink the best beers in the world. Watered down beers disgust you, as do the people who drink them. When you drink, you tend to become a bit of a know it all – especially about subjects you don’t know well. But your friends tolerate your drunken ways, because you introduce them to the best beers around.

This was the one I got when I answered the questions seriously, and it’s pretty sad that in the mind of the quiz, this is one the best beers the world has to offer. Which of the at least eleven different recipes of Guinness brewed worldwide are they talking about? Hopefully not that abomination that Diageo foisted on America, the widget bottle, which tried to undo decades of progress by marketing it to be consumed directly from the bottle. It’s also funny that they claim Guinness drinkers don’t like their beer watered down, since Guinness is a low alcohol beer and not heavy at all.

You appreciate a good beer, but you’re not a snob about it. You like your beer mild and easy to drink, so you can concentrate on being drunk. Overall, you’re a friendly drunk who’s likely to buy a whole round for your friends… many times. Sometimes you can be a bit boring when you drink. You may be prone to go on about topics no one cares about.

This is a bit surprising, since all of Heineken’s advertising is aimed at creating a perception of sophistication and premium quality, despite the fact of its legendary skunkiness. This, along with Corona, is one of the world’s worst beers. That it’s so popular is a testament to the advertising industry. That it is a personality is truly frightening.

Drinking is more than a hobby for you. It’s your favorite drug. When you drink, you want to get wasted. As quickly and cheaply as possible. Looking back on your best times drinking… well, you don’t remember them at all. You may be a few brain cells short, but you still can chug a 40!

This one’s just too easy. I guess there must really be people like this. Malt liquor does sell, after all.

You’re fairly easy to please when it comes to beer – as long as it’s not too cheap. You tend to change favorite beers frequently, and you’re the type most likely to take a “beers of the world” tour. When you get drunk, you’re fearless. You lose all your inhibitions. You’re just as likely to party with a group of strangers as you are to wake up in a very foreign place.

This one doesn’t even make much sense to me. It’s not like Sam Adams beer is expensive. And frankly, why is a “‘beers of the world’ tour” a bad thing? Or changing your choice of beer? As the only beer personality in the canon approaching craft beer, I can’t understand why it’s not the pinnacle.

Alright, I know this whole thing is pretty silly, but it was a quiet Sunday. Don’t take my word for it. Take the quiz for yourself. See what your beer personality is.

Chugging Contests to Promote Brewfest

By

A few weeks ago I opined that the upcoming movie Brewfest was going to do nothing good for the good beer movement, and might even cause further harm to beer’s already beleaguered image. I even argued that position on a recent interview on the Brewing Network. Even though I’ve not seen the movie, everything I have seen has filled me with a growing sense of dread.

Along comes today’s Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the capitol city’s newspaper, with a story about how the co-creators and stars of Brewfest are promoting the film. It seems director Jay Chandrasekhar and “his co-writer/co-star/co-producer Paul Soter, 34, have been touring the country challenging locals to beer-chugging contests.” So to all of you who’ve defended this movie, I ask you. Is that really a good way to promote good beer? Is that good for beer’s image? I can just image how the MADD mothers will use this to their advantage.

“No team has beaten them yet.” The pair of filmmakers told the paper. Well, congratulations. You must be very proud. It’s good to have goals, and such lofty ones at that. That’s exactly what the beer industry needs, high-profile people in the media spotlight with the goal of chugging more beer than anybody else. It may sell newspapers and even the movie, but it does nothing to give beer any respect and in fact even undermines it more that the damage done year after year by the advertising created by the big breweries.

The Patriot-News describes the movie thusly:

The movie “Beerfest,” opening Friday, is most definitely an R-rated comedy that proudly features gratuitous nudity and all sorts of rude behavior, mostly involving imbibing lots of alcohol.

In and out of the movie, chugging beer is a bad idea.

Beer Only Fit for Guzzling

By

I realize that the Ventura County Reporter isn’t exactly mainstream media, but they’re in print and people believe what they read in print, so they’re fair game as far as I’m concerned, especially when they wear their ignorance on their sleeve. A regular column in the alternative weekly, called Body Politics, is written by Robert Ferguson, who apparently is a diet guru, at least according his byline, which reads:

Robert Ferguson is recognized as the weight loss “guru” and wellness expert, co-author of Fat That Doesn’t Come Back, speaker and has Diet Free Life offices in Southern California. E-mail him at robert@dietfreelife.com, or visit his Web site at www.dietfreelife.com.

Apparently in his column each week he answers questions sent in by readers. This week’s is particularly troubling. The question is innocuous enough, here it is:

You often talk about the benefits of drinking wine, but what about beer?

— Cia W., Thousand Oaks

Okay, Bobby, you got my attention, please tell me. What are the benefits of drinking beer? He brings up only one of the numerous studies showing health benefit for moderate beer drinking, this about “men who drank 11-24 pints” having a 66% reduced chance of getting a heart attack over teetotalers who drank none at all. All well and good, but he also says that the scientists conducting the study were “shocked” by the findings. Hardly. It’s not like the health benefits of beer is a new phenomenon. People have known beer is good for them for millennia and there were centuries when it was preferable to water, health-wise. But it shows his true disdain for beer while at the same time trying to appear unbiased.

Ignoring the many other and different ways beer provides health benefits, he then suggests that “[j]ust because there is a hint [my emphasis] of health associated with beer doesn’t mean it’s to your benefit to rush out and purchase a case of your favorite flavor.” Setting aside that beer doesn’t really come in “flavors,” but styles, just because he apparently knows only about a single study doesn’t mean there’s only a hint of benefits. A simple Google search of “health benefits of beer” would have revealed to him over 9 million hits! Even if only a tiny fraction were legitimate scientific studies, that would still be many more than one. Just in the last few years, there have been many new major findings on the health benefits of beer. But why use facts, when as a “guru” you can pretend to know what you’re talking about.

But Bobby’s not done insulting beer yet, as he ends with this bit of wisdom:

The challenge with beer is that it’s not usually sipped, but guzzled. And guzzling positions you to consume more than if you were to sip it.

Now here was a perfect opportunity to educate Cia and his readers that there are thousands of great beers designed to be sipped rather than knocked back. But instead Bobo, who appears to know precious little about beer, chose instead to recommend the following:

If you want weight loss however, choose a five-ounce glass of wine instead.

Dammit this is the sort of thing that if I were a cartoon would make smoke shoot out of my ears. Why does wine always get trotted out as this saintly stuff, perfect for a diet? Ferguson cautioned earlier in the article that beer had “alcohol and calories,” making it bad for dieting, apparently. But so does wine. And ounce for ounce wine has more calories than beer does. There’s 100 calories in five ounces of wine, while a similar amount of beer contains (depending on the amount of protein) between 50-75 calories which is — say it with me — less. Why couldn’t he have suggested that Cia share a nice bottle of Cuvee de Tomme (Ventura is in Southern California, after all) with some friends, having only five ounces herself in a nice tulip glass? She was asking about beer, after all, not wine. But talk of alcohol and health always seems to work its way back to grapes, despite the mounting evidence of beer’s positive benefits in a myriad of areas. This perception of wine as angelically good and beer as demonically bad is one tough nut to crack. People seem very, very attached to this misconception. We could debate the reasons for this and where the culpability lies, but that’s for another day. The fact is our cause it not helped by so-called experts like this guy who in his zeal to sell diet books, magazines and his online weight loss program, ignores the facts and plays on old stereotypes to misinform the public.
 

Robert Ferguson, the “Diet Guru.” “Remember kids, don’t guzzle that beer, you’ll get fat.“

The Pour’s the Thing

By

No one in his right mind would argue that it’s better to drink beer directly from the bottle or can, yet thousands — perhaps millions — of people do that every single day. So getting people to first pour their beer into some type of vessel, preferrably a glass one, is job one. The advantages should be obvious. The head produced when you pour beer into a glass releases carbon dixoide (CO2) and makes the beer much less gassy. That’s why bottle drinkers burp and … well, you know. Also, the CO2 gets in the way of whatever flavor is in the beer because it overpowers it, so it’s absoluetly essential that you let the beer breathe. Usually that one big exhale when you pour it is enough, but what’s the best way to pour your beer into the glass?

On this point, many people differ, often bitterly. Today’s Sun-Sentinnel (which covers south Florida) has an article entitled “Beer foam foments flavor,” which explores this idea of a right way to pour a beer in surprising detail.

Boston Beer’s Jim Koch weighs in first, saying “A nice collar of foam around a glass of beer not only is aesthetically pleasing but serves a real function.”

He continues in the article:

“As the CO2 [carbon dioxide] rises in the glass, the beer will capture some of the hop aroma, and the foam releases this aroma,” Koch says. The more protein in the beer, the more sizable and durable the head.

The practice was so widespread, Koch says, that the ritual of pouring a glass with a good collar of foam practically disappeared, unless one happened on a knowledgeable bartender.

Pour the beer down the middle of a slightly tilted glass, straightening the glass gradually. If it is a bottle-conditioned beer, you can leave a half-inch of liquid in the bottle to keep the yeast sediment from clouding your beer.

Next up, Grady Hull, assistant brewmaster at New Belgium Brewing, who “agrees that the foam affects the flavor.” His take:

“Some aromas are released by the foam, and others are held in to be released as the beer is consumed,” Hull says. “It’s also an indication of the content of the beer. Beers made with cheap adjuncts like rice and corn are typically low in foam because they are low in protein.”

Lastly, Sam Calagione, of Dogfish Head Brewing, adds that “a good inch (two fingers) of froth on a glass of craft beer” is ideal.

CAMRA, unfortunately, while having done much else that is good, has been whining for years that a large head is cheating consumers out of their full pint of beer. They’ve been stubbornly demanding taller and taller glasses so that the liquid comes up to a pint line and the foam extends beyond it but still is in the glass. But the foam, of course, consists of a percentage of liquid which slides back into the glass as the bubbles dissipate. This argument for larger glasses always struck me as pedantic. A pint is 16 oz., not 20 oz., as is the British Imperial Pint. If pub owners want to end this argument, all they need do is stop selling pints and instead offer a glass of beer (which then could be of any size) for a set price. That the word “pint” is the trouble strikes me as fairly ridiculous. But I think this had led many to believe that a good-sized head is not desireable, and that is not the case at all.

Here in the states, the American-style lagers manufactured by the big breweries are all very highly carbonated, most likely to mask the lack of flavor underneath. One thing you can say about the big guys is they’re not stupid. These beers from the bottle have to be poured down the side of the glass, otherwise you’ll have foam everywhere. Notice you rarely, if ever, see their products in a glass in print or television ads. Letting an American-style lager breathe will reveal more of it’s actual flavor and that’s not necessarily something they want to do. So I was particularly puzzled to discover that the Beertender Guide to Serving Packaged Beer actually suggests the following:

Don’t pour the beer by the “down-the-side” method. This minimizes the foam, and the beer looks flat and will taste gassy. CO2 is retained in the beer and swallowed, so your customers fill up faster — and they may not have room for snacks or a meal.

The Beertender Guide is maintained by Anheuser-Busch for their wholesalers. It’s shared content that any of them can use on their individual websites and/or to train their employees. Their advice on pouring is also quite interesting.

For the smoothest taste, pour beer to produce a nice head or collar of foam.

  • Place the neck of the bottle or lip of the can over the edge of a clean glass or cup.
  • Quickly raise the bottom of the bottle or can to a high angle, causing the beer to agitate into the glass.
  • Lower the bottom of the bottle or can to reduce the flow until the foam rises to the rim.

This flies in the face of some conventional wisdom, especially the 45° angle theory, which is quite prevalant among most craft brewers. Beer Advocate, for example, in their advice on How To Pour Beer, advocates this method and even has a little online video of founder Todd Alström pouring a glass of Mendocino’s Eye of the Hawk to show this technique. Go watch it. Go on, I’ll wait. Like most of the advice in Beer Advocate’s Beer 101 pages, there’s a lot of good information there but this I think illustrates why the 45° angle is partially flawed. He’s using an imperial pint glass, of course, which is for 20 oz. of liquid and the bottle is 12 oz. which is fine. I, too, like and often use imperial pint glasses depending on the beer style. But notice at the end of the video, where his fingers come to rest at the edge of the foam, that the head produced looks to be maybe one finger thick. But the ideal head is at least around 1-1½ in., which is about two fingers on most of us. Now personally, I like a good thick head, more on the order of 1½ to 2 inches. That’s how important I think it is to blow off the gasses in the beer and get to the remaining flavor. And the 45° angle method just doesn’t get it done. It’s not bad per se, but in many cases it’s simply ineffective for getting a thick, pillowy head going. I prefer the following:

  1. Hold your bottle or can above a glass held straight up and pour it directly into the middle of the bottom of the glass, with an even, smooth pour rate
  2. This will get the foam going early and big, but watch it carefully
  3. If the foam becomes too volatile, then tilt the glass to roughly a 45° angle or less, as appropriate (this takes some practice)
  4. As you reach the point where roughly two-third of the bottle’s contents are in the glass, begin bringing the glass back to an upright position to empty the remaining contents

This is a dynamic process that much be watched constantly and continually adjusted for to get the head just right. Maybe it requires more concentration but it’s well worth it in my opinion, because of how important the results are.

Now I realize I’ve ignored certain exceptions, like bottle-conditioned beers, and certain styles with their own peculiarities, such as stouts or hefeweizens, but for the majority of beers, I think my method works quite well. This is especially true if your goal is to produce a generous head, and I think that’s crucially important to getting the full enjoyment out of your bottle of beer.

UPDATE: SeattleBeerGuy sent me the following tidy little article entitled Pouring the Perfect Pint from Pacific Brew News, which is a similar method to mine, but also includes a bit more detail.

Don’t Shun the “Tion” Dinner

By

Beer Chef Bruce Paton’s next beer dinner has been announced, and it should be another great one. Dubbed the Tion Dinner, because it will feature Damnation, Temptation, Supplication, Salvation and Redemption from Russian River Brewing, it will be a four-course dinner and well worth the $80 price of admission. It will be held at the Cathedral Hill Hotel on Monday, September 18, beginning with a reception at 6:30 p.m. Call 415.874.3900 or 510.769.8422 for reservations.
 

 

9.18

Dinner with the Brewmaster: Russian River Beer Dinner

Cathedral Hill Hotel, 1101 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California
415.874.3900 or 510.769.8422 [ website ]

Take a Ride on the Skunk Train

By

Lagunitas Brewing is once again firing up the boiler on the Skunk Train and making a steam-powered beer run from Willits, California to the Northspur Station and back again.

The Skunk Train rumbles through the Redwoods.
 

On Saturday, September 9, beginning at 10:00 a.m., Lagunitas will be hosting a beer festival on wheels. With music by the Dog Town Ramblers aboard the train (and at the station), beer from several local brewers and barbecue from Jerome’s it’s the recipe for a perfect afternoon. Tickets are $54.20 and will benefit the Trees Foundation, which supports various nature conservation projects. As of this morning about half the available tickets had been sold, so if you want to come you should call soon for reservations. After the train gets back to the station, they’ll be an after party at the Shanachie Pub in Willits.

The Skunk line runs 40 miles from Fort Bragg on the coast to Willits on US Highway 101. Along the way, the tracks cross some 30 bridges and trestles and pass through two deep mountain tunnels. The half-way point of Northspur is popular lunch spot, giving passengers a chance to snack before continuing to Willits or heading back to Fort Bragg.

9.9

Lagunitas Skunk Train Rolling Beer Festival

Skunk Train Station, Willits, California
sponsored by:
Lagunitas Brewery, 1280 North McDowell Boulevard, Petaluma, California
707.769.4495 [ Skunk Train website ]

Ordering Alcohol Online: More Deceptive Shenanigans

By

A few months ago, the NBWA in response to an odd query from the Surgeon General tried to blame underage drinking on the Internet in an effort to both seem caring and also continue to fight interstate alcohol shipping as the bogeyman for the 21st Century. To any trade organization who represents monopoly interests, of course, any hint of legislative change that threatens that control will be a bogeyman. In March it was beer distributors, now it’s wine wholesalers in the form of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) who are attempting to further their own agenda with misleading information, at best, and downright falsehoods, at worst.

They’ve released a study that they sponsored that concluded exactly what they wanted it to. How convenient. How manipulative. Of course they call the survey a “landmark.” I call it what it really is: bullshit. Before you dismiss my assessment out of hand, read John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton’s wonderful books Toxic Sludge is Good For You! and Trust Us, We’re Experts! Both go a long way toward explaining how seemingly scientific and unbiased studies are in reality propaganda created by a very sophisticated public relations industry.

The WSWA, like the NBWA, has one function, and one function only. And it isn’t trumped up concerns about our nation’s youth. It’s sole purpose is to advance the agenda of wine wholesalers and distributors. Almost all of these wholesalers enjoy very profitable monopolies that are threatened by direct sales over the Internet. So that’s the bogeyman. It will corrupt our children. It’s always about the children. It’s never about money or business. My child needs their protection. Hooray. I no longer have to worry because the WSWA is on the case. It’s easy, really. All they have to do is make up some statistics and scare parents who are too busy to think for themselves.

Look at the language they employ. The study “confirmed” findings, it didn’t come to any conclusions based on raw data. Instead it went looking to “confirm” that which supported a predetermined conclusion. Let’s examine their so-called conclusions:

  1. 3.1 million minors (12%) ages 14-20 report having a friend who has ordered alcohol online.

    2. Wow, they have a friend. And that friend has a friend, and so on. That’s how urban legends begin … I have a friend who has a friend and …. This is a statistic that says absolutely nothing. First of all, even if accurate there’s no way to know if these 3.1 million friends are all different or all the same. Perhaps there’s only one guy but everybody knows him. That’s just as plausible as trying to conclude 12% of minors are buying alcohol online. Sure, they don’t come out and say that, but that’s clearly the inference.

  2. Two percent (551,000) of those ages 14-20 say they personally have bought alcohol online.

    3. Since when did 2% of anything become significant. Again, let’s assume that the number is correct and no bragging occurred on the part of those surveyed. Should we restrict adult’s access to legal products because some small percentage of the population will abuse them? How does that number compare to other methods minors use to get alcohol? I’m willing to bet fake IDs and over-21 friends far exceed that number. Can we really stop 100% of minors getting their hands on alcohol? Should we even try? Because every barrier we put up also makes it more it more difficult for adults, too. Kids are kids. They’ll try to do whatever they can to grow up too quickly. I did it. You did it. We’re not going to stop human nature. The more we prohibit something, the more attractive it becomes. So what if these kids bought alcohol online. It’s not the Internet’s fault. It’s the same argument the gun lobby uses so effectively. Guns don’t kill people, people do. The Internet is just a vehicle. You don’t restrict access to it for everyone because a few abuse it. Besides, where were these kids parents? What’s their story? Without that information, raw numbers are meaningless.

  3. As exposure and awareness of buying alcohol online increase, even more minors can be expected to purchase wine, beer and liquor online. This is consistent with a 2003 National Academy of Sciences report which confirmed kids are buying alcohol online and that increasing use of the Internet will make this problem worse in the future.

    4. Again, this is not a fact but a flimsy extrapolation based on questionable (and uncited) information.

  4. Nearly one in 10 (9%) of those ages 14-20 have visited a site that sells alcohol.

    5. So what? It’s not illegal for minors to read about alcohol, is it? Minors are allowed in grocery stores that sell alcohol without being corrupted. What’s the difference? And it’s curious that while 9% have visited an alcohol website, 12% have a friend who’ve bought online, while only 2% have actually done so. Is it just me, or do those figures not quite add up.

  5. One-third – nearly 8.9 million ages 14-20 nationwide – are open to the possibility of an online alcohol purchase before age 21.

    6. When I was 14-20, I would have been open to it, too. When this generation of 14-20-years olds are my age, the next crop of 14-20-year olds will almost certainly also be open to it. So what? It’s meaningless hyperbole.

  6. Seventy-five percent say their parents aren’t able to control what they do on the Internet.

    7. Is that a failure of the internet or parents? We have to realize as a society that we can’t protect our kids from everything. We have to raise them to deal with things on their own. Parents can’t really control their kids at school, either, but nobody’s suggesting we should do away with the public school system and home school everybody.

  7. Among those ages 14-20 who have tried alcohol, 75% tried liquor, followed by wine at 64%, beer at 60% and wine coolers at 55%.

    8. Another head scratcher. I’m not even sure what this adds to the picture. I’m not sure why it’s included here.

Happily, I’m not the only one who thinks this false concern for children is anything but a thinly veiled attempt to maintain the status quo. A grassroots organization known as Free the Grapes has released a counter-statement also calling into question the tactics of the WSWA.

Here’s the bulk of their statement, which was titled “Majority of States Allow Regulated Wine Direct Shipping, But Wine Wholesalers Continue ‘Chicken Little’ Strategy“:

The wine wholesaler cartel today trotted out a tired argument already dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Trade Commission, and state alcohol regulators.

The intent of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America’s “survey” on underage access is to deflect attention from their real motivation: economic protectionism. Over the past 30 years, the wholesale cartel has consolidated from 11,000 wholesalers to an oligopoly of two or three per state. The wholesalers, not consumers, have been deciding which wines are available. But now, the courts, Federal Trade Commission, and state legislatures are supporting consumer choice and responding with reasonable regulations and controls.

While the WSWA’s press release quoted that the “survey” results showed a “dangerous trend,” USA TODAY was unconvinced. The newspaper reported yesterday that “It’s unclear how many teens were buying alcohol online before the court’s ruling, but the TRU survey suggests such purchases are rare.”

Here are the facts:

  • Fact: Thirty-three states now allow interstate, winery-to-consumer direct shipments, and several more are in the process of creating the legal mechanisms to do so. No state has ever repealed pro direct shipping legislation based on non-compliance, including underage access. See www.wineinstitute.org for a list of the state laws.
  • Fact: The Federal Trade Commission rebuked the underage access argument in its survey of alcohol regulators in 11 states that allow direct shipments, concluding that states with procedural safeguards against shipments to minors report “few or no problems.” Click the following link to read a summary of the FTC’s July 2003 study, “Possible Anticompetitive Barriers to E-commerce: Wine”: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/07/wine.htm
  • Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Granholm v. Heald dismissed the underage access red herring, and favored a level playing field and consumer choice in wine via wineries and retailers
  • Fact: The wine industry supports the enforcement mechanisms available to states in the event of an alleged illegal shipment. The “21st Amendment Enforcement Act” was supported by the WSWA and signed into law in October 2000, allowing state Attorneys General to access federal courts to pursue litigation for alleged violations of state law regulating alcohol shipping. No winery or retailer has ever been prosecuted under the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act.

Additionally, alleged violations of state laws governing alcohol shipments can be reported by any state to the Trade & Tax Bureau for investigation. Penalties for infractions can include revocation of a winery’s basic permit to produce wine. Finally, the wine industry’s model direct shipping bill for wine stipulates that the winery or retailer holding a direct shipping license has consented to the jurisdiction of the state issuing the license, and the state’s courts concerning enforcement of the law. A copy of the model bill is located at www.freethegrapes.org.

“Especially now that the courts and capitols support consumer choice in wine, and many more enforcement tools are available, states should be working to ensure that online sellers are complying with all laws,” said Jeremy Benson, executive director, Free the Grapes! “Common sense and the actual experience of state regulators demonstrate that direct shipping is not the common means for illegal youth access to purchase wine, beer or spirits. Underage access is a serious issue, but it won’t be solved by special interest surveys geared to protect their turf by targeting a legal sales channel for adults,” he added.

The Wine Institute also posted a statement questioning the WSWA’s press release and survey findings.

The Wine and Spirits Wholesalers also have another website up called Point. Click. Drink. that is even more egregiously misleading than it’s main website — if you can believe that — which purports to educate young people. Unfortuntately it’s riddled with misinformation and outright fabrications, especially the Fact vs. Fiction section, which is almost entirely creative fiction. I considered going over their so-called facts point by point, but Free the Grapes put up their own counter to it: Point,Click, Think! There’s some great information there. For example, there’s this gem from USA Today, who wasn’t rolling over like NBC as far back as 1999, when they wrote:

“The [wholesaler] industry’s tactics are a civics lesson in how scare stories, lobbying and political money can be used to limit consumer choice through special-interest protections.”

— USA TODAY editorial, July 7, 1999

The WSWA even got NBC to bite on their press release and spread some nonsensical fears in a story entitled “Who is minding the Internet liquor store?” It’s by “Chief consumer correspondent” — whatever that means — Lea Thompson and it tells the tale of some kids who bought a bottle of absinthe online after watching the movie Eurotrip. Like much on the evening news, it spreads fear and highlights breakdowns in security all along the process. But it concludes, of course, by accepting the WSWA survey without question even dismissing the fact that the survey was commissioned by the WSWA by saying simply that “clearly there is a problem.” Not once is it suggested that the problem is with the security systems or other places the process breaks down. It was too easy to order online and the delivery company just gave the alcohol to a fifteen-year old. It didn’t occur to them to examine the breakdown in protocol by the delivery service. They got a free pass. NBC didn’t even mention it as a part of the problem. Yikes. Now that’s hard-hitting journalism.

But even the FTC examined E-commerce and concluded that online alcohol sales “Lowers Prices, Increases Choices in Wine Market.” The report, which was approved 5-0, refutes much, if not all, of the WSWA and NBWA’s ridiculous assertions that not banning the sales of alcohol online will lead to an epidemic of underage drinking. This time around the accusations were leveled by the wine wholesalers but much of it applies similarly to the beer industry. With so much money at stake, this issue isn’t going away anytime soon. The monopolies that constitute our alcohol distributors and wholesalers will defend those monopolies by any means necessary. Sometimes maintaining the status quo does make sense, as it does in certain aspects of the three-tier system, but other times it is clearly bad for consumers. This is one of those times. Direct shipping of alcohol from manufacturers or retailers interstate and intrastate should be legal in every state. That it’s not already shows how powerful the lobbying arms of alcohol distributors and wholesalers really are and how effective propaganda can be.