Yussef Cherney, intrepid Ballast Point brewer in San Diego, California, acted heroically yesterday to save a 100-keg batch of Ballast Point beer. In the middle of the brew, a water main broke leaving the brewery without water, according to a report by NBC San Diego. Rather then have the batch ruined, a brewery employee drove around the area and discovered the spot where the main had broken and alerted local water officials. Within hours it had been fixed and the water was flowing again to the brewery, effectively saving the brew. Way to go go guys!
Beer School is Back at 21st Amendment
21st Amendment brewpub’s beer school, which was monthly but has been on sabbatical lately, is returning.
From the press release:
Join us Tuesday, June 13th at 6 pm on the mezzanine at the 21A for an evening of Summer Brews. Beer and brewers from all around the Bay area will be pouring as we discuss the history and styles of summer beer.
$25 for beer samples and appetizers.
6.13
21st Amendment Beer School: Summer Brews
21st Amendment Brewery – Restaurant – Bar, 563 2nd Street, San Francisco, California
415-369-0900 [ website ]
John Hickenlooper Finalist for World Mayor Award
John Hickenlooper, the current mayor of Denver, Colorado is one of 50 finalists for the 2006 World Mayor Award, although he’s among only ten finalists from North America and a mere seven from the United States. Anyone apparently can vote, so go cast your vote for John now. John founded the Wynkoop brewpub in Denver’s LoDo area (Lower Downtown) when there was nothing there but a jazz club (El Chapultepec) and abandoned warehouses. Today it’s one of the busiest areas there boasting great restaurants, clubs, and Coors Field, the Colorado Rockies baseball stadium. John’s a great guy and by all accounts has been doing a phenomenal job as mayor. It would be fun and great press for the craft brewing industry as a whole if John won. So go vote now!
Before his mayoral days, at GABF with Joanne and Jessica (both formerly of the Brewers Association). Joanne Carilli is now with White Labs and Jessica left the BA last year to pursue teaching.
House Resolution 753 Passes
After only about two months, House Resolution 753 passed unanimously, with 70 co-sponsors, including twelve house members from California. H.R. 753 was the brainchild of the Brewers Association and “commend[s] America’s craft brewers for their many and varied contributions to our nation’s communities, economy, culture and history.”
The resolution was spearheaded by Representatives Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and with over 70 additional Congressmen cosponsoring the measure. The following California house members co-sponsored the bill: Ken Calvert, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Jane Harman, Mike Honda, George Miller, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Hilda Solis, Ellen Tauscher, Mike Thompson, and Lynn Woolsey.
From the press release:
“This is an important and significant first step in our effort to raise the profile of craft beer and brewing in Washington,” said BA president Charlie Papazian. “The amount of support we received from Members of Congress was extremely gratifying and was due in large part to the efforts of individual professional Brewers Association and American Homebrewers Association members calling and writing their Congressman to ask for their support of the resolution.”
The resolution, which also recognizes the establishment of American Craft Beer Week, was a featured element of a Capitol Hill Congressional reception held on May 16th which featured BA member beers from across the country paired with a variety of artisinal foods. At this event, Congressmen Boehlert and DeFazio were publicly recognized and thanked for their outstanding support of America’s craft brewers
From left: Brewers Association president Charlie Papazian, Representatives Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR).
Ryer Islander’s Rye Ale Returns to Hoppy Brewing
I have a special fondess for beers created by happy accident, such as Lagunitas’ Brown Shugga. Hoppy Brewing of Sacramento, California, is re-releasing their own happy accident, Ryer Islander’s Rye Ale (I also have an unnatural fondness for rye beers) as a seasonal ale that should be returning every year as a summer seasonal. Looks like I’ll have to get my lazy self up to Sacramento one of these days soon.
From the press release:
The next brewer’s special due on tap near the end of June is the return of a “new” annual favorite – Ryer Islander’s Ale. The Brew Crew has decided to add this beer to our small line of Perennial Specials (i.e., beers so well liked that we make them every year). So far they are all pale ales – broadly speaking. Fancy that… The progression will go from Tyson’s Twisted Pale Ale in the Spring, Ryer Islander’s Rye Ale in the Summer, Super Hoppy Pale Ale in the Fall, and after all of these years you should know by now what happens in the Winter… 😉
The back story on the Ryer Islander’s is the glory of serendipity and happy accidents. Often brewers will set out to make a beer style that is new, or experiment with new ingredients, and after those beers are made, there are usually partial bags of hops and malt that do not get used for anything else. With that being the case, then Ed will make what he likes to call “Sound Inventory Management” (SIM) beers – basically use the stuff up before it gets old and goes bad. It is kind of like the creations we have all made with the chicken in the freezer, half a bag of corn, some rice, and the remains of all of those dressing and condiment bottles we want to clear out of the refrigerator door. Sometimes those meals come out so well that we wish we had written down the recipe…
Ryer Islander’s Rye Ale is just such a recipe. First there was a mistake in one of the orders. Ed got three sacks of rye malt instead of the three sacks of rye flakes that is used in the Liquid Sunshine. After several subsequent deliveries where he completely forgot to send the rye malt back with the driver, he pretty much had to use it or lose it. Add that to a couple leftover partial sacks of Carapils and Extra Special Malt were thrown into the mash as well. On the hops side, Ed had partial bags of Challenger and Santiam to use up, and he always has plenty of Liberty that gets used in the Hoppy Face. The thought being – that ought to go well – shouldn’t it???
It did!!! The beer flew out of here like it was FREE or something… Almost as importantly, Hoppy’s General Manager, Mr. Kenny Turner really liked it, so we knew that we had not seen the last of it…
Ryer Islander’s Rye Ale is brewed with just over 30% Rye Malt, this unfiltered ale has a distinct rye bread character with a hint of roasted flavors and a tantalizing orange hue. A blend of Galena, Hallertau, and Liberty hops provides a spicy aroma. Alcohol by volume is about 6.0%, it is not really comparable to anything, and it should be on tap about mid-June.
Enough Already: Time to Cry Bullshit
Okay, I’ve had enough. Time to speak out. I’ve been getting press releases from the National Beer Wholesalers Association for many months now about the [expletive deleted] estate tax (it’s correct name by the way; they keep calling it the “death tax,” which alone pisses me off). I’ve been simply deleting them but the sheer number of the e-mails I’ve gotten over the last few months is truly staggering, maybe one every other week. There is no other issue facing the beer industry that’s received that kind of attention from a trade organization since they talked about changing the way that breweries are taxed. And it doesn’t even directly relate to beer, just the companies themselves. Today I got yet another one and it was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. There has simply been far to much attention paid to this issue and far too much misinformation given the small number of people it will benefit. Even though the NBWA is a trade organization of companies that distribute beer, it’s seldom that I agree with their agenda, and this is a perfect example. It happens — take the Costco case in Washington — but generally they advocate for their members and that’s not always the same as what it is in the best interests of craft brewers, which is where my sympathies lie.
But their relentless pursuit of this estate tax agenda framed in terms of protecting family businesses from having their hard-earned money taken from them is, simply put: bullshit. The only people effected by the estate tax will be people whose estates are valued above a certain amount and chances are if you’re reading this you’re not someone who will be effected by it. 99% of the people in the U.S. will pass their estates on to their loved ones and pay zero income tax. So that begs the question “why is the NBWA so hot about this issue?” And the answer is simple. Because their membership is choked with a few mega-huge distributors who are part of the 1% that might have to pay something when one of their patriarchs (or matriarchs) sadly passes away. The “small family-owned businesses” that the NBWA goes on about saving is just propaganda. But at this point I’m beyond that epithet. Let’s call a spade a spade. It’s just bullshit. This is a few rich families using a trade organization for their own selfish ends. When their press release talks about “92,000 hardworking Americans” almost none of them will be effected by the estate tax, unless of course, the family decides to fire some of them rather than lose their country club membership.
To read the facts about about this issue, try Myths and Facts About the Estate Tax at Fair Economy. Or try Nolo Press’ assessment. And here’s an estate tax calculator at Americans for a Fair Estate Tax. There is also information at the IRS.
A report in late April by Public Citizen revealed that:
18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.
Here’s the propaganda-filled NBWA press release:
As the Senate prepares for a possible vote on the [estate] tax this week, the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA) is ensuring Senators know that America’s beer distributors need permanent relief from this onerous tax.
Earlier today, NBWA’s Federal Affairs team delivered a bottle of Blue Moon beer to each Senator. Each bottle was accompanied by a message urging Republicans and Democrats to set aside their differences and provide small businesses with permanent relief from the death tax once and for all.
“Beer distributors around the country have waited a long time for the Senate to act on the death tax,” said NBWA President Craig Purser. “Since it happens only once in a blue moon, we wanted to take the opportunity to remind Senators how important permanent death tax relief is to the small family-owned businesses that NBWA represents.”
Permanent relief from the federal death tax is a top legislative priority for the nation’s beer distributors. Many beer distribution companies have been family-owned and -operated since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Today, beer distributors employ more than 92,000 hardworking Americans. Aside from stripping these small business owners of their livelihood, the death tax can also cost the community jobs and economic output.
|
At the left is the marketing piece sent to every member of Congress urging them to repeal the estate tax, along with a bottle of Blue Moon beer. Below is the label to Blue Moon Belgian White Ale, the stealth micro owned by Coors, itself a rich family-owned company. Kind of ironic, isn’t it? So what are we to conclude from the facts vs. the propaganda spewing out of the NBWA? I think it tells us a lot about the make-up of beer distributors nationwide. There are, of course, small beer distributors doing a great job of promoting and selling great beer. I personally know several of them, past and present, in California, Oregon and Washington. But I don’t think any of their interests are being served by squandering NBWA funds on fighting the estate tax. But I guess the little distributors don’t have much of a voice in a trade organization so obviously dominated by giant companies. I think the reason this pisses me off so much is the misuse of emotional imagery about “America’s family-owned businesses.” All the rhertoric paints a distorted picture of reality that benefits a few rich families which — and this should not be overlooked — if they’re successful means the rest of us will be picking up their tab. If the estate tax is repealed and that money is no longer collected from these super-rich families then one of two things will occur. Either the services that money would have paid for will be cut or you and I will be paying higher taxes to make up the difference. That means small craft brewers and beer consumers will have to pay so that these super-rich beer distributor families can stay super-rich. Now how fair does that sound? |
Update on Latrobe Brewery
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?
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:
|
| 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:
|
| Some Organic Ingredients |
May contain less than 70% organic ingredients, not counting added water and salt. May contain over 30% of:
|
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
- Bison Brewing; Berkeley, California
- Blackfoot River Brewing; Helena, Montana
- Butte Creek Brewing; Chico, California
- Eel River Brewing; Fortuna, California
- Elliott Bay Brewing; Seattle, Washington
- Fish Brewing; Olympia, Washington
- Laurelwood Brewing; Portland, Oregon
- North Coast Brewing; Fort Bragg, California
- Peak Organic Brewing; Burlington, Massachusetts
- Pisgah Brewing; Black Mountain, North Carolina
- Roots Organic Brewery; Portland, Oregon
- Wolaver’s Certified Organic Ales; Middlebury, Vermont
- Santa Cruz Mountain Brewing; Santa Cruz, California
- Ukiah Brewing; Ukiah, California
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
- Arkell’s; Swindon, England
- Black Isle Brewery; Munlochy, Scotland
- Brauerei Pinkus Mueller; Munster, Germany
- Crannog Ales; Sorrento, BC, Canada
- Clarke’s Organic Brewery; Dewsbury, England
- Founders Organic Brewery; Nelson New Zealand
- Marble Beers; Manchester, England
- Mongozo Exotic Beers; Venray, Netherlands
- O’Hanlon’s Brewing; Devon, England
- Pacific Western Brewing; Burnaby, BC, Canada
- Pitfields Organic Brewery; London, England
- The 4 Elements; Richelbach, Germany
- Thisted Bryghus; Thisted, Denmark
- Waedenswiler Bierwelt; Wädenswil, Switzerland
- Wild Rose Brewery; Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Organic Beers Abroad
- Border Gold & Angel Lager, Broughtan Ales; Broughtan, Scotland
- Brakspear Organic Beer, Brakspear Brewery, Witney, England
- Cantillon Gueuze 100% Lambic-Bio, Brasserie Cantillon, Brussels, Belgium
- Duchy Originals Organic, Wychwood Brewery; Witney, England
- Eisenbahn Natural, Eisenbahn; Brazil
- Emerson’s Organic Pilsner, Emerson’s Brewery; Dunedin, New Zealand
- Golden Promise Organic, Caldonian Brewery; Edinburgh, Scotland
- Mill Street Original Organic Lager, Mill Street Brewery; Toronto, Canada
- Organic Ale, Brasserie Rancho El Paso; Hokkaido, Japan
- Organic Ale & Best Bitter, St. Peter’s Brewery; Suffolk, England
- Organic Beer Shinshu Sansan, Yo-Ho Brewing; Japan
- Organic Honeydew, Fuller’s; London, England
- Samuel Smith Organic Ale & Lager, Old Brewery at Tadcaster; Yorkshire, England
- Yella Bella Organic Ale, Batemans Brewery; Wainfleet, England
Statistics Damned Statistics
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
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?