Brookston Beer Bulletin

Jay R. Brooks on Beer

  • Home
  • About
  • Editorial
  • Birthdays
  • Art & Beer

Socialize

  • Dribbble
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Flickr
  • GitHub
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Powered by Genesis

Stuff & Nonsense, Part 5

January 13, 2010 By Jay Brooks

By now, even the casual Bulletin reader has likely noticed that I’ve been following Pete Brown’s brilliant refutation of his national health service’s attack on alcohol, beginning with, Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol. The first four parts of Pete’s rebuke have been published over the past few days, and now part five is up.

Today’s rebuke concerns hospital admissions and the burden on the health care system, a facetious claim made on both sides of the pond. Over here, for example, an accident where one of the passengers had been drinking is often classified as an alcohol-related accident. In the UK:

In terms of official figures, what they don’t tell you is that when they are compiled, there’s a sharp difference between hospital admission and deaths that are considered wholly attributable to alcohol, and those where alcohol is a secondary or partial factor. And guess what? Only 25% of total ‘alcohol related’ hospital admissions are judged to be entirely due to alcohol.

At best, that simply misleads the statistics, making them sound more alarming than they really are. But it gets even worse, and in some ways goes beyond what American Neo-Prohibitionsts have been willing to say, at least so far.

The Report [implies] that if you drink, you are more likely to be a rapist, a child abuser, a wifebeater, a suicide, and that the fact that you drink makes you so. As Phil [Mellows] pointed out when he addressed the rape issue, this is not only inaccurate, it is astonishingly offensive to drinkers.

We’ve had groups here use images of a syringe filled with beer, equating beer with heroin, but so far as I know, they haven’t called those of us who drink rapists … yet. But they do seem to believe that virtually every societal ill can be pinned on alcohol.

But when someone does something appalling and then says, “The drink made me do it,” they are denying personal responsibility for their actions and we tend to dismiss this as a lame excuse. The Report seems to buy it 100%.

I could go on and on, but it’s best if I just suggest at this point that you go over and read part 5, Alcohol related hospital admissions — and the cost of alcohol to the NHS — are soaring. It’s the longest so far, but definitely worth your time.

If this is new to you, start with Pete Brown’s Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol. Part One (of 10) was published Sunday, Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing. On Monday, parts two, 25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and three, Binge drinking is increasing, were published. Tuesday saw part four: Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable, and today part five, Alcohol related hospital admissions — and the cost of alcohol to the NHS — are soaring, was published online. Once again, stay tuned.

Filed Under: Editorial, Politics & Law Tagged With: Health & Beer, Prohibitionists, Statistics, UK

Stuff & Nonsense, Part 4

January 12, 2010 By Jay Brooks

If you’ve been following along from my posts the last couple of days, beginning with, Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol, and more specifically Pete Brown’s wonderfully telling and insightful rebuke of it all — and you should be — then I’m pleased to report that part four is now available.

Today’s rebuke is one I’d long wondered about, and it’s an argument often trotted out on our shores whenever the hue and cry goes up for more taxes on alcohol, as it inevitably and incessantly does. For me, perhaps the most annoying aspect to the neo-prohibitionist attacks is the never-ending nature of them. They’re like the psycho killer in every modern horror movie. There’s seemingly no way to make them stop. There’s no reasoning with them. They’re not susceptible to logic. California’s own version of a neo-prohibitionist Jason, state representative Jim Beall, said last year after his bill to raise beer taxes 560% was defeated. “They’ve given me a bloody nose. But I’m going to wipe it off and come back in a few weeks with something different.”

In today’s counter to the UK report’s assertion that Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable, Pete leads with the following:

Well, alcohol is becoming more affordable because average household income is increasing. Alcohol is becoming more affordable because everything is becoming more affordable.

It’s my sense that’s what’s going on in the U.S., too. The “taxes haven’t been keeping pace with inflation” argument is likewise untrue for the UK.

[A]ffordability and price are being treated as the same thing — they’re not. By deliberately confusing ‘affordability’ (which is a function of rising disposable income) and price (which is a function of — well, price, but controlled chiefly by duty), you allow newspapers like the Telegraph to interpret these findings in the following syntax-strangled bullet point:

  • “69 – percentage alcohol is cheaper by than it was in 1980.”

This is a lie. Alcohol is NOT cheaper. It is already increasing by more than inflation, and in recent decades, it always has.

I’m going to have to see if that holds true here, too, though I suspect it does.

If this is new to you, start with Pete Brown’s Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol. Part One (of 10) was published yesterday, Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing. Yesterdday, parts two, 25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and three, Binge drinking is increasing, were published. Today, here’s part four: Alcohol is becoming cheaper/more affordable. Again, stay tuned.

Filed Under: Editorial, Politics & Law Tagged With: Prohibitionists, Statistics, UK

Stuff & Nonsense, Parts 2 & 3

January 11, 2010 By Jay Brooks

If you’ve been following along from my post yesterday, Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol, and more specifically Pete Brown’s wonderfully telling and insightful rebuke of it all — and you should be — then I’m happy to report that parts two and three are now available.

If this is new to you, start with Pete Brown’s Health Select Committee Report on Alcohol. Part One (of 10) was published yesterday, Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing. Today, parts two, 25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels, and three, Binge drinking is increasing, were published. Again, stay tuned.

Filed Under: Editorial, Politics & Law Tagged With: Prohibitionists, Statistics, UK

Stuff & Nonsense: The UK Health Select Committee Report On Alcohol

January 10, 2010 By Jay Brooks

The stuff and nonsense that neo-prohibitionist groups incessantly attack the unsuspecting public with to further their misguided agenda continues to heat up in Great Britain. Happily, Pete Brown is once again on the case. Last week the Parliament Health Select Committee released a report on alcohol in the UK. Surprising no one, it’s riddled with misleading statistics and statements and even outright lies. I’m continually amazed at how gullible the media is when they want to be, swallowing their nonsense wholesale and not questioning it for reasons that pass understanding. In this interminable war between drink and dry, the dry side appears willing to do nearly anything, no matter how reprehensible. I realize I’m biased, but people who enjoy alcohol are on my mind generally more reasonable about this. We recognize and freely admit that some people abuse alcohol and may be a danger to themselves and others. That’s true not just of alcohol, but virtually everything. That’s the price if living in a free society. Not everyone will act, at least all the time, with the highest ideals and best interests at heart. People are … well, people. We’re human, which means fallible, prone to stupidity and even engage in self-destructive behavior from time to time. But while rational people accept his fact, neo-prohibitionists are determined to use this minority when it comes to alcohol to extrapolate their behavior and insist it means everyone who drinks is ruining society. Every single example of individual bad behavior seems to their addled minds to prove alcohol will and does have this effect on everyone equally. And they have the statistics to support that (never mind that they themselves created those statistics). But enough of my ranting.

Pete Brown gives his critique of the overall report, pointing out basic inconsistencies and fabrications. The initial takeaway for him — and me as well, frankly — is this:

Liam Donaldson told the committee (with his usual utter disregard of any factual substantiation whatsoever) that there are “no safe limits of drinking,” and that “alcohol is virtually akin to smoking as one of the biggest public health issues we have to face in this country.”

Bollocks of course. But officially published, sanctioned, and undisputed bollocks.

And that comparison with smoking is quite deliberate. Not all the measures listed above [see original post] will come to pass, but arguably the most important line in the report is this one:

“Education, information campaigns and labelling will not directly change behaviour, but they can change attitudes and make more potent policies more acceptable.”

Smoking hasn’t been banned form British society. But consistent campaigning against smoking eventually changed social attitudes towards it. The smoking ban came in because the majority of people were in favour of it. Nobody but the ad industry minded when advertising and sponsorship were banned. Making smoking socially unacceptable was far more effective than trying to ban it outright. The anti-drink lobby have learned from this, and this report is a naked attempt to make drinking socially unacceptable.

But drinking is NOT the same as smoking. The BMA itself acknowledges the beneficial effects of moderate drinking. Nevertheless, this report seeks to persuade people to treat it the same way, and is meeting with little resistance.

Pete’s become a man obsessed, definitely making him my kind of bloke, and promises to taking apart the arguments in the report in greater detail, with charts and logic, including at least the following topics. The first of the is now up, and it’s linked below. I’ll continue to update these as they come. Regardless of where you live, these are worth your time, because it’s become increasingly obvious that the tactics used cross national orders and are used universally.

  1. “Alcohol consumption in the UK is increasing”
  2. “Binge drinking is increasing”
  3. “25% of the UK population is drinking at hazardous or harmful levels“
  4. “Alcohol is becoming cheapermore affordable”
  5. “Alcohol related hospital admissions — and the cost to the NHS — are soaring”
  6. “Alcohol abuse costs the country £55bn a year”
  7. “The best way to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol is to reduce overall consumption“
  8. “Alcohol advertising and promotion must be tightly regulated because it encourages underage drinking”
  9. “Pubs are a problem“
  10. “Binge drinking has been made much worse by 24 hour licensing”

Stay tuned.

Filed Under: Editorial, Politics & Law Tagged With: Prohibitionists, Statistics, UK

Beer In Ads #15: Bass, The Drink Of The Empire

January 5, 2010 By Jay Brooks

ad-billboard
Tuesday’s ad is another oldie, based on the label, at least. I don’t know much about it either, but I love the association Bass is trying to make. While it’s obvious that they’re trying to evoke emotions of pride, it still comes off a little colonial and warlike. Of course, that may be because I live in a former colony. But with the tag line, “The Drink of the Empire,” I think I’m safe in saying the ad is somewhat imperial in its tone.

Bass_Beer

Filed Under: Art & Beer, Beers Tagged With: Advertising, Burton, England, UK

Tasting Tactical Nuclear Penguin

January 3, 2010 By Jay Brooks

brew-dog
I had a special treat today that was completely unexpected. One of the beers that my friend Phil Lowry — who owns Beer Merchants — brought along to the surprise birthday party for Rodger Davis (Triple Rock brewer) was BrewDog’s Tactical Nuclear Penguin. I’ll have more about Rodger’s party on Tuesday, his actual birthday. For now, I’ll concentrate on the BrewDog beer. I had been very keen to try it ever since I’d read about it.

P1180650
Tactical Nuclear Penguin, on the left, in its paper bag wrapper. In addition to the brown paper, it was also bound around the neck with a simple string, tied.

P1180671
Removing the wrapper, we poured it into small glasses for sharing. It was nearly black in color with very little carbonation or head. It was not thick or viscous at all like an imperial stout, unsurprisingly, and also appeared thin and wasn’t opaque by a long shot. Swirling the beer produced nice lacing inside the glass. I’d read the nose was smokey, but it seemed more peaty to me, on the order of an Islay whisky. That was the overriding aroma, though underlying that was more subtle soy, a surprising sweetness and chocolate and toffee malt. And there was a bit of heat; hot alcohol, though not as much as I expected.

The peat character continues into the flavor profile, with plenty more going on, too, happily. Most surprising is that the alcohol heat doesn’t seem out of place (which it definitely did in the Paradox — Penguin’s base beer — I had at The Rake earlier this year) but works with the other flavors. Caramel and chocolate notes along with a treacly sweetness, licorice and a meaty saltiness, which combined for a very different, but thoroughly enjoyable, beer. It all came together well.

Though the two are very different, it’s hard to not compare it with Samuel Adams Utopias, since both made their reputations, at least in part, because of their extreme strength. I think the Utopias is more complex and a little more smooth, but not by much. The Penguin had much stronger flavors that lingered not only long afterward but even after I’d had other beers. Driving home, the peatiness was still with me. I say that as a plus. The beer really stays with you.

My overall reaction is that the beer did live up to its hype. I can’t say much about the price, admittedly high, but given its scarcity and what it took to create it, I can’t say it’s unreasonable. But as for the taste, it truly is extraordinary, like nothing else I’ve ever had in a beer.

Filed Under: Beers, Reviews Tagged With: Scotland, UK

UK Neo-Prob’s Go Nuts … Again

January 3, 2010 By Jay Brooks

There’s a great post today by Pete Brown concerning more nonsense from Great Britain’s neo-prohibitionist-leaning government flacks. Yet again confirming, at least to me, his status as a kindred spirit regarding this issue, Pete begins with this understandably anger-fueled assessment of the situation. This story comes at the beginning of the year, when people are stopping to take stock of their lives, but instead “the neo-prohibitionists go completely fucking apeshit, pouncing on the moment when many moderate drinkers prove they don’t have a drink problem by taking a few weeks off the sauce, and use it to ram fear and alarm down the nations throats as never before.”

Effectively, the tortured math from the UK’s National Health Service suggests that one-and-a-half pints of lager constitutes “hazardous behavior,” even if that amount is consumed over a week’s time! Congratulations to England, they’ve finally beaten us in being completely ridiculous about drinking guidelines. Read Pete’s post, it’s brilliant stuff.

Filed Under: Beers, Editorial, Politics & Law Tagged With: Prohibitionists, UK

British Hypocrisy On Beer & Health

December 17, 2009 By Jay Brooks

uk
I take no pleasure, though a certain perverse comfort, in the fact that America is not alone in its hypocrisy when it comes to alcohol policy and its government heath organizations. Today in the BBC News is another example of this phenomenon. (Thanks to Pete Brown for pointing this one out.)

In a title no doubt intended to inspire fear and paranoia, Parents Giving Children Alcohol Fuels Binge Drinking, Sir Liam Donaldson, England’s chief medical officer, warned parents that “letting children taste alcohol to ready them for adulthood was ‘misguided'” and claimed “[e]vidence showed that this could lead to binge drinking in later life.” Curiously, he offered no support whatsoever for this so-called evidence apart from saying it. You’d think the reporter might have asked him for that evidence, but no. Way to probe for the story, Marty.

Donaldson also claimed, again without any support, that “[t]he science is clear – drinking, particularly at a young age, a lack of parental supervision, exposing children to drink-fueled events and failing to engage with them as they grow up are the root causes from which our country’s serious alcohol problem has developed.” The problem with that statement is that what he’s complaining about is that some parents give their children alcohol in a controlled environment, specifically NOT with a “lack of parental supervision,” etc. that he then claims is the problem. That makes it a problem that’s effectively the opposite of the one he starts out fomenting about and is indicated in the article’s headline. I should also mention that unlike most U.S. states, UK parents can legally “give their children alcohol at home from the age of five onwards.”

But, they continue, “[r]ates of teenage drunkenness are higher amongst both the children of parents who drink to excess and the children of parents who abstain completely.” So read that again. Kids drink more later in life if their parents either drink too much or not at all. That suggests that children of moderate drinkers do not, and the only way those children would know their parents are moderate drinkers if if they actually saw them drinking, something neo-prohibitionists are decidedly against.

Then again, as if forgetting that he began with the premise that parents giving their kids alcohol was the problem, he acknowledges. “Whilst parents have a greater influence on their children’s drinking patterns early on, as they grow older their friends have a greater influence. It is therefore crucial for parents to talk to their children about alcohol and its effects.” Talk, apparently, but not model responsible behavior or educate their children about alcohol.

But the upshot at the end is another opinion altogether, and one that contradicts everything that’s come before it.

Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians and chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said: “We know that adults who drink sensibly tend to pass these habits on and that some families choose to introduce alcohol to their children younger than 15 in a supportive environment.”

Well, if moderate drinking parents pass their responsible habits to their children — which I also believe they do — and some accomplish that by introducing alcohol to their kids successfully, then how exactly is this the problem that Dr. Donaldson seems to think it is? I tend to put my faith in the doctor who specializes in alcohol and health — Gilmore — rather than the administrator at the top, but perhaps that’s just me. I may simply be responding to the most reasonable position, and the one I happen to agree with.

So essentially, this article starts out with a bold headline and scary quotes from one of the country’s top docs, offered with no support whatsoever, and yet it turns out if you read all the way through it, that what they started out trying to scare people about isn’t even really true, settled or consistent. Of course, I learned in my college journalism classes that many readers tend to read the headline and maybe a paragraph or two, before their interest wanes and they move on. That’s why I was taught to put all the pertinent information in the early paragraphs and not leave it for a trick ending that contradicts the premise. (To be fair, I often ignore that advice, too, but not when I’m writing for a newspaper.) To me, that suggests an agenda on the part of either the author or the publisher. Surely an editor would have noticed the article wasn’t even internally consistent. But whatever the reason it was written this way, it certainly did beer or the truth no favors.

Filed Under: Editorial, Politics & Law Tagged With: Health & Beer, Prohibitionists, UK

Bone Density & Beer Redux

December 17, 2009 By Jay Brooks

skeleton-2
Just yesterday I wrote about beer and bone density and a recent study confirming the positive benefits in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Today yet another unrelated study appears to confirm the findings of the first, as reported in today’s Burton Mail. In the article, Dr. Jonathan Powell, head of a bio-mineral research department in Cambridge, said the “key to beer’s benefits is silicon — a chemical more commonly associated which enhancing chests than fattening stomachs. Historically, silicon has not been seen as an essential nutrient, but our research suggests that it could play an important role in bone health. We have shown that silicon appears to have a beneficial effect in increasing bone mineral density.” Beer of course, is rich in silicon. “The combination of the silicon and alcohol intake from moderate beer consumption appears to promote both bone and connective tissue health.” This study’s results will be presented at a conference here in California. The article goes on to mention a third study, “published earlier this year which showed that moderate ethanol consumption has an acute, specific effect in reducing bone loss.” It seems pretty clear at this point that all the science is indeed finding a positive correlataion between moderate beer drinking and increased bone density. I’ll drink to that.

Filed Under: Beers, News Tagged With: Health & Beer, UK

Tactical Penguin Goes Nuclear

November 30, 2009 By Jay Brooks

brew-dog
Unless you’ve been ducking and covering under a rock, you no doubt saw that, while we were sitting down to eat turkey on Thursday, Scotland’s BrewDog released Tactical Nuclear Penguin, which they’re touting as the new champion “world’s strongest beer.” Weighing in at a robust 32% a.b.v., it bested the current American contender, Samuel Adams Utopias, by a whopping 5%. As is typical of the self-styled punks of beer, the release was amid controversy. Predictably, anti-alcohol groups in the UK wasted no time denouncing the beer’s strength as irresponsible, a laughable claim given Scotland’s whisky industry. Jack Law, head of Scotland’s own Alcohol Focus Scotland, said “it is child-like attention-seeking by a company that should be more responsible. The fact that they have achieved a new world record is not admirable. It is a product with a lot of alcohol in it – that’s all. To dress it up as anything else is cynical. It’s as strong as whisky, so you have to ask whether this is actually a beer or a spirit – it’s clearly a spirit.” So obviously the Scots have no shortage of ignorant blowhards in their neo-prohibitionist organizations, too. The fact that there are only 500 bottles and each one sells for £30 (almost $50) and is only a 330 ml (roughly 11.2 oz.) would suggest this is not cause for widespread panic, as it’s hardly going to be selling out of the local Tesco anytime soon.

Perhaps more surprising, one of BrewDog’s bitterest critics of late has been Roger Protz, the grand old man of CAMRA and British beer writing generally. I usually have great respect for Roger and all he’s done for beer, but he seems to have lost his mooring on this one and drifted out into the waters off insaneland. In today’s BrewDog Go Bonkers , he calls the BrewDog lads all sorts of unflattering names and accuses them of all manner of impropriety, even incorrectly accusing the new beer of not actually being a beer — it clearly is — and gets the barest details of its manufacture wrong, despite the fact that BrewDog’s website includes a video explaining how they created Tactical Nuclear Penguin.

He even throws his hat into the ring with the likes of Jack Law, head of Alcohol Focus Scotland, which I find almost unforgivable, especially given Law’s churlish quote about BrewDog’s “childlike attention-seeking.” Um, gentlemen, what exactly do you think marketing is? The very point is to get attention. You can disagree with the way a company goes about the marketing of their products, but calling it “childlike” or suggesting that it’s seeking attention is like saying the goal of advertising is to sell things. Duh. Paging Captain Obvious.

tnp-1
James Watt in his penguin suit, with his newest beer.

Just two weeks earlier, in Enough Is Enough, Protz was again telling BrewDog’s James Watt and Martin Dickie it was time they “grew up and stopped behaving like a couple of precocious teenagers standing on a street corner with back-to-front baseball caps screaming for attention.” Wow. Watts referred to Protz, when he retweeted this, as “Grandpa Protz” and I think he may be onto it. I can’t imagine telling a brewer to grow up in print. That takes more cheek than I possess. They’re all adults, conducting their business the way they want to. But apparently taking their cue more from American sensationalist brewers than the often stodgy traditions of UK beer really ruffled Protz’s feathers. I know Roger to have strong opinions and to be a great champion of English brewing traditions, but these two anti-BrewDog posts seem more like personal attacks, as if they’ve offended him directly. As much as I hate to say it, he comes across as out of touch, a sentiment apparently shared by a great number of people who left comments to his posts. There were an enormous number pointing out the flaws in his reasoning and calling him on being set in his ways and unable to appreciate anything outside classic English beer’s range. Read the comments, they’re as illuminating as Protz himself, and are in many cases highly entertaining on their own.

tnp-2
James Watt out of his penguin suit, with bottles of Tactical Nuclear Penguin.

From the press release:

This beer is about pushing the boundaries, it is about taking innovation in beer to a whole new level. It is about achieving something which has never before been done and putting Scotland firmly on the map for progressive, craft beers.

This beer is bold, irreverent and uncompromising. A beer with a soul and a purpose. A statement of intent. A modern day rebellion for the craft beer proletariat in our struggle to over throw the faceless bourgeoisie oppression of corporate, soulless beer.’

The Antarctic name inducing schizophrenia of this uber-imperial stout originates from the amount of time it spent exposed to extreme cold. This beer began life as a 10% imperial stout 18 months ago. The beer was aged for 8 months in an Isle of Arran whisky cask and 8 months in an Islay cask making it our first double cask aged beer. After an intense 16 month, the final stages took a ground breaking approach by storing the beer at -20 degrees for three weeks to get it to 32%.

For the big chill the beer was put into containers and transported to the cold store of a local ice cream factory where it endured 21 days at penguin temperatures. Alcohol freezes at a lower temperature than water. As the beer got colder BrewDog Chief Engineer, Steven Sutherland decanted the beer periodically, only ice was left in the container, creating more intensity of flavours and a stronger concentration of alcohol for the next phase of freezing. The process was repeated until it reached 32%.

Pete Brown, by contrast, has a far more measured reaction to BrewDog’s new beer. We agreed on what was the best part of the press release.

Beer has a terrible reputation in Britain, it’s ignorant to assume that a beer can’t be enjoyed responsibly like a nice dram or a glass of fine wine. A beer like Tactical Nuclear Penguin should be enjoyed in spirit sized measures. It pairs fantastically with vanilla bean white chocolate it really brings out the complexity of the beer and complements the powerful, smoky and cocoa flavours.

Pete takes the right approach IMHO, wanting to focus on the beer itself, which he describes as “an Imperial Stout that has been matured in wooden casks for eighteen months. It has then been frozen to minus twenty degrees at the local ice cream factory in Fraserburgh. By freezing the beer to concentrate it this way, they get the alcoholic strength.” Hard to say what it might taste like, but Pete speculates it will have “very rich, smooth, mellow and complex flavour.” Also, like him, I’m certainly keen to find out. I recently attended a Utopias beer dinner, my third tasting of this year’s version, which is 27%, tantalizingly close to Penguin’s 32%. It’s a wonderful beer, but its release was not accompanied by the frenzy of this beer. Likewise, other very strong beers like Schorschbräu (at 31%), Hair of the Dog Dave (at 29%), as far as I know, did not cause any beer writers to scold them for their efforts. So what’s the difference?

As to the question of whether or not it’s beer, Pete continues:

I once attended a breakfast hosted by Jim Koch, founder of Samuel Adams, father of the awesome Utopias. I asked him a similar question — is this still beer? — and was inspired by his answer. He said something along the lines of beer has been around for thousands of years. Over that time it has evolved continually, and the pace of evolution has picked up considerably in the last couple of centuries. “How arrogant would we have to be to say that in this time, our time, we’ve done everything with beer that can be done? That we’ve perfected beer?” he asked me.

This is why when I love Brew Dog, I really do love them. It’s easy — and not always inaccurate — to accuse them of arrogance. But not when they do something like this. It’s far more arrogant to say ‘we can’t possibly improve on our beer’ than it is to never stop trying to do precisely that. In my marketing role, I often hear brewers talk about something like a slightly different bottle size and refer to it as ‘innovation’. Brew Dog are genuine innovators on a global stage, redefining what beer can actually be.

I guess I just don’t understand the bombastic reaction the release of this beer produced and the way in which it and the brewer’s intentions have been misinterpreted. Why wouldn’t any beer lover want to try it? After all, it really should be about the beer.

brewdog-penguin

Filed Under: Beers, Editorial, News, Politics & Law Tagged With: England, Scotland, UK

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Find Something

Northern California Breweries

Please consider purchasing my latest book, California Breweries North, available from Amazon, or ask for it at your local bookstore.

Recent Comments

  • Ernie Dewing on Historic Beer Birthday: Charles William Bergner 
  • Steve 'Pudgy' De Rose on Historic Beer Birthday: Jacob Schmidt
  • Jay Brooks on Beer Birthday: Bill Owens
  • Steve 'Pudgy' De Rose on Beer Birthday: Charles Finkel
  • Steve 'Pudgy' De Rose on Beer Birthday: Bill Owens

Recent Posts

  • Beer In Ads #5200: Now Is The Time To Enjoy … Stroh’s Bock Beer February 12, 2026
  • Historic Beer Birthday: Adolph Schell February 12, 2026
  • Beer Birthday: Jennifer Talley February 12, 2026
  • Beer In Ads #5199: Fresh As A Frosty Morn, Congress Bock Beer February 11, 2026
  • Historic Beer Birthday: John Weidenfeller February 11, 2026

BBB Archives

Feedback

Head Quarter
This site is hosted and maintained by H25Q.dev. Any questions or comments for the webmaster can be directed here.