Do you think this is a big deal?
- Thread starter Goofynewfie
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
orangehero
Well-Known Member
Not sure if a law is necessary, but if all you did is fart up a recipe then don't claim you brewed it. The savvy thing to do here I think is to give credit where it's due and connect the old with the new.
gratus fermentatio
Well-Known Member
I don't think contract brewing is a bad thing, but I think it's reasonable to list the actual brewer on the label. Blue Moon is actually brewed by Molson/Coors; even though the label says it's "Blue Moon Brewing Co." Makes me wonder just what they're trying to hide. They want to sell beer, but they don't want us to know that it's them brewing it? List the actual brewer.
Regards, GF.
Regards, GF.
Full disclosure. I an a huge proponent accurate labeling. I'm the guy who wants "and spices", "and artificial flavorings" to be listed as line items. High fructose corn syrup, citric acid and artificial flavorings and colorings is NOT fruit juice.
If one party creates a recipe, and a second party brews the beer, they should each be listed as such on the label. Deception is the only reason not to.
As for Coors and Bluemoon, if it's Bluemoon brewing it, and Bluemoon is owned by Coors, well, it's still Bluemoon brewing it. If I had my druthers, the label would read, "Brewed by Bluemoon, a subsidiary" or "owned by Coors". If there is no more entity known as Bluemoon, and the beer is brewed entirely by Coors, then "Bluemoon" becomes part of the name of the beer, not the brewery of it. It can be a brand, and Coors should be listed on the label as the brewery.
If one party creates a recipe, and a second party brews the beer, they should each be listed as such on the label. Deception is the only reason not to.
As for Coors and Bluemoon, if it's Bluemoon brewing it, and Bluemoon is owned by Coors, well, it's still Bluemoon brewing it. If I had my druthers, the label would read, "Brewed by Bluemoon, a subsidiary" or "owned by Coors". If there is no more entity known as Bluemoon, and the beer is brewed entirely by Coors, then "Bluemoon" becomes part of the name of the beer, not the brewery of it. It can be a brand, and Coors should be listed on the label as the brewery.
Mike_kever_kombi
Well-Known Member
While I do think contract brewing is a great thing, I too am a proponent of full disclosure.
If I bought brushes, paint, and canvas and had someone else "whip up a painting", that does not make me an artist.
If I buy some tools and parts and have a guy do some work on my car, it doesn't make me a mechanic.
If I buy some grain, give a guy a recipe it does not make me a brewer.
The statement I took exception to, was the you don't need to make beer in your basement for 20 years to be a brewer. No, no you don't, but you do have to brew beer to be a brewer.
You don't hire someone to do all the work, and think because you have a "recipe" that you are a brewer. A CEO, perhaps, but not a brewer, and there is nothing wrong with being a CEO. Hell, truth be told, at this stage of life I would PREFER to be a CEO of a brewery, rather than the brewer.
What harm is there in stating who brewer and bottled your beer?
As opposed to intentionally misleading your customers?
If I bought brushes, paint, and canvas and had someone else "whip up a painting", that does not make me an artist.
If I buy some tools and parts and have a guy do some work on my car, it doesn't make me a mechanic.
If I buy some grain, give a guy a recipe it does not make me a brewer.
The statement I took exception to, was the you don't need to make beer in your basement for 20 years to be a brewer. No, no you don't, but you do have to brew beer to be a brewer.
You don't hire someone to do all the work, and think because you have a "recipe" that you are a brewer. A CEO, perhaps, but not a brewer, and there is nothing wrong with being a CEO. Hell, truth be told, at this stage of life I would PREFER to be a CEO of a brewery, rather than the brewer.
What harm is there in stating who brewer and bottled your beer?
As opposed to intentionally misleading your customers?
Not a fan of contract brewing. It's becoming more common and as others have stated, I think full disclosure is called for. Many of the American craft beer owners are calling for this. Not odd that it's happening else where.
OTOH, my favorite Georgia "brewer," O'Dempsey's, is contract brewed by Red Brick Brewing Company, FKA, Atlanta Brewing Company.
Clown Shoes is still contracted at Mercury Brewing.
And Schmaltz celebrated leaving a contract with the very good "Death of a Contract Brewer Black IPA." I don't have the palate to distinguish the excellent Bittersweet Lenny's RIPA between the before and the after contract versions.
Though, yeah, I want it on the label.
Clown Shoes is still contracted at Mercury Brewing.
And Schmaltz celebrated leaving a contract with the very good "Death of a Contract Brewer Black IPA." I don't have the palate to distinguish the excellent Bittersweet Lenny's RIPA between the before and the after contract versions.
Though, yeah, I want it on the label.
Jacob_Marley
Well-Known Member
WSJ Article said:
That quote really tells the story. What a dirtbag.
It's incredibly self-serving for this guy to be bringing God into it. Maybe he can also bring politics into it for his next soundbite, or reference militant islamic fundamentalism, or pitchforking babies. The sleaze factor is way high here, folks. The Jerry Springer show should have him on.
He is counting on people being lemmings ... oh, and the free publicity.
The issue is that while being a brewer is an ancient and respected profession, this guy is a charlatan trying to cash in on that fact. And that is what actually irks the real brewing community.
An analogy from the cider world comes to mind ...
The most popular cider in the UK, Strongbow, has been around for over half a century.
The second most popular cider in the UK, Woodpecker, has been around for over a century.
Now just because a recent mass produced product like "white cider" (“White Lightening” brand for instance), a cheaply produced, made-from-pommace-and-corn-syrup, low-priced, high-alcohol fermented product, made lots of money for it's corporate producer that does *not* mean it displaced Strongbow or Woodpecker ... and certainly did not make those more venerable brands any less desirable.
What the traditional brewers cited in that WSJ article are now protesting in Belgium is the apparent “someone riding on the coat tails" of the historic tradition of brewing.
Traditional brewers were the ones who kept the flame going for the profession and the art.
They continue to .
And will continue to.
And just as “white cider” met it’s demise in the arena of public sentiment, and more traditional cider brands still have the largest market share and following ... so will beers brewed with a real connection to the traditional brewing profession maintain their status and following.
Tradition, history, craft ... a beer is held in esteem and purchased for these qualities too; as well as what’s in the bottle.
IMHO
