They have to buy domestic or grow their own now:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44017396/ns/local_news-boston_ma/
Ray
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44017396/ns/local_news-boston_ma/
Ray
"The law is designed to promote farming in Massachusetts."
Seems pretty clear to me if you're claiming to be a farmer in order to get a particular license, you should actually. . erm. . FARM.
So wait - MA defined rules that would make breweries using a "farmer brewery" license, you know, actually have to farm? The horror!
Seriously though... That article doesn't make this sound like a bad thing. It sounds like it's only breweries using this specific type of license, and it also sounds like that type of license should carry some kind of qualifying criteria.
I don't see why these folks are saying they'd need to close - shouldn't they just be looking at alternative licensing that's more in line with the business they're actually doing?
This has devastating and far reaching consequences on existing and start-up breweries in the Bay State.
Under current law, many of the state's small and large breweries are operating under a Farmer-Brewer license - Including Boston Beer Company and Harpoon. This allows for on-site tasting, retail sales, and self distribution. The law, as it's written, does not implicitly lay out the percentages by which one must farm their own ingredients - the ABCC decided to abuse their power and apply and arbitrary statute to the law and it is so short-sited and uninformed that it hurts my brain.
The infrastructure and farm land simply does not exist to support the new rules - Growing grain is one thing - malting it is an entirely different animal. Something has to give or there will be about three breweries left in the state.
The key issue everyone has is this - For many, many years breweries have been operating wonderful, fruitful operations under the Farmer-Brewer license. They have never enforced a % of local ingredients to qualify. Hell, it's not even on the application! This move completely blindsides existing businesses and it's a damn shame.
It sounds like what is necessary is the institution of a new category. Farmer-Brewer should not be applied when there is no farming involved. But I agree that if a new category to cover breweries is not initiated, there will be problems.
It's all about revenue and employment. There's no secret BMC conspiracy. The state wants the tax revenue for sales of grains/hops from within the state and increased employment opportunities in farming.
The idea of a farmer brewer is outrageous in any context. The malting process is highly specialized and requires a significant capital investment. Not only that, but the state is non-fertile ground for barley. 99.9% of it comes from west of the Mississippi.
The law is antiquated desperately needed to be modernized. The term "farmer-brewer" is and always has been a misnomer.
I think this is GREAT for somewhat established nano/micro breweries that have used the farmer brewery license to get started.
With all due respect, the point here is that regardless of their intentions jobs will disappear and farms will be hurt. Tax revenue will drop as well. It's insane.
Nope - No one is grandfathered, hence the outrage.
And let the onslaught of posting covering this article begin. There was a thread on this yesterday as I'm sure there will be many more about it in the next few days.
Enter your email address to join: