German Purity Law?

[passedpawn]

The following is from the Fanziscaner Web Site. Although I know the "law" was recently changed to allow wheat, it is plainly incorrect to say their wheat beers comply... right? Perhaps the Germans laws should focus a little more on "truth in marketing".

The Franziskaner Weiss Beer Family

All of Franziskaner's weiss beer products - Hefe-Weisse Hell and Hefe-Weisse Dunkel - are top-fermentation beers noted for their agreeable carbonation levels and zesty wheat flavour. The consistently high quality of our products makes Franziskaner weiss beers a refreshing taste sensation of a special sort. All Franziskaner weiss beers are brewed in strict adherence to the Bavarian Purity Law of 1516.​

 

[Revvy]

It dsoesn't really matter since 1987 the law is no longer in use (except for the most part as a marketing ploy for us beer geeks.) Kinda like triple hops brewing

In the original text, the only ingredients that could be used in the production of beer were water, barley, and hops. The law also set the price of beer at 1-2 Pfennig per Maß. The Reinheitsgebot is no longer part of German law: it has been replaced by the Provisional German Beer Law (Vorläufiges Deutsches Biergesetz (Provisional German Beer-law of 1993)), which allows constituent components prohibited in the Reinheitsgebot, such as wheat malt and cane sugar, but which no longer allows unmalted barley.

Note that no yeast was mentioned in the original text. It was not until the 1800s that Louis Pasteur discovered the role of microorganisms in the process of fermentation; therefore, yeast was not known to be an ingredient of beer. Brewers generally took some sediment from the previous fermentation and added it to the next, the sediment generally containing the necessary organisms to perform fermentation. If none were available, they would set up a number of vats, relying on natural yeast to inoculate the brew.

Hops are added to beer to impart flavours but also act as a preservative, and their mention in the Reinheitsgebot meant to prevent inferior methods of preserving beer that had been used before the introduction of hops. Medieval brewers had used many problematic ingredients to preserve beers, including, for example, soot and fly agaric mushrooms. More commonly, other herbs had been used, such as stinging nettle and henbane.

The penalty for making impure beer was also set in the Reinheitsgebot: a brewer using other ingredients for his beer could have questionable barrels confiscated with no compensation.

German breweries are very proud of the Reinheitsgebot, and many (even brewers of wheat beer[2]) claim to still abide by it.

[edit] History

The Reinheitsgebot was introduced in part to prevent price competition with bakers for wheat and rye. The restriction of grains to barley was meant to ensure the availability of sufficient amounts of affordable bread, as the more valuable wheat and rye were reserved for use by bakers. Today many Bavarian beers are again brewed using wheat and are thus no longer compliant with the Reinheitsgebot.

The Reinheitsgebot formed the basis of legislation that spread slowly throughout Bavaria and Germany. Bavaria insisted on its application throughout Germany as a precondition of German unification in 1871, to prevent competition from beers brewed elsewhere with a wider range of ingredients. The move encountered strong resistance from brewers outside Bavaria. By restricting the allowable ingredients, it led to the extinction of many brewing traditions and local beer specialties, such as North German spiced beer and cherry beer, and led to the domination of the German beer market by pilsener style beers. Only a few regional beer varieties, such as Kölner Kölsch or Düsseldorfer Altbier, survived its implementation.

Regulations similar to those of the Reinheitsgebot were incorporated into various guild regulations and local laws all over Germany, and in 1952, they were incorporated into the West German Biersteuergesetz (Beer Taxation Law) and vorläufiges Biergesetz (Provisional Beer Law). Many brewers objected to the law at the time, disagreeing more with the amount of the tax than the ingredient requirements. The law initially applied only to bottom-fermented ("lager") beers, but brewers of other types of beer soon accepted the law as well.

In May 1987, a European Court of Justice ruling led to the Reinheitsgebot being lifted, allowing ingredients beyond what is listed in the Biergesetz; this meant that anything allowed in other foods was thus also allowed in beer. The ingredient requirements have since been moved from the Biersteuergesetz into the regular food additives laws, though beer brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot receive special treatment as a protected, "traditional" food.

The vast majority of German breweries continue to comply with the Biergesetz, often claiming compliance with the Reinheitsgebot even when it is patently incorrect (for example, for wheat beers, which were prohibited by the Reinheitsgebot), using this compliance as a valuable marketing tool.

Until superseded by the change in EU law, the Reinheitsgebot was also enforced in Greece from the early 19th century due to a law by the first Greek king, Otto (originally a Bavarian prince) that had remained in effect.

Although one could argue nowadays that if you define the Reinheitsgebot as being water malt, hops and yeast. Malted wheat could be considered as okay...

But like I said, it really doesn't matter, since no beer police are going to throw us in jail if we throw orange and coriander and wheat in our beers.

 

[davesrose]

But like I said, it really doesn't matter, since no beer police are going to throw us in jail if we throw orange and coriander and wheat in our beers.

You'd probably just get a strange look from a traditional German brewer though.....as they think their beers are the best: especially compared to those coriander/orange zest tossing Belgians

Also, your quote says the main reason the Reinheitsgebot was instilled was so that baker's could get the more valuable wheat and rye stocks. While some German states were slow at adopting Reinheitsgebot, I think it's pretty safe to say that German beers have changed over time. Now that brewers aren't competing with bakers on getting premium grains...."Reinheitsgebot" is probably more of a seal of approval as being a German beer (and in no way Belgian)

 

[passedpawn]

My point was not the validity of the law. My point was the implication that a wheat beer could somehow comply with the original German Purity Law of 1516.

 

[Revvy]

My point was not the validity of the law. My point was the implication that a wheat beer could somehow comply with the original German Purity Law of 1516.

Well, that WAS the point of the law to begin with wasn't it? To exclude wheat beers...so yeah a little incorrect marketing rears it's head...

You could write to them and see what they have to say.

I wrote to Gordon Biersh's brewer. They claim all their brews are brewed according to it as well. Since they brew "boutique" beers for places like Trader Joes and costco....I asked if those followed it as well...and got a nice email back from their head brewer saying that they did for those as well...

 

[Mutilated1]

Well, that WAS the point of the law to begin with wasn't it? To exclude wheat beers...so yeah a little incorrect marketing rears it's head.....

Actually, the point wasn't to exclude wheat beers so much as to ensure there were adequate supplies of bread. It wasn't that they didn't want any wheat in their beer because wheat wasn't a pure ingredient, it was that if limited supplies of wheat were used to make beer then people would go hungry without bread.

Now why anyone would go hungry with all that beer to drink is another debate entirely - lol

 

[menschmaschine]

Just for clarity... I believe wheat, other grains, and even sugar are allowed under the current law, in top-fermenting beers only.

 

[Sigafoos]

Hmm, I always assumed that wheat was allowed because it was malted. Good to know, since I'm a fan of esoterica

 

[niquejim]

My point was not the validity of the law. My point was the implication that a wheat beer could somehow comply with the original German Purity Law of 1516.

Actually, the point wasn't to exclude wheat beers so much as to ensure there were adequate supplies of bread. It wasn't that they didn't want any wheat in their beer because wheat wasn't a pure ingredient, it was that if limited supplies of wheat were used to make beer then people would go hungry without bread.

Now why anyone would go hungry with all that beer to drink is another debate entirely - lol

I believe the law started as a way to control ingredients and for taxation. I've heard it called the worlds first "food safety law", which I believe is a misnomer.

 

[barely]

A (partial?) translation of the original law is here: Reinheitsgebot: German Beer Purity Law

Very little of the text is devoted to ingredients.

Perhaps Franziskaner is refering to the price? Yeah, I thought not.

 

[kuphish]

I believe the law started as a way to control ingredients and for taxation. I've heard it called the worlds first "food safety law", which I believe is a misnomer.

Yea, that's how I understand it. In Eric Warner's Kölsch book (p. 21), he argues that historians generally accept the taxation justification. According to Warner (and presumably his sources), the gruit beers were of variable quality which impacted consumption. The purity law maintained a standard of beer that would encourage consumption. Second, by controlling the ingredients allowed to be used for brewing (since just about anything can be used in a gruit beer), the ingredients could more easily be taxed.

 

[davefleck]

Oh the silly germans and their beer laws.
At one point, it was illegal to use hops in beer. Yes, Hops.

 

[Poindexter]

Just FWIW there are several recipes from inside Germany but outside Bavaria that were still legal between 1516 and 1870, and not to be confused with BMC.

 

[jpc]

Yea, that's how I understand it. In Eric Warner's Kölsch book (p. 21), he argues that historians generally accept the taxation justification. According to Warner (and presumably his sources), the gruit beers were of variable quality which impacted consumption. The purity law maintained a standard of beer that would encourage consumption. Second, by controlling the ingredients allowed to be used for brewing (since just about anything can be used in a gruit beer), the ingredients could more easily be taxed.

That's a little different than my understanding. First and foremost, it was a protectionist measure intended to prevent foreign beers from being sold in Germany. There was a perceived threat from foreign brewers that were using less expensive ingredients, and in order to protect German brewers, the law was used to eliminate the competition.

 

[EdWort]

The use of Reinheitsgebot today is mainly a marketing ploy to differentiate from foreign beers that use chemicals and adjuncts in their beers while German beers remain pure in their simple ingredients.

 

[Mountainbeers]

At any rate here's a sweet picture of the 1516 originial and a translation.

Translation

 

[Edcculus]

IMO, the "law" is something people throw around to promote beer snobbery thinking it has something to do with keeping adjuncts (corn and rice) out of beer. By saying this, they are implying that other big breweries use a lot of harsh chemicals etc. Kind of reminds me of that commercial a while back about a guy thinking about a marketing ploy to say his tires don't contain Death Crystals.

 

[homebrewer_99]

I believe the law started as a way to control ingredients and for taxation. I've heard it called the worlds first "food safety law", which I believe is a misnomer.

You are correct.

I relate it as the equivilent of the Magna Carta being the basis of our Constitution since the MC only referred to rich people...not one mention of citizen rights, only people with rank.

 

[kuphish]

That's a little different than my understanding. First and foremost, it was a protectionist measure intended to prevent foreign beers from being sold in Germany. There was a perceived threat from foreign brewers that were using less expensive ingredients, and in order to protect German brewers, the law was used to eliminate the competition.

Certainly possible. I don't think our explanations are mutually exclusive. In fact, they may be complementary. By protecting German brewers, it would be easier to regulate the ingredients they use and levy taxes on those ingredients. Maybe?

Lots of explanations out there and none seems to exclude the others.

 

[homebrewer_99]

Alright then...we're all getting along!

For that reason alone I am buying the next round...

 

[rico567]

Actually, the point wasn't to exclude wheat beers so much as to ensure there were adequate supplies of bread. It wasn't that they didn't want any wheat in their beer because wheat wasn't a pure ingredient, it was that if limited supplies of wheat were used to make beer then people would go hungry without bread.

Now why anyone would go hungry with all that beer to drink is another debate entirely - lol

I don't know who said it, and it could have been me: "History never translates word-for-word to the present."

1. People going without bread was a very big issue. Famines were REAL, something we know nothing about in our times.

2. Buying and selling was rigidly controlled in the Middle Ages, so there was plenty of precedent for government action to regulate beer contents. A person from that time could give you perfectly logical and consistent reasoning for doing so, too. People attempting to corner the market (aka = "engrossing") on a commodity was a prevalent scam.

3. People without food are hungry, and hungry people get angry. It's then pitchforks and torches time, as the human animal breaks loose from the thin veneer of civilization and starts to howl. Now THERE'S a REAL problem for government.

All the Reinheitsgebot tried to accomplish in its original instantiation was to control the bread ingredients being used in beer, in an attempt to forestall a rise the price of those grains. And, as was covered very well in an earlier post, that original law was not very definitive, since they were completely ignorant of the role of yeast in brewing. Thus, the significance of this law in our age is largely sentimental.

 

[the_bird]

IMO, the "law" is something people throw around to promote beer snobbery thinking it has something to do with keeping adjuncts (corn and rice) out of beer. By saying this, they are implying that other big breweries use a lot of harsh chemicals etc. Kind of reminds me of that commercial a while back about a guy thinking about a marketing ploy to say his tires don't contain Death Crystals.

Is that like this?