Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

Socialize

SF Chronicle Weighs in on Organic Bud

By

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle, in the Thursday Wine Section, features an article entitled Brewing Behemoth Sneaks into Organics by staff writer Carol Ness. She begins by musing. “Organic Budweiser. What’s next, the hybrid Hummer?” Overall the article is pretty fair, although is does lean slightly on the side of the organic community. There’s a great quote in it by Ted Vivatson, co-owner of Eel River Brewing in Fortuna, where Ted doesn’t mince words.

In addition to the article, the Chronicle convened a tasting panel which tasted Wild Hop Lager blind against five other beers, three of which were also organic. Wild Hop Lager came in last. I had previously reported hearing rumors of authorization of Wild Hop Lager in Whole Foods, among others, but one of the people on the Chronicle’s tasting panel was Cyrus Kayvan, beer buyer for Whole Foods. After the tasting, Kayvan commented about Wild Hop’s future by saying. “Not in my store.“

Organic Beer and Organic Farming

By

Regular readers here know I’ve been following the story of Green Valley Brewing Company’s Wild Hop Lager and its true ownership by Anheuser-Busch. One aspect of this emerging story that hasn’t been touched on yet is the beer’s organic pedigree. A-B went the extra mile to have the beer properly certified organic and an insider told me that the label initially met with some problems, but they were ultimately ironed out. Since only a small percentage of beers are certified organic, it bears consideration as to what was the reason for that decision? The answer, I think, revealed itself by Wild Hop Lager’s presence at the Natural Food Expo West last weekend. It now appears likely that the target market for Wild Hop Lager is the craft beer market in general and the organic beer market in specific. Given the relatively small shelf space devoted to beer in the majority of grocery chains and Anheuser-Busch and their distributors’ strong presence on those shelves already, it seems to me the likeliest outcome is that Wild Hop Lager will begin to replace smaller, more local and regional organic beers. I have heard rumors that placement has already been authorized, at least here in California, for Safeway, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods and Wild Oats.

So I thought the most logical place to look next was at the Organic Farming Research Foundation, the charity that Anheuser-Busch mentions on the Wild Hop Lager website. In fact, it’s worth looking at the exact language of the website again. Here is what it says:

[w]ith every purchase of Wild Hop Lager, a donation will be made to the Organic Farming Research Foundation to improve and educate people on organic farming practices. Together we can set a better example for future generations.

So I called the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), which is headquartered in Santa Cruz, California. In their own words, the OFRF is a “non-profit whose mission is to sponsor research related to organic farming practices, to disseminate research results to organic farmers and to growers interested in adopting organic production systems, and to educate the public and decision-makers about organic farming issues.” To a man, every person in the organic community I spoke with thinks very highly of the organization and nothing has shaken that impression in my communications with them or from the information gleaned from their website. They appear to be very much what they claim, a friend to the small organic farmer with a focus on the family farmer.

I left a message for Bob Scowcroft, Executive Director of the OFRF, as he is also listed as the media contact for the organization. Happily, he called me back in a few hours. On the phone, he was a very affable man and gave straightforward, thoughtful answers to all of my questions. I asked Scowcroft if he was aware that Anheuser-Busch was the organization behind Green Valley Brewing and Wild Hop Lager. He was aware of that fact. I then asked whether there was any concern about accepting money from A-B, given that the product they were selling did not disclose that it was owned by them. He explained that the origin of gifts to the organization has been the “source of much discussion over the years” and that the board has ultimately decided that the mission of the group is paramount and therefore all gifts are gratefully received. Scowcroft further explained that 75% of their gifts come from about 50 donors. They receive an average of 1,000 donations each year, with about 40-45% from family foundations, about 20-25% from corporations — large and small — about 20% from individuals, and 5-10% from a special grant-making arrangement with the EPA. Frankly, after talking to him — and a few others — I’m convinced we should all be supporting their efforts. Seriously, think about a donation to the OFRF.

I then asked Scowcroft what he could tell me about the nature of Anheuser-Busch’s donation. What he told me was quite interesting. He explained that it was for a fixed amount, not percentage based, and stated it was a “modest, one-time of gift of less than five figures.” So let’s go back to the wording on the website, which reads, “with every purchase of Wild Hop Lager, a donation will be made to the Organic Farming Research Foundation.” That seems contradictory, but in all fairness it’s possible that A-B is intending to make further donations based on actual sales of Wild Hop Lager. Bob Scowcroft was not aware of any arrangement whereby they’d be receiving a percentage of sales in the future, but believes that the door is certainly open for future gifts.

It’s also worth considering what Anheuser-Busch got for their donation. It seems to me they got a lot for a little. They got to align themselves with a very reputable organic charity. They got the illusion of credibility and the immediate perception of being part of that community. When you consider the millions and millions of dollars spent on NASCAR sponsorships, Super Bowl ads, baseball stadium banners, sports of every stripe, festivals, events, and on and on and on, then under ten grand is pretty much, as an old friend of mine used to say, “chump change.” It’s a pretty paltry sum in the grand scheme of things.

Many consumers will see their claims of being organic and the charity promise as further proof, along with the farmer-friendly graphics on the packaging, that their product is worthy of purchase based upon shared values and the emotional response that produces. I certainly know from personal experience that when faced with a decision to purchase two almost identical looking items, if one of them is supporting a charity I like, that information will often be sufficient to make me choose the product that appears more altruistic. But knowing a little bit more now about how that works will in the future make me question other claims of charity support on product labels. So does that damage the organic movement as a whole? It seems like it might. One analogy I can draw is giving money to the homeless. I often used to give my spare change to a beggar on the street. But once I discovered that some of them were con artists or scammers, it gave me pause and I found myself giving less often as a result. So in that case, legitimate homeless persons in perhaps great need did not get the help they might otherwise have received, as a direct result of the unethical actions of others.

Food based on organic farming is currently “2% of the food economy,” Scowcroft told me. I know my family does our part, and we buy organic produce and other goods whenever we can, at the local farmers’ market and grocery stores we frequent. There are a lot of similarities between the organic food movement and the craft beer movement, I think, not least of which is that craft beer accounts for only around 3.5% of the total beer market. Certainly a lot of craft beer drinkers enjoy organic foods, too, and vice versa, no doubt. But I wonder how many organic food consumers would be pleased to know that the organic beer they unsuspectingly bought was produced by the world’s largest brewer in a plant the size of several football fields and not by a small craft brewer, as is the likeliest inference one can draw from the label and graphics on the package.

I thought at this point I’d like to hear the opinion of someone who already makes organic beer. So I spoke to Morgan Wolaver, whose Wolaver’s Organic Ales have been around since 1997, making them the oldest brewer of organic ales in America. Personally, I think he ought to trademark that before Yuengling has a chance to complain. The two of us tried to remember who was older, but we could only come up with breweries no longer in business. I remembered Humes and he came up with Perry’s Organic but that was about it. Anyway, as it turned out he was not only familiar with the OFRF but has been donating to them for many, many years. And over the years, he and his brother have donated at least more than five figures to them. He explained that he continued to do so because of their good work and simply because “it’s the right thing to do.”

Wolaver also echoed my concern that Wild Hop Lager is a “stealth micro” (a term coined by Celebrator publisher Tom Dalldorf to describe a usually contracted beer that effectively hides its true ownership from the general consumer. A prime example would be Oregon Brewing Co., which was owned by Boston Beer Co. and won few friends in the state of Oregon since, despite the name, was not made there.) And that, I think, really is the crux of the issue.

Wolaver explained that in his view the organic market can be roughly divided into two groups of customers, what he calls core consumers and target consumers. Core consumers he defines as essentially hardcore organic product buyers, people who have been buying organic products for years or even decades. They read labels, front and back, and take their buying choices very seriously. Target consumers are more casual about their buying habits, but for various reasons — perhaps philosophical or because it makes them feel better — will make organic purchases whenever practical, convenient or less expensive. So while the average target consumer may or may not be swayed by who owns the product they’re considering for purchase, the core consumer definitely will be. But neither, I think, will be particularly happy if they discover that the organic beer they bought was a stealth micro and the real manufacturer is a giant corporation. I feel quite confident that the core consumer would be outraged but I also think the taget consumer would at least feel conned or deceived. And it is this very fact, I think, that explains A-B’s decision not to label and market this product as one of their own.

In general, the organic and health food market has already been co-opted by large corporations. Tom’s of Maine was recently bought by Colgate-Palmolive, Odwalla is owned by Coke, Kashi and Morningstar Farms is owned by Kellogg, and on and on. But for every one of these acquisitions, another small entrepreneur enters the fray with idealistic vision. So apparently there’s still hope, at least for those us who like to support small and local businesses. Of course, keeping up with the changes in the marketplace is undoubtedly exhausting and probably explains why there are so few core consumers. So it’s into that climate that Wild Hop Lager is being introduced. Will it ultimately be successful? Probably. As H.L. Mencken put it. “No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.“

Sasquatch Legacy Project Tasting Scheduled at 21st Amendment

By

Mark your calendars for April 4th, when Bay Area residents can have their first taste of Sasquatch Legacy Project’s Imperial Red Ale and support a worthy cause in the process.

From the press release:

Join us, and the San Francisco Bay area brewing community, Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 5:30pm until 8pm at the 21st Amendment in the Brewer’s Loft for a party celebrating the first-of-its-kind 2006 “Sasquatch Legacy Project” Imperial Red Ale collaboration in support of the Glen Hay Falconer Foundation’s brewing education program.

The Sasquatch Legacy Project is a collaboration beer created by the current Foundation Brewing Scholarship recipients (Barney Brennan of Full Sail Brewing, Jenn Gridley of Fish Brewing, and Markus Stinson of Elysian Brewing). Proceeds from the event benefit the Glen Hay Falconer Foundation, which promotes knowledge and expertise in the craft brewing industry by sending professional and aspiring brewers to the Siebel Institute of Brewing Technology in Chicago.

Enjoy a pint or two of this special beer and know that, while you appreciate the Imperial Red Ale’s flavors and complexities, your beer purchases also support brewing education through the Foundation’s scholarship program. All proceeds to benefit the Foundation.

For more information on the Foundation and the Brewing Scholarships, visit www.sasquatchbrewfest.org. Souvenir glasses and t-shirts will also be available. It will be a lot of fun.

The foundation honors the memory of iconoclastic brewer Glen Falconer, who died in a tragic accident in 2002. He brewed at Wild Duck Brewery in Eugene, Oregon. The foundation raises money for scholarships so that worthy brewers can attend the Siebel Institute in Chicago.

In Memory: Jim Kennedy

By

The late Jim Kennedy’s birthday is also today and I didn’t want to forget to raise a toast to him tonight, either. I never got the opportunity to meet Jim, but we had a lot of mutual friends and colleagues. Jim Kennedy founded Admiralty Beverage (acquired by Columbia Distributing in 1995) and was instrumental in the success of countless early microbreweries in Portland and the Pacific Northwest.

Chosen as “best beer pioneer” by Willamette Week in the weeks prior to his death, here’s what they had to say in 2002:

Let’s all raise a pint to Jim Kennedy. Don’t know who he is? If you’re a beer imbiber, chances are you’ve admired his work. The Pacific Northwest’s quality beverage scene would not exist without Kennedy and what friends call his infectious passion for the finer things in life. Founder, with his wife, Bobbie, of the Admiralty Beverage Company, Jim helped bring craft beers—as well as imports and fine wines—to these parts. He was a major supporter of breweries like Widmer and Deschutes in their early days. It’s a terrible irony that the man so many describe as the most vital force in the country’s thriving brewing scene has only a few weeks to live. After a serious battle with cancer, Kennedy says he doesn’t expect to live out the summer. A few weeks ago, he and Bobbie threw a living wake at Portland Brewing Company. Jim didn’t want to miss a last chance to party with his friends.

My friend and publisher, Tom Dalldorf, attended that living wake, and spent an hour or so interviewing Jim Kennedy. That interview appeared in the August/September issue in 2002. It hit the streets just a few days after Jim passed away. Please join me in raising a toast to his memory.

Green Valley Brewing at the Natural Foods Expo

By

I got an interesting e-mail this morning from a brewer I know who also makes organic beers. He’s just returned from the Natural Products Expo West, which was held this weekend in Anaheim, California. A quick search of the expo’s website reveals that Green Valley Brewing Co., Anheuser-Busch’s dba for Wild Hop Lager, was indeed there at booth #4580. This is the blurb about the company listed there:

Wild Hop lager is a proud supporter of the Organic Farming Research Foundation. The certified organic co-ops our ingredients are harvested from use holistic farming practices and follow strict guidelines to harvest pure, flavorful barley.

Again, there was nothing to indicate that this is an Anheuser-Busch product. More curious, though, is my friend’s e-mail mentioned that there was another beer booth, this one located outisde the beverage tent, with an organic pale ale from a brewery by the name of Crooked River Brewing Co. of New Hampshire. The beer is named Stone Mill Pale Ale, which evokes a natural, almost folksy, mental picture. Unfortunately, it’s also made in Fairfield, California. And while I have even less information about this brewery, it is definitely another Anheuser-Busch product masquerading as a small brewery from the Granite state.

The only information I have is from the Natural Foods Expo, which is as follows:

Stone Mill Pale Ale is brewed from certified USDA organic barley malt, hops, yeast and water. Our ingredients are hand selected from the lush, organic co-ops of Canada and the Pacific Northwest.

So it appears that they really are attempting to pass both products off as eco-friendly, which in fact they may be. I can’t honestly say they’re not; the USDA did certify the beer, after all. But I can say that the average consumer of organic products, depending on their own personal reasons for buying organic, might want to know that the organic beer they’re buying, which looks like it’s from a small, concerned, organic brewery, is actually the product of the largest brewery in the world, a huge multi-national corporation. And I personally believe that is information they ought to have so they can make an informed decision about what beer to drink.

The Fight For & Against Cheap Beer

By

An editorial in today’s Seattle Times discusses what they refer to as the “outdated economics of beer and wine sales.” This is in the context of local lawsuit that was originally filed in early 2004 involving Costco and the Washington State Liquor Board (WSLCB). Costco is seeking to dismantle the three-tier system in place there because to do so would give them — and other large retailers like Wal-Mart and their ilk — an enormous advantage that would effectively let them damage or destroy countless small businesses. The argument against that line of reasoning is, of course, that diversity would not suffer. In an earlier article about the case, “Dave Burman, a partner with the firm Perkins Coie LLP, which is representing Costco in the suit, said, ‘Costco believes that consumers are better off when there is vigorous competition. People who don’t want to compete always say that competition is unfair, but we want the kind of competitive environment where people are rewarded for being smart, not where the state says who should make how much money.'”

The other side replies “that if the regulations were lifted, it would lead to less choice for the consumer. This whole system affords the public a great amount of choice in product. If Costco prevails, they and Wal-Mart will dominate the retail sale of beer and wine, and there won’t be the selection that is currently available.”

“Burman disagrees, stating, ‘It certainly wouldn’t wipe out local businesses. There are plenty if [sic] distributors and small wine shops in California, where this kind of legislation does not exist.'” I mention all this background because I feel compelled to point out what went unquestioned by the Seattle Times, that “this kind of legislation does not exist” in California. California does have a very similar three-tier system, however, and Burman’s statement is about as blatant a falsehood as I’ve seen unquestioned in print.

Of course, it’s not hard to figure out the newspaper’s agenda. No author is listed for the editorial, so I infer that it’s the official position taken by the paper. I don’t have a copy of today’s paper in hand, but I’m willing to bet finding an ad by Costco will be a whole lot easier than finding one by the WSLCB or a local beer distributor. They’re undoubtedly pro-business, like most daily newspapers, because they rely on advertising revenue, which is funded almost exclusively by the business sector.

The editorial accuses the state of “saying it wants to keep wine and beer expensive so that the people will drink less of it. To that end, in the wholesale market the state bans volume discounts, sales at negotiated prices, sales on credit and delivery to a customer’s warehouse.” But of course, that’s not the only reason. The more commonly understood reason is that it levels the playing field for retailers and does not give an advantage to large retailers like Costco. And large retailers generally enjoy a huge advantage in most other types of products since there are few restrictions in other classes of goods that prohibit volume discounts. And that undoubtedly pisses them off, because they naturally want to dominate everything they can. In an earlier editorial piece, I stated that I don’t always agree with the NBWA. Well this is one of the times that I do agree with them. Not allowing large box retailers to bully lower prices for volume buys may indeed lead to incrimentally higher beer prices, but the difference is worth it. Because the real benefit it that small retailers theoretically pay the same wholesale price as the big guys do. That allows at least a consistent price and reduces lowballing and squeezing competition out of the market. I say theoretically, because at least in California I know of several ways in which the big retailers get around these restrictions.

Costco’s paltry beer selection generally favors the big three and a few giant imports like Heineken and Corona. Larger Costco’s in certain places also often carry a couple of regional players like Sierra Nevada or Anchor and maybe one or two local breweries that are chosen on a market by market basis. We’re talking about a dozen or so skus. To give that some perspective, when I was the beer buyer at BevMo, at its peak, I had over 1400 beer skus. So Costco wants to change state law — and is willing to spend legal fees by the keg — over a pretty miniscule percentage of the available packages in the state. Changing this law the way they want to, may have the effect of lowering the price of a few beers, but that will undoubtedly widen the gap between craft beer and large brewery products. And that makes it harder for brewers to induce consumers to trade up for better beer.

I know I may be in the minority on this one, but I think beer should be more expensive. Good brewers make great beer, work very hard and should be rewarded for their efforts. But the drive by large brewers to keep volume up also keeps prices artificially lower than they should be. As I’ve said before, this also has the effect of keeping the gap between craft beer and mass-produced unnaturally wide, and this causes craft beer sales to suffer, in my opinion. But until we can persuade the average consumer that it’s very much worth their while to support good beer by being willing to spend a little more for it, this will continue to be a Sisyphus-like struggle.

I don’t know where the Washington State Brewers Guild, a trade organization of small brewers within the state, comes down in this debate, but in my opinion they should be supporting the three-tier system, at least for now. There are definitely reforms that are needed to the present system, but the changes this suit is seeking will benefit only a small number of businesses, and the state’s craft brewers won’t be among them.

The editorial continues:

The effect of these bans is to keep prices high. Maybe that encourages a few of the penurious to stay sober, though we don’t think the state’s attorneys who make this argument really believe it.

Certainly it is not the motive of the distributors who have lobbied the Liquor Board for years. The Liquor Board does them a favor by forbidding them to cut prices, forcing them to mark up their bottles by at least 10 percent and forbidding them to sell below cost.

These are not health restrictions to benefit the people. They are economic restrictions to benefit the beer and wine distributors at the expense of the people.

…

There will remain a high-end market, though small producers, distributors and retailers may have to scramble. That is business. The extent of changes will depend on how many customers are motivated by price — and that should be up to them.

A fallacious component of their argument is that when they refer to customers with varying motivations by price, they’re talking about the same customer — they’re clearly not. Not all consumers of beer and wine are after the same thing, of course. Some may be looking for the cheapest possible package of lawnmower beer, some for a decent craft beer to pair with a home-cooked meal, while still others may be looking for the experience of enjoying a limited vintage barleywine. While the first may only care about price, the second may have some concerns about it within a certain range and the latter is more interested in acquiring a fine beer, with little regard to the price (within reason, of course). Removing the price controls as Costco envisions will clearly effect the first group, may have some limited effect on the second, but almost no effect on the last group. But the only change we can pretty much guarantee is that cheap beer will get cheaper and good beer will remain largely unchanged, thus widening the gap. And that’s bad news, I think, for the small craft breweries.

The argument that these “economic restrictions … benefit the beer and wine distributors at the expense of the people” certainly sounds like a lofty principle is at stake. But a closer inspection of the way the beer business works reveals that really only the big box retailers like Costco and Wal-Mart will benefit. Things may not be perfect the way they are — and they certainly aren’t — but Costco envisions a world in which they make more money and everybody else loses. And that’s certainly not good for “the people.”

Terrorists Target Beer Cans

By

If they get to our beer then the terrorists win. CBS News reported yesterday that an FBI informant, during a court interrogation in Britain, laid out a plan that had been tested by al Qaeda to poison beer cans and sell them at football (soccer) games. The witness explained how the plan would work. “You just put poison in a syringe, inject it in a beer can and put a sticker on it, which would stop it leaking, and hand them out.” Another reason to drink beer from glass?

Since most of the technical problems of beer in cans have been solved, they’ve slowly started gaining acceptance again, even among beer afficianados. Several craft brewers have been offering their beer in cans, and several more will probably be doing likewise in the coming year. Hopefully, this won’t put the kibosh on can’s comeback.

My Visits From A-B

By

After my post yesterday afternoon about Wild Hop Lager, Anheuser-Busch’s new foray into craft beer, I felt pretty good about being able to let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. But I also admit I wondered if they would be any reaction from Goliath. After all, another beer blog, Thom’s Beer Blog, was visited by A-B less than two weeks ago, so I knew they were at least monitoring the blogosphere.

This morning I got my answer. I was visited four times in less than an hour beginning around 8:40. The first visit was at least nineteen minutes but one visit lasted at least forty-five minutes. I say at least, because the way my site meter figures how long a visitor stayed at a site has to do with the space in between the arrival and clicking the first link. They can’t tell how long a visit takes place if they only visit one page and then leave. But the total of their four visits is at least longer than an hour. No comment was left, but it will be interesting to see if I get any further contact or more direct contact from them. I have not had many flattering things to say about them lately, but I also can’t imagine the rantings of one insignificant beer writer would cause them any discomfort. Of course, I like that old journalist’s maxim that the media’s job is “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” It should be interesting to see if anything happens next.

Here’s the screen capture of the long visit. Notice the name of their browser is a “brew browser.” I like that.

UPDATE (Mar. 24; 11:53): I got my fifth visit just before noon, but I think this is unrelated to the morning visits because they found me by searching Google’s Blogsearch. Because this is so new, my post is actually the only hit you get when you search for “wild hop lager.” I guess that would be the definition of a scoop. Cool.

UPDATE (Mar. 24; 13:32): Visit number six turned personal, with someone from the company reading my biography and my goals for the blog. So either I’m being paranoid, or A-B is trying to learn more about me for … well, that’s the troubling bit, isn’t it?

UPDATE (Mar. 27; 13:25): Visit number seven was a short one and, so far, the only one after the weekend.

UPDATE (Mar. 28): Visit numbers eight and nine were both short, and as far as I can tell at least one of them was unrelated.

UPDATE (Mar. 29): Visit numbers ten through fourteen were throughout the day.

UPDATE (Mar. 30): Six more vists today, fifteen through twenty, inlcluding one for half an hour.

UPDATE (Mar. 31): Three more vists this morning, numbers twenty-one, twenty-two and twenty-three.

UPDATE (Apr. 3): Visit number twenty-four looked at 19 pages in 8 minutes.

UPDATE (Apr. 4): Visit number twenty-five was the only one today.

UPDATE (Apr. 5): Visit number twenty-six was this morning and twenty-seven this afternoon.

Wild Hop Lager: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

By

I’m walking through my local independent grocery store this afternoon, trying to get everything on my list when I realize I’m in the beer aisle. Old habits die hard, so I survey what’s there and notice a beer I’ve not heard of before: Wild Hop Lager. I pick up the six-pack carrier and pull out a bottle. Green Valley Brewing Company? Ever heard of them? Me neither. Now I’m only human but it’s not often that I’m stumped. I don’t usually run into completely new breweries I’ve never heard of. So I take a closer look at the packaging and read everything on the label. It’s supposedly organic certified by the UDSA? But in the back of my head I’m thinking it was a different organization that certified organic status. Didn’t I read that somewhere in connection with Wolaver’s a few years ago? The packaging looks good, almost too good. It’s slick and well done and even uses printed crowns, unusual for a start-up brewery. I’m becoming suspicious, I can’t even say why at this point. There’s a web address on the carrier, but there’s no brewery information on the label. No address, apart from Fairfield, California. Uh-oh. I pull a bottle out of the carrier again and examine it more closely. Only one more clue, but it’s a compelling one. There at the bottom of the bottom, on the left hand side, is a freshness date. That’s also a curious thing for a new brewery to have on their label. I feel like Sherlock Holmes and things aren’t adding up. But I’ve got a hunch, and it’s a pretty good one, too, I think, as I head home to check it out.

When I get home, I type in the website URL and wait for it to load, which doesn’t take too long. It has an age verification check, and it’s feeding my hunch, too. How many small breweries have those? The webpage itself is only one page, with no clickable links anywhere, just a message “Check back soon for more on Wild Hop Lager.”

The entire website consists of a picture of the bottle and the following text:

Let the Good Times Grow

Wild Hop Lager is made with 100% organic barley malt, giving this certified USDA Organic brew a hearty taste that is rich and flavorful. Plus, with every purchase of Wild Hop Lager, a donation will be made to the Organic Farming Research Foundation to improve and educate people on organic farming practices. Together we can set a better example for future generations.

Organic … and they donate to charity. This is getting better and better. So I do a whois search to find out who is the owner of the domain name and — I’m almost giddy when I see it — I’m right. It belongs to Anheuser-Busch of St. Louis, Missouri. I dig a little further and discover the Maltlog on the website for the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control. On February 6, 2006, A-B applied to register “Wild Hop Lager” and “Harbin Lager” and both were granted on February 10. Ohio similarly approved the name on February 14 of this year.

Now this isn’t the first time Anheuser-Busch has tried to make a microbrew. Anybody remember Pacific Ridge Pale Ale? As far as I know, they’re still making kegs of it at the Fairfield plant and selling it to restaurants and bars as their own private label craft beer. But there’s one distinct difference between Wild Hop Lager and Pacific Ridge. On all the Pacific Ridge packaging, it was clearly disclosed that it was an Anheuser-Busch package. With Wild Hop Lager, no such disclosure is made. In fact, it appears downright designed to appear to be a real craft brewed beer, not that that’s new either. There never was a Plank Road Brewery (it was Miller) or a Blue Moon Brewery (that one was Coors), either.

This is just the latest attempt to regain flagging sales. With good growth in the craft beer segment, it’s hardly surprising that they’d try to make their own craft beer-like product. It’s their modus operandi, after all, to infiltrate any segement of the market they can and either dominate it or shut it down. That this was so clandestine is a little surprising and most consumers, I fear, won’t realize they’re being duped. I’m perfectly okay with Anheuser-Busch making a better beer, but I’d be a lot more comfortable with it if they didn’t go about it in such a way that seems so underhanded and deceitful.

Anheuser-Busch’s new macro-micro on the shelves of my local grocer.

UPDATE: Several people on various forums have commented that they would have liked to see tasting notes for the beer here. While I was unwilling to part with the $8 necessary to provide tasting notes, the San Francisco Chronicle did a blind tasting of the beer as a part of their coverage of this story on March 30.